Issue 482 Obama's Secret Correspondence December 12, 2014

President Obama has made a secret correspondence with the country of Iran a few weeks ago.  Now that the tensions and stupidity have died down, I feel safe enough to actually comment on this and if someone wants to, have a conversation without someone turning into a hot head.  So let me begin.

The non-controversial part:  The fact that the president had a secret correspondence was never the issue.  In fact, historically, Presidents had that right since President George Washington.  These letters are useful in making alliances, and even bringing about better relations with other countries as a whole.  They are also integral to ending wars as well.  So President Obama I have no problem with you in this respect.

The Controversial part:  What people took umbrage to was the fact that President Obama was communicating with the country of Iran.  For those who do not know, Iran is a known terrorist training ground for certain Islamic terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and even Hamas (who attack America's ally Israel).  Additionally, they have sworn to wipe the State of Israel off the face of the earth if given the chance.  Then you have things of less grand a scale, such as the suppression of women's rights, imprisonment and possible torture of political dissidents, harboring of terrorists, public executions, and a few other things that are clearly violations of the basic moral compass and what it means to be country representing freedom and democracy.  

In the correspondence, President Obama invites Iran to join the fight against ISIS/ISIL and that America will give them support to do so.  Of course Iran is very interested in helping as ISIS/ISIL are Sunni Muslims who are killing Shiite Muslims in other countries (Iran is a Shiite Muslim country).  As such Iran wants to fight ISIS/ISIL to protect their Shiite brethren. Now this is where things get dicey.  We already would be helping a country that most likely wants to see America die, and is essentially our antithesis, but this gives Iran a foothold in Iraq where Shiite Muslims live.  Reason this is bad is for two reasons.  The first reason is that it allows them to get their oil pipeline from Russia, through Iran, into Shiite controlled Iraq, and then into Syria (another Shiite majority country that is considered a puppet state of Iran) and then into Europe.  Thus, allowing Iran's economy to grow and giving them the money and logistics they need to build up their war machine.  The other bad part is that it gives Iran a pathway to send their forces safely into Syria, via the Shiite controlled southern part of Iraq.  So they can re-establish Assad as the president of Syria (a government that is considered a totalitarian dictatorship) or annex Syria as part of Iran along with the southern region of Iraq under the right of protection idea so as to protect ethnic Shiite Muslims.  As Syria borders Israel (the southern part of Iraq does also) it allows Iran send its forces directly into Israel to wage all-out war once the conflict with ISIS/ISIL is over.  Either way, Iran becoming involved is a lose lose situation.

Conclusion:  We have ourselves a quandary.  We help Iran get into the war with ISIS/ISIL, but it means sacrificing the safety and security in the Middle East in the near future.  Or we send our own forces in and do the job for the Middle East so as to prevent the worst case scenario from happening.  This is not a very easy decision and to let Iran in means America will be playing a very dangerous chess game with Israel possibly being sacrificed.  So what happens next depends on the President, and the decisions of the other world leaders involved in the Middle Eastern conflict.

Issue 481 Men in a feminist society December 11, 2014

While we all want to be a little bit feminist, so as to support equality amongst the sexes, there's a problem.  Feminism can become contradictory at times to allowing men to still be considered men.  Allow me to explain.

Contradictions:  Yes, feminism does espouse equality for women, but it does not do so for men.  Such is the case with employment.  Feminist groups want more women in the workforce which is great, but they want it at the expense of the male portion of society.  So they have issued quotas, and given greater deference toward women in job applications over men even if 50% of a particular job is dominated by women.  Case in point is teachers.  The majority of teachers are women, but because the numbers of female teachers has reduced as more job opportunities for women opened up (due to feminism) the feminists became frightened that a "traditional" job of women was being lost.  Mind you learning to sew, cook, and do household chores is a no no for women now, despite them being useful skills that should be taught to both men and women alike.  Are you beginning to see the contradictions?  

Can't be a gentleman:  I will say there are extreme feminists who really know how to put a man down.  In this case, men are apparently not allowed to open the door for a women.  She is apparently "strong enough" to do it herself.  Men are not supposed to pay the bill on a date with a woman as that is apparently insulting to her saying that she must be cared for and is bad with money.  Basically, anything a man does to value a woman is treated as an antithesis to feminism.  It is unfortunately sending a message to the shallower segment of the male population that women while equal are still on the same level as objects to be tossed around.  So men are no longer allowed to value women, and treat them as such in today's society because of this ridiculous notion that a man can't open the door for a women if he wants to.  I mean it is ok for a women to do it now, but not a man?

