Issue 409 When should a child be charged as an adult? September 2, 2014

So when should a child be charged as an adult for the commitance of a crime? Should we go based on age?  We currently do, but with certain exceptions.  Even then, there exceptions for those exceptions.  So let us discuss what would be the best way to determine when a child should be charged as an adult.

Age does not cut it:  To go by age is silly in my opinion for violent crimes.  My reasoning is that some crimes are more heinous than others.  Murder for one should not be lessened merely because an individual is under the age of 18.  Rape too will be devalued as a crime in my opinion if a 16 year old gets a lesser charge than an 18 year old for the same crime.  Therefore age should not be the distinguishing factor for criminal activities when it comes to physical assault, armed robbery, rape/child molesters, and murder and attempted murder.  These violent crimes should not know age as a criteria.  But some of you might be saying why?  How can we not use age for these violent crimes?  Yes I know some people are out there who think these children who have strayed from the right path deserve a chance because you feel they are victims too.  So age 13 and under as you really are not a child at age 13, but a young adult.  And thus as a young adult you will meet the full brunt of the law for committing such a violent act.

None violent Crimes:  In this case, age can be more of a criteria.  But this is due to better ways to punish petty theft, defacing public property, and similar non-violent, but victim creating crimes.  So age nine to 14 I would say the punishment should be community service.  In this case, the number of days doing the community service will be equal to the value it costs (using the minimum wage as the standard) to replace or fix the stolen/damaged property.  For those aged 15 to 17, it will depend on the judge if the young adult does community service, goes to jail, or is forced to work a part time job (or at their current employment) with all earnings being used to replace or fix the damaged or stolen items.  Is it harsh? Well yea, but how else are you going to teach these young adults to behave like what they are "young adults".

Conclusion:  So for violent crimes, age really should not be factored in.  In fact in Mexico, the cartels use children as hitmen as they are not tried as adults, and are released back into society faster.  We cannot let our emotions prevent us from meting out an appropriate punishment for committing a wrongful and even downright evil act.  The nonviolent crimes we have wiggle room, but that is only to a certain extent and it can in fact be applied to people age 18 and over too as an alternative to jail.  So it really comes down to differentiating violent from nonviolent crimes and then providing the appropriate repercussions.  This is my opinion on this issue and if I was in charge I would implement this idea.  But would you?  Would you do it the same way?  As always feel free to tell me what you think.  Hope you enjoyed the read and maybe got you thinking.

Issue 408 If we want them to do less. September 1, 2014

We keep saying as libertarians, conservatives and liberals that we want government out of our lives.  But, we screw up on some key specific things.  If we really want them to get out of certain parts of our lives then we have to get off our butts and do something about it.

Out of our homes:  If we want the government out of our homes then we have to protest.  We must get out of the house and march, sign petitions and join in lawsuits against our own country against the invasion of Federal bureaucrats invading on our privacy.  If you want drugs legalized, then you have to put a face to the name to make it happen.  If you want to make your house larger, or update it, you have to go through government which is unfair for you have to ask their permission to do something on your own property.  And then when you are done they may tax it.  Fight back, it is your home!  What about with education?  It is the parents right to decide how their child is educated, so if we want our kids out of public school and in a charter or a home school, then we must get off our butts and do something about it.

Welfare:  We all know welfare is a big lie. We are taxed more than they give back.  But if we want the government to stop having to dish out so much money?  If we want them to become redundant in this particular area?  Then we need to actually form private organizations to help feed the hungry.  We need private organizations to help pay for health care of those who are poor.  In the event of a disaster, we need to be prepared to act immediately to help ourselves and our neighbors rebuild without federal aid.  In short, we must go forth and help ourselves and our neighbors whilst turning down federal handouts.

Conclusion:  These are two broad examples of us doing more for ourselves.  We do not need government to help us in a disaster.  There is no need for government to give out welfare if the churches and private organizations do it for them.  If we do more, then they will no longer be needed.  So for them to do less, we must do more.

Issue 407 Federalizing Abortion? August 29, 2014

There was recent talk by two Democrats who wanted to federalize abortion. I feel this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard.  So let's discuss why.

Why it is dumb:  If they federalize abortion, then they completely override all the safety protocols and laws that protect women in each of the 50 States.  It is legal in all States, but each State imposes specific and clear laws that are designed to limit abortions in such a way as to protect the mother from harm, and if the child is too old to be aborted from the mother’s womb.  If the Congress federalizes abortion it could make abortion permissible beyond the first trimester legal which means killing a viable child in the womb.  States like Texas make it so that all abortions use sonograms to insure that as the fetus being aborted in such a way that the doctor can see what they are doing in the womb.  All States limit abortion (save under very specific circumstances) to the first two to three months.  Many have parental consent clauses for thus under 18, and other laws designed to aid in catching rapists if the child was born of such a crime.  If the Feds have their way, they would have to not only right up new laws, but they could destroy all the safety nets applied by the States.

