State of the Union Reaction

Last night I watched the State of the Union, President Obama's final address to Congress and the nation (at least as far as we know).  Let us break down what Obama wanted to say and do.  

What the President called for was to cure cancer appointing Vice President Biden to the head of that effort.  This is something nice, even if I as a libertarian think the private sector should be the mover and shaker in this effort.  I can't really get made at wanting to cure cancer.   Likewise President Obama wants to put us on track to defeat HIV/Aids and the eradication of Malaria.  On the side, President Obama said it should be the U.S. leading the way on these and also on Energy reform which I agree with (go patriotism).  He also mentioned that Oil and Gas prices should reflect the cost of their impact on society (climate change), thus this may be lingo for cap and trade which I do not agree with.

President Obama wants to make it easier to vote and to make the nation less partisan.  As such he asked for bipartisan committees to be made to draw up congressional districts.  This is currently being done in a couple of States including California as it is realized that the redistricting process can increase the political divide.  Likewise President Obama will be doing a speaking tour to encourage States to alter their rules to increase access and modernize our voting system.  This effort is basically going to be a speaking tour as States handle these issues. (While talking about this issue, President Obama was humble and sincere).

He also talked about modernizing welfare.  In this case he wants unemployment to include job training, to have wage insurance so that even between jobs people can pay their bills, and even if going from job to job to be able to save for retirement.  The President also wishes to "strengthen" Social Security and Medicare.  How all this will be done is not defined.  

Additionally President Obama wants Pre-K to be instituted throughout the country as a means of giving children a head start on their education (also it allows parents to go to work while the kids are away as well).  Obama wants hands on computer science and math classes as well for computers are an integral to the future of business.  Finally with regard to education, Obama wants the two years of community college to be free.

Obama also talked foreign policy.  He said in many words that his methods to fighting ISIS/ISIL were correct and that it was the best way to avoid a quagmire.  Likewise he says that the coalition he formed is working to fight ISIS/ISIL.  Whether you believe him on this or not is up to you especially with nearly a quarter of a million people dead and many more displaced.  Obama also said that ISIS/ISIL are killers and fanatics, but not Muslim (at least not the Muslim he knows) and said that if Congress wants him to do different and send troops then they should vote to declare war.

Finally, President Obama wants to aid the economy by cutting regulations, and ease rules for startups.  He also said that good corporations with good business practices should be rewarded and thus their stock holders in those good companies would be rewarded as well.  What this means exactly is not clear, and it could mean anything from tax breaks to economic rewards and contracts.

Final thought:  The rest of the speech was the President saying how successful he was.  Though by rest I mean maybe 20 out of the 70 or so minutes he spoke.  Overall he said some nice things with respect to aiding small businesses and helping America's job seekers (hopefully it is done in a streamlined and inexpensive way).  I disagree on ISIS/ISIL as we will at this point in time have to send troops and expect that war to expand if we expect it to end.  With respect to the free stuff, I say "with what money" though money did not stop big government before.  I truthfully want details on some of the smaller stuff mentioned as he said he wants to address legal and illegal drug use, immigration, and criminal justice and gun issues. 

 I can never give a speech like this a ten out of ten for ideological reasons, but as basically a farewell speech to the nation on what President Obama wants to address in his last year, I think he made his point that he got a lot of what he wanted to accomplish (he mentioned killing Osama Bin Laden once) and basically said now if you want more of me, then go out and vote this coming election with the possible undertone that if Hillary or Sanders does not win, you'll probably get Trump.  This is what I got out of it and I hope you enjoyed my little summary and opinion points.  Tomorrow we will have the summary of the Republicans reaction to Obama's State of the Union speech.

