Issue 461 Political campaigns: Outside money November 13, 2014

Political campaigns are always annoying.  Candidates try to convince you that they are the best choice when we all know the truly intelligent people avoid political office in the first place.  But what many seem to not find fair is the money coming from outside the Candidates jurisdiction.  The money from other towns, corporations, and political parties that would not represent the constituents. Many see this as corruption, but as a political scientist (I have that silly Bachelor’s degree in this shell game called politics) it is in fact an equalizer.  I'll tell you what I mean.

Views on outside money:  As I said, money coming from say California to support a Congressional race in New York seems strange, out of place, and to many it is just plain wrong.  Likewise if the money comes from a corporation, a political party or an interest group, it is viewed with disgust and seen as corrupting the election.  However, this may not be 100% true.  In fact it may be giving the candidate running a more equal chance of talking to you the voter to plead their case as to why they should be elected over the other candidate.  You see, most elections are about money.  The candidate with more money or spends the most almost always wins save in certain circumstances.  This is because they can buy more exposure to the public.  In short, that candidate now has face recognition and thus you feel you know them.  The other candidate with less money will now typically lose due to being overshadowed.  However, with outside support the candidate who would have solely relied on money from local support now has an equal chance of success.  You see the money advantage can be eliminated with more money to buy a certain amount of face time to see the public, and have them hear the candidate speak.  So at some point, it will not matter how much the guy with more money spends as they will both have been in front of the public long enough to where they will both be recognized.  Sure, outside influences can potentially throw the election depending on the integrity of the candidate (something we ourselves evaluate at the voting booth), but it equalizes the chances of success so that someone new can be chosen.

Conclusion:  So there you have it.  Money coming in from all across the country is not a bad thing.  It instead becomes an equalizer in a political race so that people can choose the best candidate instead of being restricted to knowing only one candidate and knowing nothing about the other.  Yes, there may be corruption, and that no matter how many laws you put in place will never end save by electing candidates with integrity, but at least with outside money it increases your chance of finding a candidate with that integrity in the first place.

Issue 460 Death of Columbus November 12, 2014

Now we are not talking about the actual death of Christopher Columbus, the man who discovered America which spurred its colonization.  We are instead talking about the holiday, which was once a time of celebration, but is now seen as a backwards worship of a monster.  Allow me to explain.

Differing views:  Christopher Columbus was once one of the most celebrated historical figures in history.  Without him and his voyage there may not have been a colonization of the American continents.  As such, Columbus was a hero and thus we have things like the Columbus Day parade.  These parades were not solely in big cities like New York, but was celebrated across the country.  But as time went on and American values changed, people began to see him in a differing light.  The most extreme view of him today is that of a genocidal maniac.  You see, Columbus did kill many of the natives here in the America's and brought with him diseases and the concept of slavery.  So, people of my generation and later view him less and less as a hero, but as a villain.  Thus, many in my generation just look at this federal holiday as a day to get off work early or get extra pay.  It has come to such a point that some places in America either do not even celebrate Columbus Day, or as in the case of some California towns, have changed it to original people’s day to celebrate the natives who lived here first.  Thus this is why he is viewed as a monster.

Impact:  With this change in our values it means that Christopher Columbus will not be celebrated as a hero in any foreseeable future.  So it is my belief that Columbus day my one day no longer be Columbus Day.  It will either be replaced with another holiday like they did in the case California towns, or just vanish.  Hence why I say it is the death of Columbus, a man who is slowly becoming a footnote in history.

Conclusion:  This can happen to any holiday. If the values in America change, then even Christmas may lose its meaning and thus vanish as well.  But it again depends on our values, and even our outlook.  People fail to see the historical context with Columbus and what actions were acceptable during the time period.  So I personally believe Columbus should be celebrated for his good deeds and held to task for the deeds we despise as a teaching moment to each generation.  These are just my thoughts and I feel that I am regretfully in the minority as many do not wish to think deeply about such issues and answer such questions.  People just do not want to think, but to simply react.  In this case we are losing a valuable moment to teach history, for we chose to erode it.

Issue 459 Digital modeling November 11, 2014

Ok, so this is not about crafting 3d designs for buildings or products. Instead it is all about you and seeing what you look like in cloths before you buy them.  Confused?  Well allow me to solve that by getting started.

The idea:  We have all these cameras and equipment that can help us create 3D figures on a computer, and yet why have we not done so with ourselves.  We can literally scan our bodies into the computer to make a 3d image for use in whatever capacity we wish.  We can use them to create avatars for interacting in the digital world or doing tasks.  But here I want to talk about the clothing industry and why they should embrace this technology.  Basically once you’re scanned in, you can place any clothing design you want onto your body digitally.  So you will see yourself in that tuxedo, dress or bathing suit to see how good you look.  And basically it works the same as a regular website, seeing the different colors and such.  But an advantage this method has over others could be you mixing and matching outfits to see what looks good on yourself.  See yourself in a complete clothing set like, shoes, shirt and pants with jewelry/accessories.  To make it even better, it could accurately tell what size you are so that whatever you buy will fit.  With the 3d modeling it could even tell you where you would need to alter it via a tailor to make it fit all that much better.  On top of this, this would reduce the need to have models model cloths for a company as they can just use your image whenever you yourself visit their website, or digital changing room.  Financially speaking, it can be advantageous, as clothing companies could even rent your image from you to use as models (and no this is not limited to just clothing companies either).  So maybe we can ditch those high priced ultra-thin models for our own more natural looks.

