Issue 426 Conquest versus Rival mentality September 25, 2014

There are two mentalities to countries, businesses and sports teams.  These two mentalities are Conquest versus Rival mentalities.  But what does these mentalities entail?

Conquest:  This mentality is the oldest form of mentality.  Here we steal, control, destroy others to achieve success.  Basically, you eliminate the opposition to your goals by any means necessary and thus leave nothing left of the opponent.  This mentality is also the kind that creates future conflict, and hatred.

Rival:  In contrast a rival mentality does not destroy the opponent at all.   They do not steal or destroy, but rather run parallel to the opponent to compete with them.  Here, there is no destruction (save self-destruction if people get careless) so as to create a culture of competition.  As a result, this leaves room for friendships and the freedom of choice by others to enjoy both sides’ benefits.  So as an example, two clothing manufactures can exist making the exact same product rather than one having to be destroyed in order for the other to survive.  No hatred, or animosity, just friendly competition without the chance of a monopoly.

Conclusion:  So what would you rather have?  The Conquest or the Rival mentality?  I personally prefer the rival mentality that some often attribute to American Capitalism.  But today we are losing that rival mentality and reverting back to the foolish conquest mentality.  So I say we have a choice to make.  Choose the mentality upon which to have and expose via example, or go back to the barbarism of conquest.  Remember, your actions affect those around you.  So by you alone leading by example, you can change the minds of thousands.

Issue 425 Dr. King Jr. and Affirmative Action September 24, 2014

 Affirmative Action is a controversial topic today over the discussion on whether it is necessary or not in today’s society.  For those who do not know, affirmative action is where people of a certain race are given special treatment to prop them up for positions and acceptance in certain institutions.  But what did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. think about affirmative action?

Dr. King Jr.'s thoughts:  Apparently Dr. King believed in affirmative action.  He felt it could be used to speed up the process of social equality in America.  And to a certain extent I believe it did as well.  But now it comes to question on if he would support its continued use in today’s society.  So he would probably be of two views in my opinion, and they are:

1) Dr. King would continue to support affirmative action, but would begin removing the benefit for certain people based on level of social equality.  At the same time he would probably suggest revving it up for those who have taken the place of the oppressed in the United States while the previous oppressed become accepted.  And even then, people will not be as oppressed as time goes on, so the level of interference by an affirmative action program could be diminished over time.  Hence, true social equality could be gained, but unfortunately through government force.

2) His other possible opinion would be to eliminate it seeing as it is now a tool for race baiters who wish to continue the idea of inequality (or inequality itself) in order to gain power through hatred and resentment.  So once its initial job was done, it would disappear.

Conclusion:  While we can only suspect what Dr. King might say, I believe he would go with option one as it has the least chance of being used by race baiters as it will constantly shift from one oppressed group to another.  Dr. King wanted social equality, and as we have come very very close, there are those who threaten to rip it to shreds.  If Dr. King was still around, the world and social equality in America may look like a very different place. 

Issue 424 Dr. King and Guns September 23, 2014

Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Once attempted to buy a firearm for the purpose of self-defense?  Bet many of you did not.  Let us discuss.

What happened:  Dr. King, before he was the leader of his movement for the equality of all races once attempted to own a gun.  He wanted it for the sole purpose of protecting his family from the mobs that would sometimes lynch people of color and those who sympathized with them. Basically, it was the same logic that most people have when buying a gun for personal protection, to defend oneself and family.  However, the Alabama authorities denied Dr. King the ability to purchase a gun.  Their logic was that it was to protect Dr. King who was black and thus he did not need a firearm.  Of course we know this to be a biased opinion based on racism and thus Dr. King was denied the right to self-defense.

Implications:  This can mean several things.

1) That Dr. King while not a violent man recognized the right to protect oneself and by de facto logic the second amendment of the Constitution.

2) This may have impacted his development into a national leader on civil rights by him renouncing violence as he may have thought that by even having the gun at that point it would be yet another excuse by authorities to arrest him or even call him a hypocrite.

Conclusion:  Whichever of the two implications you believe in (or both as I do), it shows Dr. King had an understanding of the power of the gun representing the potential for violence in comparison to his nonviolent civil rights movement.  So with this, does it change your opinion on who Dr. King is and what you think of him as a person?  For me, it did as I gained a certain level of respect and admiration (more than I already had) as he is someone who knew the difference between the power of the gun and the power of peoples voices.

Issue 423 Comparing all to Hitler September 22, 2014

It is important to compare ourselves to others to help our growth as individuals as it aids us in revealing our flaws.  One of the biggest people we can compare ourselves to is Adolf Hitler so that we do not become a monster like him.  Let us discuss.

Reasoning:  By comparing ourselves to the monster that is Hitler we can realize what hatreds we have and potentially how they can grow into something horrible.  We can use this evil man as an example of uncontrolled hatred taking over.  

Feelings:  By not only comparing ourselves, but those in power to Hitler we can keep each other in check as well.  Think about it. Was it a good thing that people compared George Bush Jr. the 43rd President of the United States to Hitler?  Is it a good thing to compare President Obama to Hitler?  The answer is yes because it also makes us pay attention to their actions.  It also can make them pay attention to their own actions and think more about what they are doing in the position of leadership. Basically it makes them more self-aware because of how disturbed we feel even being compared to the Nazi's and their evil leader.

Conclusion:  Artists and regular people use Hitler as a method to attract maximum attention to their voice so that it is more likely to be heard.  The feelings of turmoil and anxiety being compared to the tyrant serve to awaken us, and force self-reflection.  But this comparison is not overused as it really only comes up in situations where people think an action is reminiscent of Hitler's' actions/words toward the Jews, the Gays, the deformed, the mentally ill, and those who did not conform to Nazi ideology and ideals. So it has less risk of the word (in this case the name Hitler and its evil legacy) from losing its power like the word racist which is so often overused as a verbal weapon.  So remember, comparing ourselves to evil can also prevent evil as well.