ISIS Video and its implications

Recently on the news you probably saw a video with ISIS members showing how they made a battery to power missiles that were traditionally used on aircraft.  Additionally, it also showed how they were turning a car into a remote control bomb.  Obviously this shows that ISIS/ISIL is growing in strength and ability, but it also shows something else.  It shows that the poor alone are not the only ones to join ISIS.  Instead, as many have suspected in the intelligence community and military analysts on the news have said, that ISIS/ISIL and other islamic groups that resort to terrorism are made up of ideological individuals and not people driven by money.  These people want to usher in the end times and intelligent and well educated individuals like the doctor in England, and the boston bombers here in the U.S. have been ensnared by a radical ideology existing within Islam.

Final Thought:  This is going to continue.  We have to tackle the issue of radical islam soon or else it will continue to take innocent Muslims and convince them to turn to hatred and darkness like a disease.  All must stand and come together to say enough is enough, and crush the ISIS/ISIL threat before they can corrupt anyone else.

Bernie Sanders, Global Warming and ISIS

Ok, my opinion and mine alone, but Mr. Sanders is not thinking straight.  He believes that global warming is causing terrorism.  His reasoning is simple.  Global warming cause’s depletion of crops and other natural resources, and that leads to poverty.  That poverty makes for a prime recruiting tool for the members of terror groups to recruit from.  Problem, it is not about the money.  Radical ideological Muslims are the issue, not money.  Sure money helps, but it does not make anyone want to blow themselves up and become a mass murderer.  You need an ideology to back it up.  Also, even if Bernie was right and that issues with farming and natural resources were the problem, global warming only affects crops and food, not mining and factories.  Mining for oil does not suffer from global warming, and thus continues to profit off of.  Trading goods and construction is also unaffected as well.  So it clearly does not make sense when there are other jobs to be had.  We could argue a lack of jobs, but the Middle East is sorely lacking in many ways with respect to livable spaces due to desert and water access.  Their living conditions basically limit their livelihoods.  So even without the global warming attachment, the Middle East will still have problems with job access.  Oh wait, there are jobs, as we are paying millions in taxpayer dollars to teach them to be veterinarians, doctors, mechanical engineers and so on.  Also, they are rebuilding from war and thus there is numerous construction jobs, and even jobs in a depleted military and police force.  Long story short, Mr. Sanders has no clue about the region.

Final Thought:  Bernie Sanders is not meant to win the upcoming election.  He is simply a fall guy to make Hillary Clinton look good.  Sure he talks all nice about equality and getting back at the wealthy, but they are not the issues at hand.  It is job access, and getting the government off our backs.  Poll after poll that I have heard on the news says that the number two problem America faces is the government itself, and this is right after the economy and/or terrorism.  While Sanders means well, and will tax us up to our eyeballs to accomplish his promises (he did say that everyone's taxes would go up), he is not capable of being America's President in my opinion.

Issue 737 Church of atheism: Deities January 8, 2016

Yes, deities (aka gods) are also affected by atheism.  So what do atheists have to do with them anyway?  Read on to find out.

Deities and atheism:  There is apparently few ways to look at deities of the past through the lens of atheism.  The first is simply as tall tales/fairy tales.  In this instance, the stories become just that, stories that may impart lessons and morality, or simply act as entertainment.  Another was that these deities were once simply real people with real accomplishments whose successes were elevated overtime and elevated to a god like status.  The best example is in Buddhism with the Buddha who was a man that was elevated to a god.  And finally, the other method of view is that these deities were either super humans or aliens and that the primitive peoples of earth worshipped them as gods.  No, I am not kidding as Adolf Hitler and his staff believed the ancient pagan gods were supermen and that the Aryans were their descendants whose abilities and powers were corrupted over time by impure blood.  Needless to say, Hitler took this to the extreme and also believed in the occult.  If there are other views on who and what these deities are I do not know.  If you believe in God, then you could even say that they were fallen angels that tried to rebel and become gods of their own.  In the end we all end up believing in whatever we want and atheists can qualify whether any of them existed or not in any way they wish.  

