Issue 651 Gender specific August 7, 2015

Today we are going to talk about some of the impacts of the gay marriage ruling.  In particular, the fact is our laws are not gender neutral and thus not in line with the ruling.  Let us begin.

We are going to be gender neutral:  Sex is now going to be defined by genders.  Why you ask?  Well, the reasoning is because when the Supreme Court passed the ruling changing the definition of marriage, it eliminated the two sole sexes that government uses in laws (man and woman).  Now the government has to operate under the definitions of gay, lesbian and more.  This is in part because there are no gender neutral laws in the federal or even many State governments.  You see it is easy to list man and woman and the roles associated with them like father and mother, but once you include two fathers, or any other unique combination, you face the problem of listing them all so that they can be included in the new definition of marriage and all the laws that benefit people in that arrangement.  From there it has a ripple effect on all the other laws in government and thus laws protecting just men, or just women are no longer adequate as they are not capable of legally protecting gays, lesbians etc.  So all laws must be re-written and even laws that define parents to children come into question.  

Likewise, this impacts the definition of a child for originally a child belonged solely to a father and a mother.  Now the child can have two fathers or two mothers, or even a different gender entirely.  It also opens up issues on sex discrimination.  With gender becoming synonymous with sex, schools and sports teams can't discriminate by having separate teams for men and women as there is now other genders to consider.  Codes of conduct at schools and businesses also are gender specific and are not neutral.  So they will need to be re-written or else they open themselves up to a lawsuit.  Also, this expands hate crimes as well to include people who support traditional marriage.  Already some have lost their job merely because they support traditional marriage and thus are considered hateful because of it.  For instance, a Firefighter lost his job because he was a minister of his church that believed in traditional marriage, and a Navy Chaplain of Seal Team Six lost his when he was asked about sex outside of marriage.  You can see now why the laws need to be changed as it makes people look like haters for expressing their religious beliefs on marriage.  Thankfully in the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Kennedy wrote to protect religious liberty, but this must be acted on for it to actually protect people with religious views or else my mere association with my Catholic Church can cause me to potentially lose my job.  Needless to say that this is a mess.

Conclusion:  There are literally 82 recognized genders by the federal government, and that also includes pedophiles.  Also, there are already some vindictive members of the gay community that are targeting churches to either forcefully make them marry gays or shut them down, and celebrities and radio hosts over their views of marriage to remove them from the spot light.  Thankfully most members of the gay community are not like this, but we have to move fast.  Issues will continue to crop up from this ruling that shakes the foundations of our very legal system and our religious protection rights.  But this is also an opportunity.  While the Supreme Court should have made it no one’s business on who can marry whom and eliminated all marriage benefits as they do not need to exist, it opened the door to other things.  The ruling can be used to justify people carrying guns, and medical marijuana across State borders.  It gives us the opportunity to replace bad laws with good ones, and even just out right remove bad laws altogether.  It will allow us to have a conversation on religious liberty and rights, in addition to free speech.  As such, I can say without a doubt, that while our troubles are far from over due to this ruling, the opportunities and the benefits from it are numerous.

Issue 650 Rand Paul's Tax plan August 6, 2015

So about a week or two ago, Rand Paul, Senator of Kentucky announced his tax plan as he is running for President.  Here are some of the details on it to help you decide if he is worth your vote.

His Tax plan: Rand Paul's tax plan is a flat tax.  As such, he will implement a 14.5% flat tax on everyone (and for families it will still be the same rate but they must be making a combined income of $50,000 a year to qualify for the unified rate).  Business will also have the same rate as individuals, but will be all encompassing (so investments and other forms of income are included) but will maintain the usual deductions. 

This means however, that the payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare will vanish as we as individuals will only pay one tax instead of several as the system is set up now.  However, these will instead be contributed to by a portion of the amount you pay in taxes.  In this instance, before the money reaches the treasury, a percentage of the taxes you just paid will go toward your Social Security account and your Medicare.  So the programs themselves are safe.

According to reports, this will lead to a loss of $1 trillion dollars in revenue for the federal government over ten years, but will be offset by cuts to government and it being streamlined.  This plan also will result in an increase in GDP (gross domestic product) by 10% in the same ten year time frame.  This means that business will expand and more jobs with 1.4 million new jobs estimated to be created as a result of this tax plan.

Conclusion:  And there you have it.  The bare bones tax plan of Rand Paul.  Flat taxes are easier to pay as all you do is calculate the total income you made that year and take 14.5% out to pay the government.  You do not need a single accountant for this math can be done by yourself in at minimum ten minutes.  Business wise, it makes the country very competitive with respect to taxes and thus makes the country an attractive place for foreign businesses to move to.  So overall, simpler taxes, and better business climate make this plan a winner.

