Issue 556 Marriage and Prenuptials March 26, 2015

I was watching Glenn Beck one day and he was saying how he met his second wife.  He said that he initially wanted a prenuptial do to a bad break up in his first marriage, but his now current wife would not have it.  She said to him: why would I put a contingency plan on a relationship that is supposed to last forever (I am paraphrasing here).  So the question is why have a prenuptial?

Answering the question:  Marriages are supposed to last forever.  It is supposed to be an everlasting union between two consenting adults so that they can start a life together and share a bond of love.   However, a prenuptial challenges that notion.  It says that the relationship may end, or that an end is already decided, and thus the love in the marriage is fleeting at best.  I can understand why some people would want a prenuptial, as they fear the marriages failure, or they feel the feeling of the other are not entirely genuine, but they love them so much they are at least willing to spend whatever amount of time belonging to that individual.  But, if you have such a strong doubt that you would need a prenuptial, then why are you risking wasting your life on a failed relationship when you can find true happiness with someone else.  Why torture yourself with doubts.  Also, why not work out problems with your spouse as they arrive so that you never need a prenuptial like a real couple.  Why resort to a divorce the moment you reach an impasse.  There are some stark contrasts here, which while easy to understand, genuinely show that love is typically blind, or at the very least is easily not very understood.

Conclusion:  My point is, be careful with what messages you are sending to your spouse when you ask for a prenuptial.  Obviously it is not a very pleasant one as your doubts are showing up on your sleeve.  Marriages are supposed to last forever, so make sure you think hard before asking for a prenuptial.  

Issue 555 Three types of people March 25, 2015

So there are apparently three types of people in this world.  And frankly they are easily broken down by their spirit animals.  Here we go.  

Sheep:  People with this spirit animal are typically followers.  They simply go about the everyday thinking about nothing save their own lives and those they immediately care about.  However, as they are typically concerned with themselves, they ignore news and other events and so they are gullible, and are generally not able to protect themselves.

Wolves:  These individuals take advantage of others (typically of the sheep of our society).  They will use anybody and everybody to get their way and in the exact way they want it.  Their goals are selfish as they seek profit, power or simply act as parasites in our society.  They give real wolves a bad name.

Sheepdogs:  Here is the kind of person you want to be.  All sheepdogs are independent thinkers.  They don't give into group think and are willing to speak out when they know they are right or when it is most important.  These people are informative and will protect others when and wherever they can.

Conclusion:  Obviously everyone wants to be the sheepdog.  But, we are a little of each one of these.  So it comes down to how much of each you are.  I for one am typically a sheep, but I act like a sheepdog from time to time as the situation requires.  But, there are times I am a wolf so as to make sure that the right things are done in the way they should be if and when it becomes necessary.  But then there are people who are not a combination of these but are singular, and there are people who can transform themselves from sheep, to a sheep dog if the circumstances permit.  So the real question is what spirit animal are you?  What kind of person do you think you really are?

Issue 554 Should movies make you think? March 24, 2015

So, should movies make you think?  Not that senseless movies are bad (National Lampoons series was always fun for me as a kid), but we can do so much more.  Let us discuss.

What I think a really Good movie should do to us:  So what I would like, and I am sure others do as well, is to get more movies like "American Sniper", or "Patch Adams".  They made you think and made you try and figure out what you have learned.  So the smell test is, can the movie make us ask, who, what, when, where, why, and how.  These questions are asked in respect to the characters and their motivations, the story as to why is went the way it did, and even the plot.  It makes us try to understand and contemplate what we have learned.  If the story is dark, make sure it has a point, otherwise is simply a dark brooding movie that makes no sense.  Basically, give us a compelling story about real people with real problems.  I am not saying you cannot make it entertaining, but it can be an awesome learning experience.  "Argo" was a learning experience, even if not 100% historically accurate.  Even "How to Train Your Dragon" was something children can learn from with respect to friendship and trying hard to do what is right.  So yea these movies exist, and are fun to watch, but are they enough?

Conclusion:  Movies are a source of entertainment, but they do not have to exist in a vacuum.  They can make us look at torture from multiple facets.  We can see different kinds of friendships and how we can innocently harm each other or cause a friendship to become deeper by simply adding what we have obtained from psychology classes to the movie.  The sky really is the limit with films that can educate us and help us learn, so why not add real science, real sociology, psychology, history and power struggles to wherever and whenever they are applicable.  So, I say let us get compelling stories that make us think.

Issue 553 The Memory Chip March 23, 2015

In the future we may get something called a memory chip which will record everything that happens in our daily lives.  Sounds crazy, but it may actually come true.  So let us discuss.

The Chip:  Basically the chip is implanted in your body (brain) to record everything you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste.  Literally all that you are is recorded.  This concept was explored in a Robin Williams movie "The Final Cut" which literally was about a man looking at peoples past lives through their implanted microchips.  But in the movie, the other senses save sight and hearing were not included.  However, it gives you a general idea of what the chip can potentially do.  But those who don't want to watch what can only be considered a dystopian sci fi film, read the next section.

Its Impact:  So this chip can allow us to relive past moments of our lives.  The idea is that we can actually mentally access this chip to relieve moments of our own past.  So you will never forget where you placed your car keys.  But you can also relive the most special moments of your marriage. Though there is fear that people may just get stuck in this playback of the best moments of their lives (sex, a drug trip, a birthday etc.) and thus cease to function normally in an everyday life.  In short, it can become addicting.

