Issue 618 Privacy Versus Surveillance June 23, 2015

Surveillance technology is growing by leaps and bounds, but technology to keep our privacy is growing with equal measure.  Is there a balance to be had?

Spy versus Privacy:  As you already know, many private companies collect data on people, but the government (including the United States government) ignores their own rules with the hope to eavesdrop on terrorists.  As such, people are pushing back, with companies offering encryption technology and other methods to hide your private conversations, and moments.  While it is great that we are regaining privacy, it makes it exceptionally hard to listen in on terrorists as they will be using the same technology.  So what is there to do?  Is there a method to balance our privacy with the need for the government to protect us from harm?

Yup, but you will not like it:  There is a way, but you will dislike it I believe.  Aside from the government fixing its own system to follow the law and not collect our information, we would need the encryption and software companies to spy on us for the government.  In other words, Google will have a team dedicated to looking for keywords that the government provides them so as to look for terrorists, with the Google team deciding if each conversation, picture, or other piece of information meets the criteria for being passed along to government officials. In short, companies already collect and sometimes sell our data, so it will not be hard for them to look at said data to see if there is any red flags such as bomb making materials being bought, coded messages being sent (this so long as the government is willing to provide companies with information to find these), and other illegal activities.  Obviously, these special teams will need some sort of training as they would have the final say on if a piece of information goes to the government, save a court order saying they have to.  It is very reminiscent of the days when AT&T had a government office in their building monitoring all communications, but this time the government is becoming the equivalent of a tip line, with people spying on each other.

Conclusion:  This is the only foreseeable method I can see for this conflict to end between the government trying to protect us by spying on us, and for us to maintain privacy.  In short, we need watch dogs in the form of Facebook, Google, and others to be the first line of defense for now on.  Yes it is very 1984ish, but if codes of conduct and laws are followed, it should prevent it from becoming a corrupt deal for safety and security.

Issue 617 Conspiracy Theory Origins June 22, 2015

Conspiracy theories are just that, theories.  They are hypothetical ideas of what happened during an event.  But why do we have these theories?  Especially as these theories generally fly in the face of what actually occurred.  Let us discuss.

It’s about psychology:  Conspiracy theories developed because of people thinking that there is no way something so big can happen from something so simple.  Look at 9/11.  People doubted that the World Trade Center could have collapsed the way it did because of how similar it was to how we demolish buildings with explosives.  As such, radical ideas of our own government causing the horrible incident came about with people not believing that some terrorist organization could accomplish something of that scale.  

Let us look at it another way.  Can you have James Bond go against a small time villain?  No, you need Dr. No, and other supervillains.  People apparently want equivalency in the storytelling which results in these theories that do not have evidence to back them up.  We want the good guys to take down bad guys of equal stature.  As such the psychology of equivalency generates these fanciful, and foolish theories.

Conclusion:  People like to tell stories.  For most of the history of mankind, history was not recounted with the written word but verbal storytelling.  As such, it is ingrained in our very culture to tell stories which may be embellished from time to time to provide a source of entertainment to ourselves and others.  Conspiracy theories are the same thing, just using our desires to keep the story interesting and entertaining when the truth is so dismal, or sad.

Issue 616 Don't Convert Each Other June 19, 2015

People have a wall that separates them.  That wall is beliefs, ideas, ideology, and more.  In short, it is personal beliefs and the desire to form a uniform belief with the other person.  But people don't believe the same way.  They have their own ideas and feelings on an issue. As such, atheists and religious people, and people with differing ideologies have a hard time getting along.  What can we do to relieve the tension and the strife?

Scratch the Scab:  Scratch the scab means disagree with the other person to your heart’s content.  Even say that you think the other person is wrong.  But discuss it in a pure manner and discuss why you all disagree.  But do not have any ulterior motives such as trying to convert the other person to your way of thinking.  In fact, seek to learn why your companion with an opposing view sees something different from you.  Why they are an atheist and you are not or why they think Democrats are better than Republicans.  Likewise they should want to learn from you.  As such, accept they are different, poke fun at one another's beliefs, and most importantly, do not dodge each other’s beliefs.  If your beliefs, or ideas have merit, then and only then will the other person who accepts that you are different accepts those ideas and integrate (NOT CONVERT) into their own.

Conclusion:  I have been putting this into practice only recently as I could not fathom it until it was pointed out that I sometimes was, well, a jerk sometimes when having a discussion.  I let go of the frustration of why I felt alone sometimes in my beliefs and embraced my desire to understand and acquire knowledge in full.  So now I will at times come off as a know it all, but that's ok, as it is being less of a jerk, and it is something more manageable than being an ass trying to force my beliefs on others.  So try it out and see how much you can change just by letting go of your preconceived notions just to learn more about people and advance your knowledge and thus your own beliefs as well.

Issue 615 The Orange Ribbon June 18, 2015

I was listening to the Glenn Beck Radio program when he took a call from a woman named Nancy of South Carolina.  She had an idea.  Let us discuss.

The idea:  Nancy had heard Glenn talking about the current massacres over in Syria, and other parts of the Middle East by ISIS/ISIL.  She said she felt like she could do nothing about this and wanted to at least try to bring awareness to not just the persecuted Jews, but the Christians and others throughout the world.  As such, she proposed an Orange Ribbon to represent all the persecuted people throughout the world and the biblical figure Daniel who was persecuted, but saved through prayer.  I personally believe that that this is a great idea.  A visual representation of people who wish to stop persecution that can be used to show solidarity.