Conclusion:  The first and second seem like the most likely scenario with respect to these deities and why they exist (my opinion if I was thinking from an atheist's perspective).  Reason being is that the ancient us made people and their accomplishments into legends and then added fake characters and made them just as great or greater for their heroes/gods to overcome.  In the end we have the gods of Japan, Olympus and the north and more.  Of course it would be really crazy if there really were super beings/aliens, but we leave all these possibilities to theory.

Issue 736 Church of Atheism: Worship January 7, 2016

Do atheists worship anything?  That is the question I attempt to answer in today's issue.

Worship in atheism:  From what I have seen/heard, despite atheists not having a God or religion, they seem to be divided in my observation in beliefs on spirits, otherworldly beings and even ghosts.  Some simply just worship nature itself and can be considered spiritual and they try to attune themselves to the worlds and universes natural order.  However, this group may go further and believe in spirits and even sometimes demons and ghosts.   Now if you abide by creation myths, spirits and potentially demons are all created by God or a set of gods.  So it seems counter intuitive.  However, I think some simply want to believe in something more.  They wish to see beyond as atheists generally believe that aliens can exist, so why not creatures that we generally cannot see.  How does this help them in any way however?  Does it reinforce values or morals?  Depending on what is worshipped and how, it can.  For instance, Chinese atheism which seems to have eaten Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism believes in ancestor worship.  In this, they believe the dead watch over them, and that if they fail in life then they will be forgotten by the family due to their failures.  Basically, if you are not worth remembering, you will be ignored as you did not leave the family anything of note to remember you by. This concept has the individuals trying to improve themselves and be successful while asking their ancestors for guidance, hence maintaining a productive society and a moralistic one at that (families do not want to be stained with the disgrace of a thief or murderer in their families).  Likewise, some atheists believe in karma (with good deeds giving positive energy and bad negative), and additionally reincarnation.  In this, the individuals do not want to be reincarnated as something like a slug.  Of course there are other atheists who I have met that simply believe in nothing.  They do not have spiritualism, or worship nature, and thus go along with society and its whims.  This last category of atheist I perceive as potentially dangerous as they may be in my opinion more prone to groupthink and thus mob mentality. 

Conclusion:  I will not say that atheists are more dangerous than people with religious beliefs.  In fact, I would say in general that believers and non-believers alike are equally dangerous due to ideology, beliefs and mob mentality.  However, believing in nothing or not having a bedrock of ground rules to support morality and strong character poses dangers for future generations.  I have a few atheists say that simply feeling bad (a consciousness) is enough, but a conscience is developed and fostered through life experiences and the people around you.  So if the people around you teach you it is ok to kill, then you would not feel bad about it (extreme example, but you get the point).  To me, atheists need to organize to create a set of bedrock principles, a foundation if you will so as to prevent total non-believers and similar from losing the basic morals and character lessons needed to maintain a society.

Issue 735 Church Of Atheism: Sexuality January 6, 2016

So under Atheism, rules about normal sexuality begin to fall apart.  As such, what would the sexual culture look like without religion?  Let us discuss.

Sex and Atheism:  In atheism (or at least true atheism where judgments and societal stigmas have disappeared as atheists believe that without religion discrimination of peoples would not exist) a person can be any gender, sex, or gender identity.  Issues of people of different races and ages (age of consent would probably be pushed to the lowest possible), having sexual relations would potentially disappear.  So a 40 year old can get it on with a 19 year old or even a 17 year old and there would not be a problem.  Sexual relations between people of the same sex or genders would not be frowned upon.  Even fetishes would be accepted to a degree based on agreed upon societal norms if any with respect to sex.  Truth be told, sex under atheism would resemble that of ancient Greece and Rome where you can pretty much have sex with anyone you want. Even sex for money or some other form of gain would be allowed if society is willing to accept it.  As such, society would be the decider of what is an acceptable sex practice assuming that society even cares about what you do in the bedroom.

