Issue 607 Gift shops in Churches June 8, 2015

So, I was in a Church in the city for my young cousins christening and I noticed that in the back of the Church was a gift shop.  I was very, to say the least displeased.  So allow me to discuss with you all why Churches should not have gift shops.

Why they should not have gift shops:  My reasoning is as follows.  It to me is like monetizing faith.  You are playing to a certain degree on naive members of the faith based community to buy goods distributed by the church.  But this is like buying salvation from the olden times such as Europe's Renaissance period.  We generally realize that faith, or salvation cannot be bought, but it disturbed me that even during the service, there were people going into the gift shop to buy stuff.  It just seemed very, very wrong to me.  Needless to say I held my tongue for it was a special event for family, but I am expressing my opinion now since the celebration is over.  I feel that no matter how great the economic need, a church should not have a gift shop in its back area.  Additionally, it should not be selling goods during a mass.  To me, this is just irreverent.

Conclusion:  Yes, I know that churches are losing parishioners, and that they need the revenue to stay open.  But could they at least put it in the church's basement and sell goods there.  My home church has always kept the shops either in the basement or in the parking lot, but they were ready to sell once mass ended, not during.  Maybe, the church is drifting away from faith, or maybe they are simply just that desperate. Whatever their reason, unless it is a special occasion with family, I will not attend mass in a church that feels it is ok to sell trinkets during a mass or that has a gift shop in the back.

Issue 606 Non-violent Radical Militant June 5, 2015

Have you heard of a Non-violent Radical Militant?  I did not until I heard Glenn Beck talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Here is what I learned.

Non-violent Radical Militant:   It was the basis of Dr. King's marches.  In other words his organization style to bring people together to correct societal wrongs.  Basically, it would use an organization style similar to what a militant would use.  It would be radical, but for Dr. King, this would mean placing people, values, love of our fellow man, Justice and Freedom all first and foremost.  And finally and most importantly, be non-violent.  These together formed the basis behind the marches themselves.  But how is this applicable today?

Applying King's organization:  In this case it would be based around organizing to fix societal wrongs like Dr. King and his followers did in the civil rights movement.  For instance, say a man is arrested by police for child neglect, but that man brings his kid to the park every day, ensures the child is fed, and basically, the child is healthy.  There is obviously something wrong with that law, because there is nothing wrong mentally or physically with the child.  As such, people would organize into non-violent militias, to march and place pressure on lawmakers to change that law so that an innocent man never goes to jail like that again.  Basically, we must move when change is needed.  We do not stand aside if something is wrong or needs to change.  This is how we apply it to our everyday.

Conclusion:  There is many things that need to be changed.  Laws that punish the innocent, laws that make good people into criminals, laws that make governments tyrannical, laws that solidify power in the few, all these are things that must be changed.  Yes, change is slow, and it will be difficult, but it must be done.  We can do it if we follow Dr. King's methods.  So now we just need a coalition of the willing to push forward with the changes that are needed.

Issue 605 Legalize Drugs: stop the raids June 4, 2015

There are 80,000 raids approximately per year by law enforcement.  Somewhere around 40,000 are done by federal law enforcement last year.  Much of these raids are conducted to go after drug paraphernalia.  But are we wasting our money?  And are the non-economic costs even greater?  Let us discuss.

The heart break:  The cases where raids are botched are rising.  Numerous stories can be told of where the wrong house has been raided.  In fact the house of a Mayor was raided when it was supposed to be his neighbors.  The Mayor was quoted saying that if he attempted to go for his gun to defend himself, he would be dead.   There was another incident where a husband thought the raiders were burglars and held his gun with the safety on in an attempt to intimidate the intruders while he had his wife hiding in the closet.  In this case, the man was shot 72 times by police.  Another time, a girl was shot while she was sleeping on the couch, and meanwhile the police held the farther on the ground as he cried out asking why they had shot his daughter.  It was apparently the wrong apartment being raided.  Additionally, in a different incident, parents asked the police not to go into a room where their sleeping baby slept, but the police instead threw a flash bang grenade into the room which in turn burned the baby severely.  As you can see, these incidents are not isolated.  These raids continue yearly with little to no drugs actually seized.  

What can be done:  Many libertarians are starting to think that even if we cannot legalize all drugs (or at least the least harmful), that drug laws and similar should be handled by the State governments.  In short, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), along with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) should be abolished in favor of each State making their own separate and distinct laws regarding food and drugs.  While it may sound chaotic, it will eliminate the federal government from a function it was not Constitutionally allowed to do, and it means States like California, Colorado and similar will not have to worry about the feds coming in and arresting their citizens for something that is legally allowed in their States.

Conclusion:  While I respect police and what they do to protect us, it is not the police who dictate law.  Instead it is the law makers who have the police enforce and perform such acts.  Essentially, the police are scapegoats, and victims in this drug war as well.  So the only solution I feel is right is to end the drug war once and for all.

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.