It will not happen thankfully:  For one, this law will never pass.  Congress is made up of two houses, a House and a Senate.  So long as one is controlled by a majority of pro-life individuals then the law will never make it to the President’s desk.  In addition, the nation as a whole is pro-life, so the level of outrage will overwhelm the elected representatives.  So for now, the abortion industry and the safety of women is secured from nationalization.

Conclusion:  I hate abortion.  I think it is a stain upon the country in the same way slavery was and in some cases still is.  Nationalizing abortion is something done by fools who wish to make abortion so pervasive that it goes unchecked.  Whatever happened to the idea of it being used in the rarest of cases?  Well you obviously know my opinion on the issue, and why I am concerned.  Even though I am not a woman, I know there are at the very least, alternatives to this horrible option.  So I am thankful that the majority of this country believes in the sanctity of life.

Issue 406 Computer whisperer August 28, 2014

Well the Israelis have done it again.  When it comes to spy gadgets this one is nothing short of incredible.  You can actually monitor a computer via the sounds it makes.  Well let me explain how it works (compliments of the magazine Economist).  

How it works:  There are two parts to this nifty technology.  The first is the listening device.  Did you know that each key on the keyboard makes a unique sound?  Did you also know that as the computer runs programs that the noise it makes is unique for each of those processes?  So this device can monitor in real time that information and then send it back to a home base.  But this is not all.  If the spy wants to get the data in the computer itself, then they have but to send a fake email and have it opened.  Once accomplished the email sends an encrypted file into the computer which decodes its software and makes it easier to digest information.  What I mean by this is that it allows the device to more easily decode and absorb the electronic noises and thus opens the entire computer and its files to being copied.  So for as long as the device and or the program goes undetected, a spy can monitor everything that goes on with your computer.

Conclusion:  Scary isn't it.  By simply having a listening device setup, you can decode what a person is typing up on a keyboard and what program(s) they may be running.  If you add the decoding program, then you no longer have any privacy on your computer.  The device to monitor the computers noise does not necessarily have to be in the same room, it just has to be able to listen to what's going on (like say from a drone).  And for all we know, they may be able to decode from more things than just sound?  For instance computers generate heat, and also electrons move in the computer as it goes through its various processes.  So who knows if they have the ability to detect and translate that as well?  Everything we do is capable of being monitored, so we have to figure out where our privacy begins and or safety ends.

Issue 405 Drones becoming more invasive. August 27, 2014

Well, I am back on the topic of drones.  You know those robots that reporters want to own, Amazon uses to deliver packages, and hobbyists use to have a little fun.  They are evolving and becoming cheaper, so let’s discuss the developments.

Price:  Drones as an item have gone down significantly in cost.  At the present time you can buy a drone for as cheap as $50 dollars.  If you equip it with a camera, you just spent another $70.  So for under $200 you can get a drone to spy on your neighbors by the pool.  Of course you can use it for other legal things but the price has become much cheaper allowing almost anyone to afford it.

Equipment:  As drones get cheaper, so does the equipment they can carry.  They do not need to just carry a video camera.  There are cheap listening devices that can be equipped to drones to eavesdrop on conversations.  Think your private conversation indoors is safe?  Think again as they have laser microphones that can not only listen to your conversation in a room, but isolate your particular conversation from all other noise.  This works of course if your room has windows as the laser measures the oscillations (vibrations) the window experiences caused by your conversation.  Sonic sensors can be used to map out an area.  Ground penetrating radar can be equipped to get a detailed map of one’s home.  Even thermal devices can be equipped to see through walls.  While all these have practical uses outside of the perverse, it brings up some very important privacy concerns.  There are even components that allow for these devices to remote monitor people for up to two miles with range increasing as the technology grows.  If the drone goes out of range an auto call back system returns it to its master at a preset location.  Not only this, the drones need not be in visual range of their intended target.  They can be off at a distance where unbeknownst to their target, they are watching and listening.

Conclusion:  As technology increases, privacy decreases.  We have created our own panopticon, but instead of prison wardens we have each other.  How this affects us and what legal or social actions will take place will remain to be seen.  But in this day and age, we can all be spies.

Issue 404 Obama Care Byproduct: Legal Cases August 26, 2014

Well, Obama Care has caused nothing but controversy, and looks to be set for another date in the Supreme Court yet again.  But this is a good thing.  Why you ask?  Because for one, it can help us here in the United States reinforce our rights, and two it can correct flaws in the law or cause its repeal which will cause it to be replaced.  Let us discuss what is going on.

