Issue 604 1st Amendments five freedoms June 3, 2015

Did you know that the first Amendment of the United States Constitution has a total of five freedoms?  Well some of you may have, but not many can actually name all five.  So let us refresh our memories in today's issue.

The Five:

1) Speech:  This means we can say almost anything and everything we want.  However, we must always remember that we are responsible for what we say.  So no causing a panic or starting a riot please as you will be arrested as the instigator.

2) Press:  An extension of speech, it insures that reporters and commentators can say what they want and publish it too for money.  But the main importance is that they tell us what is going on in the world and are designed to look out for corruption and misconduct.

3) Religion:  We are free to worship our God or gods however we want (with specific exceptions).  

4) Assembly:  This one is where we get our ability to form protests, boycotts, go to religious services together, and any other activity that makes it so that people can come together to both discuss or act toward a common goal.

5) Petition the Government:  The final one allows us to meet with our representatives to ask them to change their opinions, enact laws and similar.  Essentially, it is the right to talk to people in government which is essential to keeping the government in check and acting on behalf of the American people.

Conclusion:  The last two are apparently the two people usually forget, but they are practiced just as much as any of the others.  It is important to know our rights as knowledge of those rights protects us from wrongdoing by the government(s) at large.

Issue 603 Commercials?! June 2, 2015

So we all hate commercials.  They are very annoying to us, and frankly, many people don't even bother listening anymore, let alone watch.  However, commercials are what pays for the movies and shows we like.  So what is going to replace them so that we can have commercial free shows?

The options:  So there is a few methods to go commercial free so as to help pay for movies, and shows.  The first is subscription based.  In this case they will use a model like Netflix which buys entire libraries of shows and movies.  That subscription then plays a part in paying the actors and production costs for the programming Netflix puts out. Remember, these people have to earn a living and while production of movies and television shows is getting cheaper thanks to technology, it is not 100% of the way there.  So a subscription works.  

Another option is that you put the products into the movie or show itself in what is known as product placement.  So you can have an actor sipping a Pepsi or a Coca Cola on film.  This includes cars, cigars, mobile phones and computers, etc.  So we may see close-ups of Iron man (Tony Stark) taking his phone out of his jacket where a close up will reveal that it is a Motorola or an Android.  This means even billboards in the background of a movie like Fast and Furious can be used to gather revenue for the film.  As such, even if the film or the television show is a bust, the costs to produce the film, and pay for the cast and crew can still be covered.  

Conclusion:  I like both these options over a show being interrupted by a commercial for Sham Wow or similar products.  And the fact that actors may be using them in shows and movies the ways they are supposed to be used in the first place allows people to envision themselves using the product too.  Even small plugins by the actors like them bragging about their Oxiclean are feasible so long as it does not detract from the story.  From there, if there are any commercials, they will be between shows advertising for upcoming shows that the company wants to get people to watch and thus increase their profits so that they can stay in business (and entertain us the viewers as well).  

Issue 602 All at the table Jun 1, 2015

When the riots happened in Baltimore, people of the media, and celebrities expressed the opinion for the need for an open discussion.  However, they wanted everyone represented to hash it all out to try and find a solution.  Today I am going to explain why that will not work.

Everyone actually represented?:  Well, it is impossible to represent everyone in a discussion of this sort.  Think about it.  Every person from each group must be represented.  So that means we need a black male and female, a gay black male and female, a male and female Jew, gay male and female Jew, Puerto Ricans of every sexual orientation, and religion, etc.  Now notice by putting everyone at the table, you now have a vast variety of groups with their own interests weighing down and distracting from the primary subjects of Police and Black American relations, police uses of force, race issues between whites and blacks, and Black crime in America.  In short, dragging gays, Spanish, and other religious, racial and ethnic groups in, the subjects become blurred.  However this is not the sole reason why this is a bad idea.

The other reason why this is a bad idea to bring all the groups together is that everyone has their own unique opinion.  As such, any one single black male or group thereof, cannot speak for all black Americans.  Likewise, no single white male, Catholic, or person of Irish, Italian ancestry can speak for me.  Basically no one can speak for each other. 

Conclusion:  So what are we to do to have a discussion?  No matter what, do not put down anyone’s opinion no matter where it comes from.  Unless a person calls for the annihilation of a single group, or that they are less human than another group, they are not racist.  We have to not only start a dialogue, but be able to listen to the hard truths despite our desire to not accept those truths.  Then and only then can we begin to finally talk it out and work past the rising racism and hatred that is rearing its ugly head once more.