Another impact is security.  At the airport, the security staff would simply have to download everything you did in the last 48 hours.  You will never have to have your bags checked again as they can literally watch you put all your stuff into your bags.  But this also leads to the possibility of hacking someone’s chip to see everything they see.  Espionage becomes easy as you hack a chip in say a foreign embassy to see every paper run across a secretary's desk.  Heck, it can potentially record your thoughts and feelings too, not just sensations allowing for spies to find potential collaborators.  There is even a possibility, that with all the information our bodies take in, they can use people as mobile listening devices to listen in on conversations happening nearby.  Very scary, and cool at the same time.

Conclusion:  I would never want a chip in my head if I can help it, but others may see the advantages of it.  So it is up to you to choose to get this tech, assuming it is ever fully developed and placed into mass production.

Issue 552 No services to non-citizens March 20, 2015

Non-citizens are people.  They in fact perform jobs and work like the rest of us.  The issue though is that some of them are here not to benefit our society, but to leech off of it.  Let me make this clear, those who want to support themselves and not be a leech, will in fact get out of poverty, but there are those non-citizens who steal from our country.  So what are we to do to solve this?

Cut off the Federal and State aid:  The only real solution is to make all welfare of non-citizens a local issue, save deportation if that becomes necessary (if a non-citizen is trapped they should be allowed to go to local authorities and deported in an expedited manner so they can go home).  By cutting all welfare off from these people at the Federal and State levels, who have no intention of becoming citizens, we will see the true worth of these people.  The reason why local government does not cut them off is because they will be the determiners if an individual gets aid or is considered a freeloader and thus deported immediately. Obviously standards will need to be put in place, but this eliminates much of the issue as localities can deport the freeloaders, or illegals in general if they are overwhelmed in their aid for these people. It should even be allowed for illegals to be swapped between localities (if situation permits) so that the other locality can reduce its economic burdens.  In short all welfare is expensive and we have to sort out helping our own citizens and those who want to be citizens first and kick the rest out (as unfortunate as it may or may not be).

Conclusion:  We cannot afford to accept those who are unwilling to care for themselves (not those who can't as they will be the exception).  America is a compassionate nation, but compassion must be balanced with a firm hand and a gentle nudge (or harder nudge when needed).  By denying all other forms of welfare save what localities want to give/willing to give, we can possibly solve our issue with free loaders coming into the country and focus on those who wish to be full citizens.

Issue 551 Viewing thyself and others March 19, 2015

How do you view yourself?  Is it as a buff character with all the world bowing to you?  Do you feel that you are insecure?  Are you sad? But what if I told you that someone might see you in a completely different way?  That is right, we each see and understand each other in such a way that there will always be a difference of opinion on one level or another.  So let us discuss.

I see you and you see me:  So despite the characteristics we see ourselves as, someone will see you differently than how you see yourself.  We have all experienced this before.  I am a college graduate, and obviously an adult, and yet when someone looks at my hobby of model building, they think me immature or unique and cool, depending on who they are.  Likewise I am book smart and thus when I recite facts or figures some will reject it as me being naive, or they will accept it and say I am well read.  So people have actually told me that they are intimidated by me.  I don't come off as a know it all to a majority of people, but there are instances where some people think I am.  But this is surface level.  What about people who can look deeper into your soul.  Again, people may see you as courageous, bull headed, intriguing, etc.  But these opinions are based on careful observation and thus people who get to know each other well enough and thus learn to deal with them.  For instance I have a friend where once they get into a funk, they cannot be broken out of it for any length of time.  The only way to handle that was to just leave them alone.  However, if you asked them what their opinion of themselves was, they would say that they were in excellent shape.  This is all because we cannot view ourselves properly without an external lens.

Reasoning:  We look at each other differently and ourselves differently due to a few things.  The primary reason is experience.  As we collect information and mature in our daily lives we acquire information on how to deal with each other.  This shapes our perspectives which determines how we view one another.  This combined allows us to compare ourselves to others which in turn helps us identify and figure out who and what we are inside.  In other words, we springboard off each other to identify who we are on the inside, but then our interactions with others, with them sharing their thoughts on us, helps us to finally begin to see the actual us on the inside.  

Conclusion:  Humanity cannot exist without it being able to interact with the environment or itself.  If a person lives in seclusion, they will eventually loose sense of self, and thus what it means to be human.  They will mentally break down.  So we must interact with one another to better get to know who and what we are on the inside.

Issue 550 Politics and Words March 18, 2015

 As I am sure you have noticed, politicians use certain lingo to get their point across.  What's more is that lingo is used to manipulate (for good or for bad) into making people think in a certain way.  So let us discuss.

Lingo of politics:  First and foremost, the lingo revolves around gaining power.  In this case it is moving the people who listen emotionally and sometimes physically into action.  President Obama is masterful at making people move as he being a former community organizer knows just the right messages and words to make people follow his lead.  So when he had the campaign slogan "hope and change" or when he said during his campaign for Obama care (the affordable care act) that you can keep your doctor and your insurance, it moved people.  People believed it because it was repeated a number of times, and used almost like a chant on occasion.  The news media ate it up which further enhanced the Presidents message.  As to whether what a politician says is one hundred percent truthful or not doesn't really matter, for power is all about making people move willingly or unwillingly. As such when you want to turn people away from something like the estate tax, the tax on inheritance over a certain value, you call it the death tax.  Why this subtle manipulation of words?  Simple, its word play as normally you would not care about a tax that only affects a group of people outside of yourself.  But when you say death tax it invokes a totally different mindset for those who do not know how the tax works.  Key point though is that if the wordplay is bad, then people ignore it.  Hence why inheritance tax is not used over death tax.  

Conclusion:  Words are tools to politicians.   I will say that all politicians use wordplay and thus manipulate their message to accommodate their audience.  So it is up to us to do two things, educate ourselves on what goes on, and to find out if the politician is sincere.  If we can do those two things then we will be safe from politics and politicians efforts to manipulate us.