Issue 649 Smoking age 21! August 5, 2015

Hawaii has raised the smoking age to 21.  It is the first State to do so in the United States.  But is that new restriction going to do anything?

Age restrictions:  This is a lesser form of prohibition.  An age limit will not solve anything at all in fact.  Just like with alcohol being limited to age 21, it will create a market for young people who want to try it simply because it is being denied to them.  Also, this will not stop young people from smoking as they will ask their parents, their older friends or even strangers to buy it for them.  In essence, this does nothing to stop people from smoking in the same way it does nothing to stop people under a certain age from drinking.  Also, you are limiting the activities of an adult.  18 is the recognized age by which you can vote in the United States and thus the age by law you are considered an adult.  So, what is the point of limiting the age to 21 if the goal is to reduce the number of kids getting their hands on cigarettes?  None is the answer.  You cannot ban cigarettes for you create a black market, and you can't raise taxes on it indefinitely, so you lengthen the amount of time before an individual can buy it on their own.  If anything, they can limit the places where it can be sold such as the same places where they are allowed to sell medical marijuana.  That is right, Hawaii is a "Pot" State, yet they limit cigarettes.  Seems silly doesn't.  

Conclusion:  Sorry Hawaii, this writer, who works in a pharmacy, is the son of a corrections officer, and has a family filled with doctors, nurses and even more police and military personnel and has access to all their knowledge thinks that this will do nothing beneficial for your State.  You are being self-serving if you think that this will save anyone from smoking a cigarette in any way shape or form.  If you really want to protect people from addiction or abuse, then copy Europe and their drug policies that legalize everything and switch the war on drugs to a policy of treating addiction.  Cigarettes are a mere casualty in this silly escapade to protect the health of people, when the only people capable of protecting one's health are the individual people themselves.  I get it, you want to protect people from firsthand and secondhand smoke.  However, I am the son of a smoker, and I have asthma.  And guess what?  The asthma I have does not react to cigarette smoke.  It is a sensitivity to particles that make asthma act up (so if you're not sensitive to that airborne particle, then you are fine).  Also, while I understand the health risks of the possibilities of cancer, it does not mean that that person will get cancer, and we even have a new vaccine in testing that can prevent lung cancer too.  So all the arguments are mute.  Cut the crap and let people smoke whatever they want to smoke.

Issue 648 Forgiveness August 4, 2015

What does it mean to forgive?  The Children who lost their mom to the Charleston Church shooter forgave the murderer the very next day.  How were they able to do that?  Let us discuss.

Its faith:  The children of the slain mom had faith.  Their mother taught them the word of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ.  As such, they have been taught how to forgive and to forgive.  Essentially turning the other cheek.  But the sheer level of faith, and the mental fortitude to even say that they forgive the murderer is something that is perhaps beyond many of us.  For faith alone is not the sole driver of why they could say it, irrespective if they meant it personally or not.  Perhaps it was because that is what their mother expected them to do because of how she raised them.  Or maybe they sought to set an example to others.  I really do not know.  But needless to say, the fact that they can forgive a murderer who killed one of their own family is amazing.

Conclusion:  Faith seems to be the primary driver that allowed these children to forgive the murderer.  But can we who do not have as much faith do the same?  Possibly.  I think it also comes from courage fueled by faith.  However, I am not that forgiving despite my faith.  But this is because my faith was taught to me through my parents who have a strong sense of justice and righteousness.  As such, compassion for a murderer or other criminals is small to say the least.  I know my Dad would be the first one to lynch the murderer too (after the trial of course).  So while I can say I am more forgiving than my dad, I cannot do what these Kids did.  So can you forgive someone who murdered your family?  That is a question to ponder.

Issue 647 Criminals and Infamy August 3, 2015

Are we giving criminals like mass murderers too much credit?  By this I mean, should we show their faces on the television screen so that they become famous for such heinous acts?  Let us discuss.

Let us think:  Criminals are unique.  They prey upon others for some sort of personal gain.  But some do it for something more than personal gain. They want to become a legend.  For instance, the South Carolina Charleston Church shooter left a person alive so that they could tell others what happened before he attempted suicide.  It does not matter that his gun was illegal, that his motivations were race based as he was anti-black, and that he was a druggie.  He wanted to be famous.  This monster wanted to live on in the news media.  But he was arrested, and he lives to stand trial.  But that still makes him famous as people want to know why.  The news covered his background, his history and his ideology.  He was everywhere.  And you know what, he is not the only famous murderer/criminal.  The Barefoot bandit never killed anyone, but his escapes were to say the least very impressive.  Former mob members had movies made of their lives, and even con artists did too.  Silly isn't it.  A criminal can be more successful by doing something outrageous like murder, than they would at regular everyday life.

