Issue 485 The Average voter December 17, 2014

Who are America's average voters?  Well, they may not be what you think.  Let's discuss.

Who votes:  The primary people who vote are actually senior citizens.  Partly the reason why seniors vote more often is due to the fact that they no longer have to work.  The next segment is people who have some sort of vested interest in the outcome of the election.  Basically, people voting for selfish reasons like party politics or free healthcare (the false premise of Obamacare).  What remains are those who believe it is their patriotic duty to vote, or those who have "chosen" to vote in this particular election.   You are probably wondering why I worded the previous sentence the way I did.  Well that is because in a non-presidential election (like 2014's) approximately 30 to 35 percent of the country actually voted.  In a presidential election you may go only as high as 50% if you are lucky.

Those who do not vote:  Well, this group has their reasons.  Some are being responsible due to them not knowing who the candidates are for they do not pay attention to politics.  Others don't like the candidates who are running and thus get discouraged.  There is also another group who find it hard to go to the ballot box because of work and family commitments.  Of course there are dumb ones who do not even know when Election Day is.  I think you get the idea.

Conclusion:  So all in all, America's future is only being decided by typically less than half the entire U.S. population.  If this seems unfair, then you do have a point, but you cannot force people to vote if they choose not to.  It is their choice.  Probably the only way to increase voter turnout for the working class is to make Election Day on a Saturday and make it an official federal holiday.  However, the day change would require a constitutional amendment, and the federal holiday would only apply to government offices.  Though I guess some is better than none in this case.  But the truest way to increase voter turnout is to teach in schools what our Constitution says and the underlying philosophies that led to its creation while combining it with first hand historical accounts to demonstrate the founders reasoning for including what they did in a document that is held so sacred to the people of the United States.  It is a rough battle to get people to the polls, but I think it is worth it.

Issue 484 The O'reilly Plan December 16, 2014

Bill O'reilly of the Fox News show "The O'reilly Factor" has come up with a way to improve America's economy in the long run, while relieving some of the economic hurdles on the people.  Allow me to give you a brief overview of his plan in today's issue. 

His plan:

1) Drop the corporate tax rate by 20%. 

This is the income tax on businesses that is so burdensome to small and medium income business and what causes most big businesses to leave the country.  Right now, America has the highest corporate income tax rate at well over 35%, which has put the United States behind nearly every industrialized nation in the world.  It is the reason why Apple and other tech companies send their products overseas to be built in Chinese factories over our own.  By dropping the tax low enough, it not only allows for some of these jobs to return to the United States, but means businesses from other nations will leave them to set up here in the U.S.  And that means more jobs.

2) Lower Capital Gains to 15%

Here we have the tax on the stock market.  The tax was initially raised during the Obama administration and has become a detriment to the growth of businesses.  The reason being, is that businesses need investors’ money so that they may build new factories and even hire new workers so that they can be successful.  A high capital gains tax prevents that and makes U.S. businesses less competitive globally as well as domestically.  So by dropping this tax lower, businesses of all sizes can grow again.

3) A six month tax holiday on out of country investments, with the stipulation the money coming back to the United State be spent on helping the United States.

In this case, Mr. O'reilly is talking about the money stashed away by corporations in other countries.  Mr. O'reilly wishes to see this money not only brought home, but spent to increase the number of jobs available to American citizens. If this is feasible, I am not sure for I don't like the idea of telling people how to spend their money.

4) Raise the minimum wage to $10.

Everything in the previous three parts was specifically to get to this point for Mr. O'reilly.  He wanted it to be feasible to raise the minimum wage without hurting businesses of any kind or causing more job losses which can result from minimum wage increases.  This allows more spending money in everyone's pockets and at the same time replaces the tax revenue lost by the government with the aforementioned tax reductions. 

Conclusion:  While I like Mr. O'reilly's plan, I have and others have critics.  Mr. James Carville (A Democratic Party strategist) actually liked the plan, but wanted it to go further with a flat tax for all economic groups.  Likewise, economic commentator and news anchor Lou Dobbs wished to see a tax cut on the lower income classes as well (he leans democratic).  Mr. O’reilly argued back that those ideas he supports, but his plan is for an immediate economic boon, while the others would need to be campaigned for to gather support (which is true).  I myself would like to see all capital gains taxes abolished so as to give the economy more freedom of movement and thus allow poorer investors a shot at becoming rich.  The corporate tax rate taxes total revenue earned over actual profit which hinders businesses and makes it harder for them to pay taxes.   So if a flat tax, and my two little additions were implemented, then the economy would expand to unprecedented levels with small businesses being capable of taking on medium to big businesses.  In essence speeding up the economy to its natural speed.  So to this extent, while Mr. O'reilly's plan is most workable and would be welcomed, it may be small change to what can really be done.

Issue 483 Your right to anonymity December 15, 2014

Anonymity is a funny word, but it has a meaning and it so happens to be one of your rights as a human being.  What to know more?  Read on to find out.

Anonymity: Anonymity means to be able to live anonymously.  Basically a life without interference or being known to others.  To a certain degree it is an isolationist policy that makes the individual less known to those around them save those they wish to know.  People of this life essentially are phantoms or strangers we pass by every day.  And it is in truth a lifestyle choice that is actively made by such people as the Special Forces community, some members of the police department, and even famous people who seek to get away from the limelight such as the author J.D. Salinger.  This lifestyle ensures privacy that few can hope to obtain if they chose an alternative lifestyle.   

It is your right:  To live a certain lifestyle is actually a right that all Americans, and other free peoples enjoy.  The reason being is that you are free to choose how you want to live in a free society so long as no one else is hurt in the process.  As such you may live a private life where people do not even know your name.  You are under no obligation to tell anyone your name, your age or any other form of personal information if you so wish to withhold it.  And thus, this is your right amongst others, to live a life you wish to lead.

Conclusion: A life of anonymity is not a life I would choose for myself.  It is a life that borders on solitude.  And let's face it, I may be the faceless author of Jormungand, but you know my real name and why I choose to speak.  But it does demonstrate that people are capable of living such a life and that we are free to choose and change our lifestyles as we see fit.  So embrace the life you wish to live.

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.