Conclusion:  This is a great idea.  Though people may not like the fact that it represents in part a Biblical figure.  However, Beck seems to have evolved this idea into his recent "Never Again is Now" campaign to raise awareness of persecution, and to have the American people remember that racial discrimination, violence against others here in the States, and then abroad should never happen again. So let us show our support for the victims and to speak for those who fear to speak.

#NeverAgainisNow

Issue 614 Not about the Resume June 17, 2015

Presidents have come and gone.  But great Presidents or bad Presidents are not defined by their past job experience.  Here are examples.

Don't focus on the Resume:  Let us compare some Presidents.   President Grant was an amazing general in the Civil war, but he failed as a President because people were not able to rally behind him.  He could not negotiate politically with both friend and foes in government.  As such, power shifted to the Congress when it came to political authority.  Additionally, Grant suffered from depression and his drinking undermined his leadership ability.

President Carter is considered one of the worst Presidents in United States history.  He failed at rescuing the American Hostages in Iran, he made poor economic choices that left the country in a recession and overall was as ineffective as President Grant.  However, his pre-Presidential experience is impressive.  He was a scientist, a farmer, and a graduate of the United States Naval academy.

President Obama, our current President has none of President Carter's pre-President experience.  President Obama was a community organizer which served him well in his election campaigns, but he for a reason I cannot fathom, apply it to working with the other members of government.  Also, he and Carter are using the exact same foreign policy scheme which resulted in disaster for President Carter.  For those who do not know, Carter and Obama's foreign policy revolves around giving gifts and concessions to other countries to appeal to neutral and enemy nations so that they see the United States as not a threat.  Also, the policy revolves around the United States depreciating itself and reducing its power in the hopes that other countries will fill the power vacuum and create a world where nations are a little more equal (this of course is naive because once power is taken, it is never returned without cost).

Conclusion: What does this all mean?  As you can see, each of these Presidents have very different backgrounds and skill sets.  However, this means nothing in respect to leadership qualities. And their application of those qualities.  As such, with the potential candidates warming up for the upcoming Presidential election, we must look less at past experiences and more at their ability to work with others, and their ability to apply their leadership skills.

Issue 613 Crocodile Policy June 16, 2015

A Crocodile Policy is a policy of appeasement.  A way to avoid war.  Why is it called a crocodile policy and what wars we are avoiding though?  Let us discuss.

What is a Crocodile Policy:  Its name comes from the idea that we are feeding the crocodile with the expectation that they will eat us last.  In a real world example, Neville Chamberlain in his appeasement of Nazi Germany so as to avoid war would be called a form of crocodile policy.  Ways this policy form is used is by ignoring actions of another government, placating the hostile government by giving them greater concessions and gifts in trade deals.  It may even constitute speaking in favor, or defending the hostile government’s actions or their excuses for their actions.  Basically any action taken that ignores, placates or supports a hostile nations actions to protect your own from war or hostilities as long as possible at the expense of the peace of the nations or peoples around you.

Modern Examples:  One example could be the United States and Russia.  When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States just yelled, and moved troops around.  However, Russia saw this as toothless as President Obama does not want to be responsible for bring the United States into yet another war, especially one where nuclear weapons may potentially come into play.  

Another example is Iran.  Iran wants to continue its nuclear program, but that program could spiral into a nuclear weapons program (which to an extent it already is).  But President Obama and other world policy makers are looking the other way or making deals with a potentially lethal foe.  Remember, the power in Iran is centered on its religious rulers, not its President whom the United States is dealing with.  As such, any deals made without the consent of the Mullahs (who want non-Muslims dead) will result in nothing but a one sided deal.

Conclusion:  So this is a crocodile policy.  A policy of appeasement, placation, and inaction.  Basically, the policy type that gave us World War II.

Issue 612 To advance disease research June 15, 2015

Disease research is being stifled by government to an extent.  Because of this, cures we may have gotten are not able to be accessed.  Here is what can be done to correct this problem.

Solutions:  

1) Combining research: Both animal and human diseases are studied separately.  However, animal diseases can mutate to affect not just people but a single mutation can make it affect multiple species.  Therefore cures for animal diseases can potentially cure people, and vice versa.  So by combining the research we can make gains in fighting cancer, the flu, and similar health problems we all face.

2) Unlimited volunteer testing:  Human testing is very restrictive in the United States and thus cures take longer to come to market.  However, this can be resolved by the government allowing for terminally ill people to volunteer to take untested medications.   The reason why this is restricted is due to the government wanting to protect people, however some people are willing to take a risk to cure a deadly disease like Pancreatic Cancer as they know they are dying and want at least a shot at curing themselves.

3) Allow testing on Illegal drugs: This final one is the most likely to come to pass.  Marijuana is being experimented with on the State level in the United States to aid in combating seizures, cancers and more.  However, the Federal government frowns on this due to it being illegal at the Federal level.  But if all illegal substances could be used as part of medical research, then potentially we can open up the market for cures, treatments and therapies that did not exist before.  As such, Cocaine, meth, and others should be explored in the same way they once did on chemical weapons like mustard gas to cure cancers.  

Conclusion:  At the moment, these are the three ways to advance disease research.  Humans and animals studied together, let people who are dying/terminally ill risk their lives for a cure, and let colleges, laboratories and the like test illegal drugs and chemicals to see if a poison can be turned into a viable treatment.  We can do so much more if we just get rid of some restrictions and rules in the healthcare system.  It is time to free up the system.