Issue 658 CUBA U.S. relations August 18, 2015

So, the United States and Cuba have finally opened up relations.  Obviously this is a step in the right direction with respect to achieving a state of normalcy between the two neighboring countries.  But what is bad about this and what is good about this?  Let us discuss.

The Bad and the Good:  Well for one, by opening up relations with Cuba which has trained terrorists including the PLO, we essentially endorse their past behavior.  Also, political prisoners are still going to be imprisoned due to their speaking out against the regime.  However, exposure to the United States businesses, and citizens who may now go into Cuba can result in a change in the way of thinking for the Cuban government due to the United States becoming a trading partner.  This also puts the U.S. in a better position to get those political prisoners freed via economic and even political pressure due to the new state of affairs.  Additionally, while Cuba was essentially isolated from most countries that sided with the United States during the cold war, that did not stop them from doing medical, and environmental research.  As such, Cuba has unveiled a cure for lung cancer which may be used as the basis for a vaccine against a multitude of cancers.  Environmentally, Cuba's laws are much stricter and this has resulted in pristine environments for scientists to do research into earth's ocean life.  

Cuba benefits also because American businesses can now potentially set up shop there which boosts their economy.  Also, Cuba will now benefit from American tourists who wish to see the classic cars and old style buildings that have not changed due to communist rule and its restrictions on economic progress (not to mention the beaches and other touristy spots that Caribbean islands have to offer).   This also means that the United States benefits from Cubans coming to the United States as well.  Many families that have not seen each other in years finally met.  People who could not leave Cuba in general can now leave and say whatever they want politically on its government without fear of arrest.  Businesses in America benefit from the cheap labor in Cuba to make goods and the new customers.  Overall, very good situation all around.

Conclusion:  Cuba and the United States is probably the most significant positive thing to happen in the Obama administration.  This positive turn benefits both parties’ people and economies which was needed on both sides for economic growth and prosperity.  As such, despite the human rights issues and Cuba's past with respect to being a terrorist training ground, this turn can allow Cuba to eliminate that from its current resume and use the new relations with the U.S. as a rebirth if Raul Castro, Cuba's current dictator/president, allows for it.

Issue 657 Don't Tax Schools! August 17, 2015

So Public schools, charter schools and certain religious schools are not taxed at all for obvious reasons.  But what about private schools?  Why are they taxed which creates an uneven playing field?  Let us answer this question.

Why some schools are taxed and others are not:  Well, let us start with the non-taxed group.  Religious nonprofit schools are obvious due to them being associated with a Church or other religious institution.  Public is also obvious because they are a government institution.  Charters are not taxed because they are a version of public schools that are run differently and as such are funded by the government.  That leaves private schools.  There are private schools that are not taxed, but that is only when they become a non-profit.  As such, both for profit private and religious schools are taxed like any regular business.  But this is education we are talking about.  This practice means that nonprofits and government funded schools have an advantage over the for profit schools.  So, this unfair competition leads to private schools being forced to charge more for their services just so they can stay in business.  Unfair advantages issued by government are bad in a capitalist society for it inherently creates winners and losers artificially.  This also means good schools shut down, or less students being able to afford to go due to the schools having to charge more so they can pay their taxes.  This unequal treatment needs to end.

Conclusion:  Education is just that, education. It does not matter where it comes from, or who teaches it so long as the quality is good.  Can you imagine how many more schools could open or how affordable they would be if more for profits were not taxed like most other schools?  The idea of making money off of educating kids is not a bad thing as we do that when people in localities pay taxes directly to the schools (which is fishy unto itself).  So it should not matter if something is for profit or not, for what really matters is that the kids get the best education possible.

Issue 656 It they can't, You can't August 14, 2015

So, Bakers cannot deny a gay couple a wedding cake.  Even though this violates the bakers’ rights, it is forced upon them irrespective of what they believe.  But, what people do not realize is that this opens a very interesting door with respect to discrimination irrespective if it is good or bad.  Allow me to explain.

What this means:  By forcing the baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding legally, it set a legal precedent.  That president works both ways.  So if a gay baker wants to refuse to make a cake for a straight couple, they can't.  The system works both ways and in this case it bans all discrimination.  Thus it can be applied to other groups now as well.  As such, a Jewish shop owner cannot deny a Neo-Nazi as a customer.  Nor can a black business owner deny a KKK member.  Also gay clubs, men’s only clubs, and similar cannot exist for it leaves out everyone else.  So the men's only clubs have to let women in as customers and the gay club has to let straight individuals in or else they are in violation of this court precedent that bans discrimination.  Basically, if the baker with a religious objection (the one with the strongest argument based on religious beliefs via the 1st Amendment) cannot deny a gay couple a wedding cake, then no group can deny anyone with respect to association.