Conclusion:  3d scanners and modeling has numerous applications, and benefits.  But with the clothing industry this can change the way we view modeling and how we view ourselves.  Let us face it, even plus size models look ultra-skinny.  So this can eliminate any psychological issues that have occurred by children and young women viewing models in magazines for the model will be replaced by they themselves.  I know, this is only an idea, but the technology only has so far to go until it is ready and able to be used in this capacity.  So, how good do you look as a 3d model?  We may not have long to find out.

Issue 458 Unisex and gender neutral November 10, 2014

There has been a growing movement to make the United States more gender neutral.  From what I can tell, this push partly comes from the feminist movement, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) community and its liberal ideological cohorts.  But what is the purpose and is it a good idea?  Let us discuss.

Gender neutral:  As far as I can tell, the goal of making things more gender neutral is inspired in part to avoid hurting someone's feelings.  What I mean by this is that the gay, lesbian and transgendered community typically do not have their own bathrooms, locker rooms, and other similar private changing areas.  So heterosexual people typically become uncomfortable around these groups of people because they do not know how to react to them and makes the LGBT group feel ostracized.  So the idea, I believe, is to get everyone from a young age used to interacting with people of different sexes, gender roles and sexual orientations.  Basically, have people of opposite sexes be used to each other in such a manner that they do not get that awkward feeling anymore in more private/intimate settings.  As such, I believe the supporters of this idea hope to change society’s outlook on gender and sexual orientation in a similar manner to how it was done with race/skin color in the civil rights movement.  The reason the feminist movement seems to support it is due to the age old separations between men and women being seen as antiquated and thus anti-feminist.

Problems:  Some have taken issue with this gender neutral approach.  However, the goal is not necessarily disagreed with, but the methods of achieving that goal.  For one, unisex bathrooms have become controversial because some schools have allowed them for children in high school leading to complaints about peeping toms, and privacy concerns.  Others have taken umbrage with reading materials which feature gay penguins, or books with explicit sexual content being read by young readers (without informing the parents or opt out clauses I may add).  So the issues generally are not with having the lesbian, gay, transgendered (or any sexual orientation in between) becoming more integrated, or the de-masculinization of society but the methods.  

Conclusion:  Parents are the main group that should and do show concern for what is going on with this growing trend.  Many traditionalists look upon supporters of this idea as backwards as they are supposed to focus on preventing hatreds and discrimination (which they have largely achieved), not changing the entire cultural landscape from the ground up.  As someone who is not a parent, I personally do not have a problem with unisex bathrooms or other unisex like facilities so long as people can have the privacy they want when they want it.  To me it is a privacy issue with respect to most of this gender neutrality debate.  I don't want to show my "junk" to some random person regardless of sex, sexual orientation or anybody for that matter.  As to the education front, I just hope schools stop with the crap of forcing this stuff on kids.  It should be up to the parents to decide what material is pertinent to their kids’ education with respect to these kinds of education materials, not anyone else.  These are my thoughts on the issue, give me my privacy and stop forcing things like gay penguins into kids’ faces.  And that is as they say is that.

Issue 457 The risk of sending help. November 7, 2014

With even me talking about Ebola, we have to discuss another issue that comes with it.  That issue is the risks posed to us for even sending people over to Africa (or any country for that matter) to fight diseases like Ebola.  Let's get started.

The risk of help:  By sending help over to Africa to fight this disease we are in fact risking further spread of the infection to not only our fellow Americans but to other countries around the globe.  Case in point is the doctors and nurses who have returned to the United States that are infected with Ebola.  They went there, got infected thinking they were safe, and then potentially infected others.  So now that we have sent soldiers and other medical professionals to fight this contagion, we have increased our risks of it spreading even further into the United States.  So even though we are only trying to help, we may also be digging our own graves.

Conclusion:  I am not saying that these people who are infected should not be helped.  I am never going to say that we should not send help either.  But, we must be aware that our desire to help can and already has come at a cost.  So we must be wary of who we send to Africa to fight this disease and other deadly pathogens or else we can become infected ourselves.  So we must be smart, and now that gaps in our disease protocol have been seen adjust to fix them so that we can help these people in need without hurting ourselves.  So good luck and Gods speed to all those who wish to protect and save lives from disease.  

Issue 456 Ebola: what to do about it. November 6, 2014

Well Ebola is a major thing that is happening around the world (despite the flu killing more people each year).  Ebola is a very hard disease to get but has the potential to become equivalent to the next black plague (I have my doubts).  However, my country (the United States) has become very sloppy with their handling of this potentially dangerous situation.  So let us discuss the smart way of handling this problem.