Conclusion:  So what should we do?  Simple, all trials and those involved should be secrete as much as possible.  Or at the very least, the perpetrator should only become known if they are looking for them in a man hunt, or once captured as soon as the trial is over.  In between, there is no reason to see the face of the suspect, know their name, or anything.  Let the story of the event calm down and then perhaps let the information out.  We do not want these fiends famous for dastardly deeds, but save secrecy, I do not have a solution.

Issue 646 Children and Reverence/respect July 31, 2015

There is a core set relationship rules that children need when growing up.  This core set means teaching respect and reverence when and where it is needed.  So what do these terms mean, and in what capacity are they to be applied.

Reverence/Respect:  Respect is to hold someone with esteem, or high regard.  Reverence is a little deeper than typical respect, and can be a form of admiration.  Basically, it is when a person looks at another person and values them for their talents, abilities, or position.  But children must be able to do this.  Children who do not (in my opinion) will value themselves less, or mistreat themselves or others.  It is up to Parents and in some capacity schools to teach Respect and Reverence.  But who for exactly.  The categories are simple.  First and foremost, children must respect their parents.  As such, they should be made to help out with daily tasks their parents generally do for them to build up a level of respect for something they take for granted.  Then scale it up from there.  The next category is respect and reverence for others.  Recognizing others for their work, hardships and empathy with their situations aids in this.  Teaching children about the more fortunate and less fortunate and that peoples will power, decision making, talents, ability and life's circumstances can either make them rich, poor or in between.  That they are to a major extent in charge of what their future will be.  Next will be Authority.  People have hierarchies and people in charge require a certain level of respect even if one believes they may or may not deserve it.  This is teachable starting with parents being above the child, and bosses in a business being above employees.  Essentially teaching them hierarchies, and interpersonal relationships.  And finally, the most important is respect for the self.  They must be able to see themselves.  In this, they must realize that they have their own talents that can be refined and improved.  That their accomplishments are a result of their hard work.  Self-Respect must be taught at the same time as the others as the different forms of how respect is shown or perceived allow for the child to see all aspects of themselves and others.  All the while this can also be used to aid children in evaluating their worth as a respectable human being and drive them as they continue to learn and build upon the lessons of respect, so that they can enhance themselves.  So they can be able to improve themselves as human beings and decide who is worthy of a greater or lesser forms of respect and reverence.

Conclusion:  Respect and its higher form, reverence, need to be taught to preserve and protect appropriate relationships.  It insures that we treat the elderly with care, and that we do not diss our boss.  The earlier these are taught the better in order to enhance and nurture children to become adults who themselves will be worthy of respect.

Issue 645 Baptizing Pleasure July 30, 2015

I was watching an interview with Alice Von Hildebrand of the Hildebrand Project and she said something interesting.  That we must baptize pleasure.  Here is the explanation of why that I found this particularly interesting.

Baptizing Pleasure:  Hildebrand described pleasure as something that we share with animals.  It is something primal in that sense.  But she said we can separate it from animal pleasure.  We can separate it in such a way that we can detach it from our animistic urges.  To do so, we must baptize pleasure as a gift.  What Hildebrand meant by this was that we should be thankful when it is given to us from someone else.  That we should seek to give more than we receive, to the extent that we would be seeking solely to give it to others rather than seeking it for ourselves.

Thus, why I found it so interesting.  The idea that pleasure is animalistic, but that it can be converted into something higher.  Maybe even holy with respect to how she described it as being baptized.  The idea that we should seek to pleasure others over ourselves is obviously selfless, but I do not think she meant it to solely relate to sexual relations.  I think she meant pleasure in the broadest sense, from companionship, friendship, love, faith, and beyond, but still including bodily contact.  Obviously, this does not mean finding a random person to please, but to make sure that it is more than you or me being selfish.  It is about giving of yourself over receiving.

Conclusion:  Some of you may be having "dirty" thoughts, but Hildebrand being a religious theologian, does not talk from a "dirty" perspective, but a biblical one.  That, if we stopped being selfish with respect to seeking to please ourselves, and thought about others, that we may have a less selfish society. Well, these are my thoughts, and I hope you found them useful.