Issue 422 The Circle Maker part 2 September 19, 2014

Hello again.  Today is part two of the story of Honi the circle maker.  Or should I say his only other obscure story as written in the Old Testament.  So let us begin.

Tale number two:   Honi is walking along a path and sees a farmer hard at work planting a date palm tree (which will eventually produce the fruit called dates).  Honi questions the man on why he put so much effort into planting something that he will never reap the benefits of for the tree will not bear any fruit within the man’s lifetime.  

The man responded that it did not matter if he could not reap the benefits of his labor, for his children would in his stead.  At that Honi walked away apparently not fully understanding the man’s logic.  He would then feel sleepy and fall asleep under a tree.  

Honi would wake up many, many years later.  Upon his waking from his slumber he realized something was off.  He walked down the same path and noticed how different it looked.  He happened upon the same date tree he had seen planted many years earlier, but now it was fully grown and bearing healthy fruit.  Honi noticed a man working to pick the fruit from the tree that looked very similar to the man who originally planted the tree in the first place.  Honi walked up to the man and asked after the farmer who planted the tree.  

The man told him that the man who planted the tree was his grandfather and had passed away years ago.  He told Honi how grateful he was to his grandfather for leaving this tree for his family to use to prosper, and the memories he had made with his father watching it grow.  Honi was stunned and walked away toward the town.  He asked if anyone knew him, and none did.  He had no one who remembered him.  It was then that he asked God to take him to the next world which God did.

Moral/Conclusion:  Here the moral of the story is that you want to leave a legacy behind.  Basically make an impact on the generations to follow so that perhaps you will be remembered for your deeds you have done, or the person that you were.  So can you leave a legacy for others to follow, be inspired by, or serve as a model?

Issue 421 The Circle Maker part 1 September 18, 2014

In the Old Testament there is a prophet called Honi.  He literally has but two stories in the entirety of the text.  But I felt after hearing those stories for the first time that they were important to share.  So here is story number one.

The First tale:  There was a drought in a village in the desert.  No rain had fallen in weeks and the villagers were in a dire situation for obvious reasons.  But Honi stepped up and said he would speak to God himself.  The village thought him insane as he drew a circle around himself and yelled up to God that he would not move until he made it rain for the village.  He sat there for days until God relented and allowed a trickle of water to come from the sky.  But Honi yelled up to God that this was not enough.  So God gave more rain, but Honi was not satisfied as this rain that God sent was still too little.  Then finally after Honi asked yet again, God finally gave Honi a torrential downpour that filled the lake near the village which would provide enough water to satisfy the village’s needs.

Moral/Conclusion:  God can be negotiated with.  This is what this story of Honi is trying to tell.  Both Jesus and Muhammad also talked directly with God as well, so this shows that you can also have a personal relationship with God.  So by interacting with God on a more personal level it allows us to improve ourselves and our own faith.

Issue 420 Should Medicaid have Copays September 17, 2014

Well ladies and gentlemen, we are here to talk about Medicaid and if it should have copays.  As many of you know, Medicaid is State provided health insurance for the poor, but not everyone on Medicaid is actually poor.  So this is the question, when and where should there be copays for these people who cannot afford health insurance?

My experience:  Medicaid has copays setup for individuals based on their income.  So by estimating what money they earn, the State government determines what the copay at the doctor’s office or drug store should be.  As someone who works in a pharmacy, the copay is typically one dollar.  This is good as the income the individual makes helps to make a single dollar affordable whether they are on unemployment or working at a regular job.  It reduces costs at the State level and personally I feel that copays should be expanded to account even further to truly measure what is actually affordable to the patient and what is not.  At the same time, I believe that drugs necessary for the health of the patient should be covered like maintenance medications and cures for common diseases.  Things like over the counter drugs like Tylenol, Aspirin and Advil have no place being covered as they are already more than affordable over the counter.  Vitamins too have been covered by Medicaid and made free despite not being medically proven to actually improve health in some instances, and that they too are over the counter.  As such, I have helped fill so many prescriptions for patients as the pharmacist grumbles looking at their medical history saying only one out of all the medications (as only one was a medication) should even be going through Medicaid.  And finally, once at the counter, the patients in some (not all, but some) cases complains they have to pay a dollar, while they wear fur coats or other expensive clothes.  Kind of dumb is it not.

To the other side:  To try and stay objective, the people saying I am saying all people on Medicaid are robbing our taxpayer dollars is wrong.  It is a known fact that there are legitimate people who cannot afford health care.  As such, they deserve to get health care catered to their income.  However, this does not mean a small nominal fee should not be paid which reduces the overall costs that Medicaid has to pay so long as it is based on income.  Medicaid is welfare given to the poor.  You are entitled to none of the benefits given out by it, and as such the benefits can be changed by the State government at will and you can do nothing about it.  But, this does not mean we will leave actual poor people to die in the street.  So Medicaid or some form of it will always be there for the actual poor, but for those who use the system to take advantage of the benefits should understand that they have to pay more because they earn more than the people who really need it.

Conclusion:  I am not trying to sound evil or harsh even though I know I am coming off that way.  However, people complaining because they think they are entitled to a free lunch is just wrong.  People who are wearing expensive clothes, while on welfare of any kind and continue to buy expensive items because they have a free ride is also wrong.  So if you cannot kick people off welfare like Medicaid, you can at least reduce their burden on the system by making them pay a little more out of their own pocket for their medicine.