Religious rights:  The case against Hobby Lobby (a family owned and operated business) went to the Supreme Court because the family owned business refused to cover certain forms of birth control.  They refused on account that the birth control they were being compelled to cover for their employees violated their religious rights as Christians.  Key fact is that they provided other forms of birth control that fit with their values as well.  So the Supreme Court ruled in the families favor saying that a religious exception under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevented the government from forcing businesses from providing certain forms of birth control.  As such, Hobby Lobby which already pays for the health care of their employees was no longer required to abide by the contraceptive mandate issued under the law.  Note, the Obama Care law actually says nothing about birth control, rather the department of Health and Human services issued it as a mandate under the law as part of the stack of legal regulations.

So this is a victory for those who have faith, in that they do not have to violate their values to provide a certain set of services.  This one case opens up court precedent to allow a number of lawsuits and other legal actions based on religious grounds for businesses and possibly individuals to get a religious exception (businesses are classified as individuals under a Supreme Court ruling).  So who knows what other mandates and laws can be turned over next.

The next court cases:  Now there is another issue arising from this terrible law.  Two courts just issued conflicting rulings on subsidies (the money coming from the federal government to pay a portion of an individual's premium).  These two courts were just miles away from each other in Virginia where one ruled the subsidies were legal as the program was to be administered at the federal level, while the other ruled them illegal as the program (like Medicaid) was to be administered at the State level.  So now it is a conflict to see if the States or the Federal government have the right and authority over who gets subsidies and who does not.  

Now for those who do not know, this is big.  Basically, once this goes to the Supreme Court, it will decide if the Federal government or the States have the final say on who gets what in Obama Care.  If the Fed's get it, then they can continue as they already have, but if the States get it, then they have the right to bump people off the program if they deem these people can afford to buy their own health care.  It can also allow States to opt out of the program completely if ruled in the States favor, which will essentially kill Obama care (because many Republican controlled States may opt out which will cause Obama care to lose significant tax dollars toward the program).  In addition, this will determine if the Federal exchanges are legal because those are based on the subsidies given out by the Federal government.  If the States gets the authority, then those Federal exchanges are as good as dead, or are to be turned over to States to have complete control over.  What happens next and when this issue reaches the Supreme Court, only time will tell.

Conclusion:  It turns out that Obama Care has turned out some good things for America.  In this case, the people with their religious values scored a major victory, and soon the States may gain some of their rights back from the Federal government.  Of course we still do not know the outcome of this next legal battle over subsidies, or how far the religious exception goes, but this bodes well for America in so far as freedom is being upheld and maintained.

Issue 403 Obama Care byproduct: Micro Clinics August 25, 2014

Continuing from a week ago, we have a byproduct of the Obama Care fiasco.  In this case it is small clinics and doctors’ offices staffed not be doctors, but by Nurse Practitioners.

What is it?:  These clinics are set up by companies looking to offer cheap healthcare to their employees and to the public at large.  So CVS, Walgreens and others will set up these small miniature doctors’ offices to see patients.  However, they are not staffed by doctors, but by Nurse Practitioners.  I know what you are thinking, "Who wants to see a nurse" when you can see a doctor.  Well, the position of Nurse Practitioner was created by the medical industry as an answer to the costly training to be a full-fledged doctor and that many doctors were training to be specialists (where the money is) rather than a general practitioner.  As such, these Nurse Practitioners has the same knowledge as a doctor when it comes to medicine, but with less years of schooling.

Advantages of the smaller clinic:  The main advantage is that it is cheaper.  Because you generally will not be seeing an actual doctor, the cost is roughly half of what it would be without insurance (estimated to around $60 to a normal $120.  Also, the Nurse Practitioner is the same as a regular doctor when it comes to general medicine, so there is no loss in quality of care (this is because like regular doctors, the nurse practitioner gains experience in the same way, but with a condensed amount of schooling).  Also, these small clinics may be set up in more convenient locations like in a mall, a store like CVS and Walgreens or even in a supermarket.  Cost and convenience all rolled into one.

Conclusion:  With Obama Care making everything cost more, everyone looked to do less with what they had to save money, but at the same time stay competitive.  So they created these cheap clinics to make it cheaper for their customers and so that employees can even see a doctor for free without employers providing insurance for the lower end of the healthcare spectrum (aka, they will only need to cover catastrophic care instead).  This also gives Nurse Practitioners a chance to show their metal as they have also begun to replace doctor in offices around the country already (not to mention giving an alternate cheaper route to being a doctor minus the title).  So while Obama Care made costs rise, everyone has been busy innovating to make it cheaper everywhere else.