Issue 601 Alternate pay for Congress May 29, 2015

Right now, Congressman and Senators get about $175,000 a year in compensation for their service to the country.  But, what if we could pay them in a different way?  What if we could make it easy for them to earn money without them getting money from the taxpayers?  Let us discuss.

Alternate compensation:  In this case, rather than pay Congressmen and Senators we could let them do insider trading.  They can make significant amounts of money from the stock market as is, but this would allow them access to information so that they can guarantee an income via stocks.  Obviously, insider trading would need to be made legal for this to work, but with this we will never have to pay our representatives in government ever again.  

Alternatively, we can force them to have real jobs, such as lawyer, or day laborer, and compensate them for the time lost while serving.  Basically, they would get money equal to what they would have made in their profession in exchange for their services to the country.  Then they would go back to work once the Congressional session is over and they would not receive any more money from the government unless called up again.  Basically, it works the same way as when you are compensated to serve jury duty.  You get money from the government, equal to the pay you would have received while working your regular day job.

How about free perks?  Allowing their income to be supplemented by getting free hotel stays, free food, or other free stuff could also enhance both the aforementioned options.  In this case, the free stuff would have to be restricted as a Saudi Prince promising massive amounts of money to a Senator who is voting on a trade bill between the United States and Saudi Arabia would not be allowed as that is actual bribery.  However, giving them preferential treatment, and other gifts that are less likely to affect a vote, like gift baskets would be fine.  In essence, as long as what is being given is not actual money, but "gifts", it could work out, with "gifts" being monitored to ensure no bribery was committed.

Conclusion: The only thing that would probably sit well with the public is the second pay option of only paying them when they are actually doing work.  However, free gifts that do not affect voting would and could be viable.  And insider trading is only illegal because people think it is unfair that a person(s) gets information about stocks first which could potentially make that person more money than everyone else.  In other words, it is about fairness.  I am a libertarian though.  Fairness in nature is the same as equality, it generally does not exist for people for each have to put in a certain amount of effort to succeed.  That effort unfortunately is almost never equal due to talents, or personal relationships.  Instead, people specialize in their own skills and trade them, because we are not equal, and life is never fair.  We compensate each other and complement each other’s skill sets.  Hence why I do not mind free gifts for people in government so long as it is not actual bribery (though the line is fairly thin).  So what do you think?  Should we keep things as they are, or shake things up a bit.  

Issue 600 Replace the V.A. May 28, 2015

Veteran Affairs (V.A.) may be too big to simply fix.  It may in fact have to be replaced due to its largess.  But what would it look like.  Here is one an idea.

The replacement:  For one, the V.A. could be staffed by returning soldiers rather than traditional pencil pushers.  For instance, doctors who serve in the field will be doctors treating their fellow veterans.  This also helps psychologically as now a veteran who knows the rigors of service can have a doctor empathies and know what they went through.  Likewise, soldiers who know procurement and act as secretaries as well as other non-combat jobs that can translate to health and wellness can directly translate to helping fellow veterans.  Obviously, more specialized doctors may be needed, and thus hired.  However, veterans who continue their medical education can supplant these private doctors to ensure that a soldier is being taken care of by fellow soldier in all aspects of care.  Military family members may also serve in this newer version of the V.A., but must meet specific requirements and be recommended by another member of the armed forces outside of a family member, which vouches for their character and abilities.

Obviously, benefits would be completely reworked and perhaps based on George Washington's original idea for combat benefits for soldiers.  In this case, soldiers wounded in battle would get preferential treatment, and then it is scaled from there.  No more, sleep apnea patients getting more benefits over soldiers who had their limbs blown off.

As for organization, it will be organized in a similar manner to a military unit and its deployment.  The military unit approach would apply combat principles and deployments to doctors and other members of the V.A. to go where they are needed most and then shift them based on need once a job is done.  Essentially, it will be a completely organic organization that has no permanent roots anywhere save in select locations due to costs involved (i.e. rehab centers and their equipment).  But specialists in psychology, doctors of course and those injuries and treatments that do not require expensive equipment or is transportable without losing effectiveness in treatment can go anywhere at any time to help our veterans.  Heck, the V.A. can use the old Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (M.A.S.H) model for when extra support for veterans is needed.  Basically, we want to bring the care to the soldier if possible, and not the other way around.