Conclusion:  While I like the idea of feminism, I do not like the radical elements to it.  I want to treat a woman like a real woman.  A person deserving of respect.  If I can't do that, then I'd rather be hated as backwards then treat a woman as something to be objectified.  This is my take on this, and I hope you have not had some of the same onerous experiences I and others have regarding this issue.

Issue 480 Of Thieves and Store Prices December 10, 2014

Did you know that thieves have a perverse effect on the prices we pay at stores?  Yes it is true.  They cause store prices to rise.  Allow me to explain.

The inverse relationship:  What happens is this, a thief steals a good and it becomes theirs illegally.  But this is not the end of the trouble they have caused.  As such, the store owner has to somehow make up for that loss.  So what is a store owner to do in an event like this where they have to recover that items value monetarily?  Well they can do any one of a combination of three things:

1) Take a pay cut and make it an acceptable loss.  This means the store owner lost money on their own.

2) Cut the wages of their workers.  This is typically a last resort, but a viable and sometimes used option if thievery is so bad that they cannot make up for the losses they are receiving.  As such, thieves are robbing the workers too.

3) Then there is raising store prices to recover the costs.  This is typically the second to last option, but unfortunately used to divvy up the cost burden on the people who buy goods.  So in this sense the thief is now making the goods you wish to buy more unaffordable for the rest of us and therefore stealing from all the customers as well.

So this is it, the thief not only steals from a store owner, but is stealing from the workers and from you and me as well.

Conclusion:  So thieves have a bigger effect on our own pockets as much as they do on the owners who own their businesses.  So it is a sad relationship, which unfortunately causes blame for higher prices and lower wages on the owner when it is not in totality their fault.  

Issue 479 Political ads on entertainment networks December 9, 2014

So we have political advertisements being routinely shown on entertainment networks like comedy central, and sports programs.  But have you ever wondered why they do that?  Well it is fairly simple, so let us begin.

Why the ads:  The reason is because the people who do not usually pay attention to politics watch those networks.  Basically, these people are the ones who usually do not look at the news unless it is something they particularly want to hear about.  And even then, they may just google it to get their answer.  So this is a method to do two things.  The first is to bring more people to the voting booth, which I am sure you would agree is a very good thing.  However the second reason may negate this.  The second reason is because these individuals are typically malleable.  People who prefer entertainment networks are not usually well informed, and thus easy to manipulate with respect to various kinds of advertisements.  They are subject to emotional arguments, over actual hard facts and history.  And unfortunately, they don't normally even know their own Congressional representative, the Vice President, or even what the President actually can and can't do.  This is why ads are put on these networks.  They think you're stupid.

Conclusion:  This can be both good and bad, but this is because the opposing Republican Party is really dumb and does not advertise on a majority of entertainment networks or programming save for things like golf.  As such, the Democrats as a party have a near universal monopoly on these less informed voters (some of whom have yet to even register to vote).  So it is my hope that aside from people actually going out and becoming more informed about politics, that the diversity of thought changes by Republicans actually advertising on these networks so that these voters can get both sides on a particular issue.  Basically it come down to diversity of ideas yet again.

Issue 478 Diversity: Ideas December 8 2014

We spoke on diversity of color last week, and I your author came to the conclusion it really does not matter so long as it happens naturally in nature.  But there is a very important form of diversity that we all need to embrace, and that is the diversity of ideas.  Let us discuss.

Ideas are important:  Diversity of ideas is the diversity of thought.  It allows us to view things from multiple perspectives and thus enable us to achieve better results with respect to thought, action or deeds.  And thus, a lack of thought/idea diversity means a stagnant society.  Why you may ask?  Why embrace all these different thoughts and ideas when they can cause conflict, arguments, and anger?  Simple, if we do not have idea diversity, then that means we have groupthink.  People become malleable and simple minded.  They stop thinking for themselves, and thus rely on society as a whole to make decisions for them.  We lose the individual and independent actions as well.  In short, no thought diversity means society itself becomes a bunch of drones without creativity, reason, or innovation.  So diversity of thought is essential to things like innovation in medicine, television, and even government.  For instance, democracy was not created in a vacuum.  It was created in Athens where only men were allowed to vote.  But the founders of America dared to innovate and progress the concept further to improve democracy as a government to shape what we call today a republic.  Are you getting the picture?  No idea diversity means we become a nation of slaves.