Gender roles will also disappear, with men and women's clothes becoming interchangeable.  As such a man can wear a skirt, a woman can bare their chest, or you can be dressed in a diaper for all people care.  In true atheism, there is no gender either. So there is complete sexual freedom and with that gender identity freedom and the way you express that gender and sexuality as well (yes you can even go nude too).  The idea here is that love becomes just that, "LOVE" and nothing else.  No religion (which set the rules of marriage) or even to an extent governmental rules (derived from religious rules) deciding who can love who.  In this instance, there is no marriage either as marriage is a religious institution.  As such couplings (I do not have a better word for it) become the norm.  A coupling is when two people come together who are in love and then agree to be mutually exclusive with one another or this can even be between multiple people as well with respect to people who love more than one single person.  These couplings can also be formed so as to raise children (adopted or naturally born).  Essentially it is a completely new dynamic with respect to relationships, whereas divorce no longer exists and people can simply say they do not love each other anymore and just up and leave their now former significant other behind.  

Conclusion:  With complete and total sexual freedom and also gender and personal identity, people can love people any way they want.  From paternal, and platonic to full on sex addicts and fetishes, all become acceptable (potentially even relations between blood relatives if no rules are set).  Well this is my view on it if we get pure atheism and lose the values imparted to us through religion (I am and will always be Catholic).  I am not really complaining either, as I believe in pure love myself, I just think we need some rules here with respect to blood relatives and children under a certain age (these rules were originally established via religion).  Overall, this sexual freedom fits with libertarianism, but people just need to be ready for it.

Issue 734 Andrew Garfield and Spider Man January 5, 2016

Welcome to first issue of 2016 (well real issue article).  In this article we will discuss Andrew Garfield and his opinion on the leak from Sony about Spiderman remaining a heterosexual white male.  Let us start.

Spiderman and Garfield:  Firstly for those who do not know, Garfield is the actor who played the role of Spiderman/Peter Parker in the second set of Spiderman movies.  Sure, some of you are saying, why do we care about an actor's opinion on a comic book character?  Well this is because he is right in his opinion (in my opinion).  Garfield did not like the fact that Sony wanted Spider Man to remain a heterosexual white male (Sony wants to keep spider man in this formula because it is seen as a money maker especially as Spider Man is the number one most popular superhero in America).  You see, it is not about money or the fact that Spider man is white that Garfield has a problem with (at least this is how I see it based on what I read).  His problem is that Spider Man is an opportunity.  Spiderman can be pansexual, any gender, sex or gender identity.  Under the mask, Spiderman can be any skin color.  Basically, Garfield wants people to see skin color as just skin, love as love etc.  As such, anyone can then picture themselves as the character.  Andrew Garfield wants Spiderman to be the everyman's/women's hero as they can picture themselves as that hero saving the day.  To a certain extent, Marvel comics has done this with their art, comics and I believe their TV shows at times with their multiverse.  Marvel has a Black/hispanic Spiderman, a few women Spiderman's and a couple of other variations.  In truth, many of Marvel's characters are just like Spiderman, nearly all of them wear a mask so that anyone can take up the mantel of that hero (Did you know there was at least two Black Captain America's and now a female Thor).  DC has done this somewhat with Green Lantern as well.  So at least with books, comics and art, what Garfield hopes for is coming true.

Conclusion:  So we now have to wait a little bit for what Garfield hopes to happen to happen in the movies with respect to a major character (FYI, Nick Fury was originally a white guy with an eyepatch, but was changed to black and this was eventually written into the comics as to how we went from one Nick Fury to the current Nick Fury portrayed by Samuel L Jackson).  We may just have to give it time as companies like Marvel, DC, and even Disney fear losing large chunks of their fan base (or at least losing their money as they are a for profit companies after all).  Time will tell, but I do support Garfield's vision (if I am interpreting it right), and there's no reason we cannot have a movie featuring all the Spiderman's meet (girls and non-white Spiderman's included) which is an already published comic.  What do you think?  Want to see a chick in a Spiderman suit, or a cool punk rocker spider man?  I think I am ready for the potential possibilities and the fun.