Conclusion:  This is obviously a working concept, but you get the idea.  Soldiers being the staff mean we have people who know and feel what our soldiers went through.  Re-aligning benefits to fit the types of injuries ensures adequate care.  A mobile organization prevents the need for permanent facilities that would otherwise create possible waste, while bringing care to the patients.  Essentially, it becomes concierge medicine, with small exceptions.  I want our Veterans to be taken care of in the right way.  In a way that ensures comfort and accelerates healing.  To be honest, I would like it to be  donation based like the USO if possible as well, but that may be much harder due to costs (at one point I thought maybe the USO should take over the V.A.'s role).  No matter what though, our soldiers sacrifice a lot, and we need to make sure we give back to them the right way.

Issue 599 The V.A. sucks?! May 27, 2015

Veterans Affairs (V.A.) has been under the microscope lately.  From breaking the law on spending, to ignoring veterans in need, the V.A. has become something of an eyesore.  But apparently there is more issues which I will list here thanks to a sit down between combat veterans which was featured on The Blaze TV network.  Let us begin.

Some issue in the V.A.:  For one, a veteran who murdered another veteran named Chris Kyle (the guy American Sniper is based on) is still receiving full V.A. benefits.  Yes, that is right.  A murderer in jail is receiving V.A. benefits.  It should not matter if the now convicted murderer is a veteran or not.  The fact is that murderers should be denied any and all benefits while they are in jail despite their prior service.  

Aside from the aforementioned outrage (in my opinion), there are other substantive issues.  Marcus Luttrell (the Navy Seal who wrote the book "Lone Survivor" which became a movie) amongst others had to wait four or more hours to make an appointment, to make another appointment to see a doctor.  Now, does that make any sense?  Keep in mind that Luttrell is well connected due to his fame from his book and was able to get special treatment at a certain point, but he in the sit down on the Blaze was visibly flustered in my view that his fellow vets were being treated in such a manner.  The other veterans in the sit down were also annoyed at such treatment of their brothers and sisters in arms and cited other issues with respect to benefits.  These issues included the fact that soldiers who never saw actual combat getting more benefits than those who actually fought in battle.  Another issue was the fact that soldiers with sleep apnea were receiving more benefits than amputees.  I am sure this is positively pathetic, but to add insult to injury they x-ray soldiers with missing limbs to prove that they are amputees despite having gone to the V.A. on multiple occasions to get replacement legs (this according to the sole veteran with an amputated leg within this group of vets).   But, this inefficiency is apparently purposeful as each State under the Federal government and private groups that partner with them get more funding from this bureaucratic mess, thus making money off the veterans suffering.  This is just wrong.

Conclusion: Things need to change dramatically in the V.A.  It is no longer about helping veterans in my opinion, but instead to make a buck off vets coming home from war and their suffering.  I believe a change is necessary, and that change may need to be drastic.

Issue 598 Abortion Spa's!? May 26, 2015

Everything I discuss here is a rumor, but I think it is important enough to write about.  In this case abortion clinics adding spa's to their lineup of services to remove the stigma/negative feelings of an abortion.  Let's discuss.

The rumor:  As stated, there are those in the abortion industry looking to combine a spa and an abortion clinic into one.  They wish to remove any negative connotations that stem from getting an abortion and thus make it out to be a pampering procedure done during or after the woman gets the full spa treatment.  So get your nails done with a message and then sit spread eagle on the table and have the unborn child killed (aborted).  Yea, when I say it this way, it makes it sound like a really bad idea.

Possible reasoning:  It is in my opinion that if these rumors turn out to be true or at the very least looked into by the abortion industry that it was done solely for capitalist/monetary reasons.  While I myself am a capitalist, and in favor of making money, I have qualms (disregarding my dislike of abortion) about turning a legitimate medical procedure into a basic commodity service that potentially could endanger the mother receiving the procedure.  While the idea of a woman being pampered sounds nice and is designed to make the woman feel more comfortable before and after the medical procedure is done, I see no other benefit than making the abortion procedure look more appealing so these abortionist doctors to make a few extra dollars  Hence my opposition.

Conclusion:  I am sorry, as I feel my opinion is fairly biased on this one.  However, this reeks of the ugly side of capitalism where morals are put on the back burner in favor of a quick self-interested buck.  As such, I hope such an idea/rumor is false, and that this concept is not brought back for such a controversial and last resort medical practice.