Conclusion:  I write this because sometimes I feel we are becoming drones.  That we prefer for people to think and act for us rather than we ourselves.  And that frightens me.  So I write this to raise awareness of diversity of thought.  I hope that you will try to listen to all points of view and make your own judgments based on what you think is write, and not what others think is right for you.

Issue 477 Diversity: Color December 5 2014

Here we are going to question one aspect of diversity.  In this case, does diversity of skin color matter?  So let's go over both points to find out.

Those in favor:  From my perspective, people who believe in the diversity of color are looking to right past injustices. They feel that to move society forward past the historical racism and separations, we must insure businesses, schools and government institutions have a rich population of individuals with multiple skin tones.  As such, these individuals actively seek to have government hire people of different skin colors.  In addition, they themselves (if they own a business) may hire people of different skin tones simply because they do not want to feel or look racist.  In short, they perhaps feel guilt and thus look past people who may be more qualified in order to meet the equivalent of a self-imposed quota.  

Those who want to move on:  This other group does not reject diversity of color at all.  In fact, they do not care if a private institution hires people based on color.  Instead, they just wish (in my opinion) to move past this period of history.  They feel that by harping on this, we in turn embrace another form of racism in which we oppress ourselves in due deference to the people we tried our hardest to make our equals.  As such, they seek a natural means of diversity of color, where it happens naturally over the forced methods of those who believe it matters.

Conclusion:  I do not discuss the racists who want to have full separation, because I believe them to be fools.  And thus, I ignore their ideas of racism.  On the other hand, I will say I favor those who want a more natural color diversity over the forced type.  The reason being is because those in favor are doing one thing wrong in my opinion.  They are eliminating the concept of merit with respect to people getting a job or being allowed to attend a prestigious school.  But I do not fault them for this though.  My reasoning is because they see the idea that one person having to work harder than another person to achieve the same result is wrong.  While appealing, this thought process is actually counterproductive.  You cannot create equality through this method as it inherently oppresses the true equality of nature in which we are all allowed to advance and become greater under our own power.  In short, it eliminates merit and the concept of hard work which are the two key components of the idea of opportunity.  And such, opportunities to advance are lost and thus equality perishes.  So this is why I like letting it happen naturally, for it embraces the idea of equality in nature, and not the equality of naive notions of forced/fake equality.

Issue 476 Smart Tattoos! December 4, 2014

Now we have an even cooler tattoo that many people may wish to get in the future.  It is called a smart tattoo.  And it is literally a computer chip implanted into your skin.  So let us discuss how it works and what it can do for us.

How it works:  Scientists have developed a method for literally injecting microchips into the outer layer of skin in the same way you would if you inject ink to get a tattoo. These tattoos can either be permanently placed, or made to be temporary. In fact, they can be applied internally to organs, and even clothing depending on what they will be used for (this aspect is still in development).  The chips can actively monitor someone, or hold data for when the owner wishes to activate it.  The uses of this technology are very wide and may become common place in the future.  So let’s discuss what they will do.

Their uses:

1) They can monitor your vital signs in real time.  This means people who need to wear heart monitors or other monitoring equipment can now go about their day as normal without the bulk.  Diabetes patients can have their blood sugar tested without the need to prick their finger ever again.  Athletes can do real world testing during actual practice instead of being tied to monitors in a lab to measure their performance.  You can even place these tattoos on an organ inside the body so as to monitor it for say a transplant rejection, or just overall health like your heart.  Blood oxidation, and blood hydration are also able to be monitored.  Literally, we can monitor our own health in the same way a doctor can without any stress or effort to have to travel to the laboratory and hook up bulky machines.

2) Google with Motorola is attempting to patent a smart tattoo that will be applied to the vocal cords.  This will allow it to pick up your voice at all levels of frequency so as to provide you with the ability to control your cell phone verbally without opening your mouth.  (It apparently can even detect if you are lying.)

3) It can be used as your credit card and debit card to pay at the store.  Additionally, it can act as a smart ID and can even unlock your car.  You are literally becoming the bionic man/woman.  And even more interesting is that if you apply one to your brain, it can allow you to control electronic devices such as doors, your heating and lighting, and other electronic equipment like your computer.  So you can surf the web by thought alone.

Conclusion:  These are not all the possibilities, but you get the general idea.  The only concern though is that every human being on the planet can be identified.  This means that big brother can be watching our every move and we could do nothing about it.  However, these advantages (especially for temporary versions) can change society as a whole.  I look forward to seeing what else they do with this technology and how society changes with it.