Conclusion:  Isn't law fun?  Of course it is, for now everyone who limits membership to specific religious groups, sexes, ethnicities, genders and the like are subject to a lawsuit that they will very well likely lose by using the case of the baker versus the gay couple amongst its other associated cases.  Sure, it takes away our rights, but if they cannot choose whom they can associate with (and the method thereof), then no one can.  Of course, we need someone to bring legal action first to begin applying this everywhere else first, but it is only a matter of time before some vindictive character shows up to do just that.

Issue 655 Debtors Prisons August 13, 2015

A debtor’s prison was a prison for those who could not or would not pay back their debts.  This concept could be revived if done correctly so that people could pay off their debts if they were negligent, or have no normal ways to pay.  Let us discuss.

Debtor prison revived:  The original debtors prisons was where people who could not pay their debts were sent. In that prison they would work various jobs so that they could pay off their debt and a portion of that to go toward paying for their incarceration.  They kept zero money in this instance.  The concept was later abandoned because of harsh conditions, and abuses.  However, with prisoners today getting better treatment in the United States than anywhere else in the world (arguably), we could remove the non-violent members of the prison community so that they can pay back their debt to society.

So reviving it in the modern era would mean the people that go to this "prison" are people who are negligent in paying back taxes, not paying their fines or tickets, and even people not paying their child support.  Likewise, it can be applied to thieves as well, where laws could be changed where they are made to work to pay back what they stole if the items or the money are not recoverable.  Of course this would also include outstanding debts as well as a means for people to work off their debt more quickly.  The only time these people would not be sent to the prison is if the debt was below $100 (makes sense as that is payable) or other set amount that can be readily paid back.   

The work that could be done by these prisoners would be cooking for their fellow prisoners, doing their fellow prisoners laundry, cleaning the jail, tending a greenhouse where they grow as much of their own food as possible and grounds keeping.  Additionally, they can be used to make uniforms and clothing for government personnel, make license plates, and even help file government documents or do research for the government using the prisons library.  Other prisoners can be driven to factories nearby or local stores to provide free labor or clean parks and schools for the government.  They can also be used for focus groups as debtors come from all aspects of society as well.  In all these cases money is collected from those who wish to use this labor or the State identifying a competitive wage based on the value of their work which again is used to pay for all expenses in the prison and to pay off their debts.  Once they reach a payable amount they are released.  Also, nothing says that funds cannot be established to take private donations to help people with the largest debts get out faster, even donating toward particular individuals if they want.  Additionally, classes on financial management (free online courses so that their debt does not increase), and other courses relating to managing money will be available to them as well, so that they do not end up back in debtors prison.

Conclusion:  The idea of a modern debtor’s prison is fanciful.  Though this concept should allow people to voluntarily enter the "prison" to aid in paying their debts too.  As such, it should not look like a prison. They would also learn skills that would aid them in other jobs via free online courses and the work that they do in the prison.  Also, the idea that prisoners who are thieves, and people negligent on their taxes, tickets, fines and child support, is not exactly new, being sent to prison together is not new, but they do not pay their debts or for their incarceration while there.  This has them do that though.  The prisoners could apply for jobs for free via the prison computers and because they do not have the stigma of a typical prison, they are likely to get hired or maybe even out of pity.  Though for that to work, inmates would be segregated.  As such, thieves would be in one section and people who are paying back money in another.  The people who are paying back money however would be separated still into those who want to pay their debts but did not have the means, and the other group who just outright refuses to pay back what they owe.  Of course all this would be revealed to any potential employer.  As I said, it is a concept and the old stigma is still strong.  But the question is; is this a good idea?  You decide.

Issue 654 Image and the Media August 12, 2015

Have you noticed that the fashion industry is not the only ones who favor "good looking" people?  Think about it.  How often do you see ugly people on TV in general?  Let us discuss.

Where are the Ugly people?:  Next time you watch the news or a television show, look at the people in that show.  Now count the number of people who look bad.  For instance, Fox News hires a lot of former Miss America's and its runner ups.  All the women there are, well, really good looking.  Same with CNN and most of MSNBC.  There are very few non-skinny women, or ugly looking men for that matter.  The only time they have people who can be deemed unattractive on the payroll is if they are people with pull like Al Sharpton on MSNBC (yea, he is not "attractive" and maybe he never really was) or they fit some sort of stereotype.  Same with television.  All the actors are good looking or attractive in some way.  The only time we get a person who goes against this is for a stereotype yet again, like a nerd, or a hobo, and the like.  Do you see what I am getting at?  The fashion industry is the mere tip of the iceberg with respect to not being representative of the population and can potentially have a negative psychological impact on people to look and perhaps act a certain way so that they can feel attractive.  So the fashion industry is not alone at being at fault.  Thankfully we have the Dove brand that looks to get real people (or as close to reality as possible) into their commercials which serves to allow people viewing their commercials to relate to the people in them and thus perhaps become more likely to buy their products.  However, the fact that there are hardly any people who look bad in news and television also means that ordinary people and ugly people with talent are being shafted as well.  