How I would handle this crisis:  For one, all flights from Africa (if any) would cease.  So this means only charter flights and proxy flights via other countries would be the only way for anyone coming from Africa to get to the United States.  This however is a temporary situation until a regime is in place to detect people who are sick.  

The regime that would be established is a special housing facility for each potentially infected person.  This would mean that they would be in a special home where they will be monitored and isolated for 21 days until they can be cleared of not having Ebola or any other potentially infectious and deadly disease.  Once these quarantine facilities are established and proper maintenance and sanitary protocols are in place, then and only then will these people be allowed to go home via regular flights to the United States.  

For the infected however, they will remain quarantined and be treated there in Africa.  So this will require special hospitals that can be built by charities without spending a single taxpayer dime.  From there we simply treat the patient with the best medicine and care possible. 

As for the people who are infected that unfortunately pass away.  We will have to burn the bodies to prevent animals from eating the diseased and potentially spreading it around further (in this case dogs).  Also, any animal detected with Ebola, if not already free of the disease will be quarantined until their immune systems remove the disease so that they are no longer a carrier.  However, if there is no chance of that occurring, then the animal will unfortunately need to be put down.  The body of the animal will then be cremated in the same fashion as the infected people who perish.  

While all this is going on, efforts will be made to further educate the African public on preventing infections and proper sanitation.  Also, charities will use their resources to help improve the African people’s homes as thatched roofs and mud floors contribute to the spread of disease.  So by building them a floor, and giving them tin roofs we can cut down on other diseases as well.  Basically any education and improvements for the African people will be needed so as to protect against diseases.  

Conclusion:  And there you have it.  This is how you fight Ebola and other serious diseases responsibly.  You do not bring the infected home, you do not mismanage a hazardous situation.  You get the job done right so that you can save people’s lives.  No room for mistakes or excuses.  So I hope my government gets its act together for everyone's sake.  

Issue 455 Pee Cycling November 5, 2014

Catchy title right?  Well there is a reason for it.  Apparently many green movement people wish to use human waste as a form of fertilizer due to the vast amounts of nutrients that are contained within.  And you know what?  I agree with them.  Let's discuss why.

Advantages to recycling human waste:  Human waste as I stated is full of nutrients that can help plant growth.  From pee, to poo we contain vast amounts of nutrients in our bodies that can, once excreted, be used to replace or supplement fertilizers.  Why this is being advocated for is simple.  For one, it turns our sewer systems into collection tanks for vital materials which now will not have to be as purified and dumped into earth's oceans.  That is right, we cleanse the poo and pee of bacteria at waste treatment plants, and then send it out into the ocean and sometimes landfills.  The problem with the current method is that it uses a lot of energy and has the potential to reduce the salt content of earth's oceans and thus hurting the ocean environment.  This has secondary impacts on available drinking water, and on the fishing industry.  So by harvesting this waste sooner and not purifying it to the point that it is almost drinkable means we save energy and protect the coastal environment for fish.  Also, energy wise, this means less fuel is required to run the waste treatment plants where they can then switch roles to removing bad bacteria and then replacing it with bacteria needed to break down the waste.  On top of that, the waste can give off methane and other natural gases which can be harvested to make the waste treatment plant self-sustaining and can even be used to power nearby towns.  So overall it saves allot of money and the environment.  

Impacts:  This method makes us less reliant on other forms of manure production from cows, horses and other animals.  As such, less fertilizers need to be produced, or it adds a cheaper alternative to the fertilizer market to help poorer farmers grow food more cheaply.  Newer waste treatment plants can now be closer to the cities and towns they serve as they no longer need to dump the waste into the ocean.  This again saves vast amounts of money for the waste need not be pumped as far. If they hybrid the plant as an energy production facility using it to collect methane and other flammable gases, then the city can essentially form a partial electrical grid which saves taxpayers money on their electric bill.  Overall taxpayers save the most money from this cleaner energy approach as food will become cheaper, and energy and sanitation bills can also be cut down as well.  

Disadvantages and negatives:  The potential negatives though come from the biological material.  Human diseases can be carried in human waste, so a facility that does not treat the material properly can potentially cause people to become sick.  Also, depending on how the facility is established, the smell can also leak out which is a negative to some people.  Of course there is still the usual potential for malfunctions in the facilities themselves causing sewage backups.  However, the most important hurdle is the infrastructure involved.  You need buyers for this form of fertilizer.  No buyers means that we end up wasting money on these conversions of these waste treatment facilities. Thankfully, the green movement also advocates hydroponics gardens and urban agriculture which could potentially solve the problem, but that depends on city ordinances which will have to be changed to accommodate.  So a lot of money will need to be spent first to both alter the facilities to make human waste fertilizer, and then market it as a cheap alternative to other fertilizers. 

 Conclusion:  So there you have it.  Human waste as a resource for the further development of agriculture and saving the environment.  So does this mean we can all be proud to sit on the toilet bowl?  Well I do not know about that.  But if this should come to pass, we could see a totally different outlook on waste management and sanitation in the not so far off future.