Conclusion:  I write this issue because it was pointed out to me.  And once it was I was like "wow, you're right". This beautiful person favoritism can be contributing to our culture favoring the physically beautiful who make up a small percentage of society, and thus skewing our view of what a real human being looks like.  Additionally, people who are talented, but do not fit this supermodel archetype are ignored unless they are so compelling that they are snapped up due to personality (Glenn Beck? or Chris Farley?).  You get the idea.  So is this a problem? Perhaps.  Should it be corrected?  We will have to see how it plays out and see if anyone is willing to look into it a little deeper.

Issue 653 Private Hostage Rescue August 11, 2015

So, can hostage rescue be privatized?  That is the question.  Let us discuss.

Private Hero’s:  There are many former special ops, and even police who want to do good in the world.  As such, many typically either retire quietly or find new jobs or attempt to get back into the action via the intelligence services, support roles for returning military, or joining a mercenary outfit.  But their skills are wasted and sometimes police move too slowly.  So can these men and women who are no longer in uniform be allowed to use their training to rescue people in hostage situations?  Should we be able to pay them to rescue a family member, or a child from a sex slave trafficker?  Well, so long as they are licensed it is feasible.  I mean, they allow for mercenaries, and these people are professionals who are still able to serve and protect.  As far as I know, they would need to be tested to see their capabilities, get a background check, and test for psychological issues to determine if they are fit to serve as a hostage rescue member.  As such, once tested a team can be put together to save hostages.  I don't just mean in the United States either, but globally.  In Africa, Pirates have a number hostages, but countries cannot move in on short notice, or there are issues just crossing a boarder.  These former soldiers can move in silently, or move with plausible deniability to get those hostages back.  I think it is a concept that could work if governments would allow for it to happen.

Conclusion:  As I said, they would need to be tested first to see if they are even capable of performing hostage rescue in the first place.  The standards will have to be very strict, and they would need to demonstrate that they are capable of extracting the hostage safely with said training and equipment.  So they would need access to military and police training facilities or one of their own that the military or police would wish to train in themselves for them to prove themselves and show their skills.  This would mean mercenary outfits who perform body guard and escort duty would be allowed an additional role (though only personnel who qualify).  Obviously this is not for the faint of heart, and the inherent risks are high, but I would rather more people capable of rescuing people in dire straits than less.

Issue 652 Not the Government's Business August 10, 2015

Is it the government's business to know who we love? Is it their business to know what we eat?  I say no.  Here is my list of things the government should stay out of.

Get out of my Business "G"-man:  My list:

1) Education:  What a child learns is up to the parents.  Sure they can send their kids to school, but that is their decision, in the same way it is their decision to homeschool their child or give them a religious education.  As such, any form of education is allowable including religious.  So long as the kids grow up healthy, and are able to fend for themselves, there is no reason for the government to be involved.

2) The Bedroom: For years the government has poked its nose into people's business in the confines of the home to strike at gays, and other people for their "sexual practices" or fetishes.  But that has got nothing to do with the government if the adults involved are consenting.  

3) Marriage:  Love is not something a government bureaucrats can license.  As such, you do not need a marriage license to be married in the first place.  So cut the crap and stay out of people’s love life government.

4) Medicine:  With Obama Care, all of our medical data is capable of being looked at.  They decide what is covered and what is not when government is involved.  And the insurance companies use that to their advantage.  We are blocked from buying health care across State lines, and even across country borders.  Where is our freedom to buy into the health services we want, and get the medicine covered that we need?  That’s right, the government is blocking the way, so they again need to butt out.

5) Food: So it is now some dummies job in government to protect us from too much salt in our diet.  It’s their "job" to tell us not to drink sugary drinks?  I can understand if you are on welfare for that is not your money but the governments, but telling everyone else they can't have a soda of a certain size, or add a little extra salt.  Give me a break.  We should be able to eat whatever we want, so butt out government.

6) Drugs:  Umm, the drug war?  Yea, we lost.  It eats up money and makes people into criminals. On top of that, some of those drugs if researched can lead to cures and drugs with less side effects.  Also, let us not forget prescription drugs.  If you do not have a prescription, you cannot get (potentially) the medicine that you need.  So we should be able to buy any Rx that we want as well, but government does not want that for some reason.  They do not want you asking the pharmacist if they can use other medicines without permission.  They do not want doctors to prescribe what they don't want you taking thanks to the FDA and their rules and regs on how long drugs can be on the market, and which ones can be sold.  But last I checked, it is our health in jeopardy.  Our wallets that pay.  It is our decision on what to do with our bodies, so government, get out of my darn way.

Conclusion:  As you can tell, the government interferes a lot.  Sure some of these you may disagree with, but unless you are hurting someone else, is it our business to worry about others?  The answer is no, whether we like it or not.  But it is something we must live with.  So at the very least, on the ones we agree on, let's kick the government to the curb.