Brexit!!!

So the British have left the European Union.  Their nationalism has taken hold and said no more to open boarders that leave them vulnerable to terrorist incursions.  No more to subjecting themselves to other European nation’s political agendas.  And most importantly they embraced their pride as British citizens.

Note this vote was close.  Super close.  So much so in fact that the losing side wants to hold an additional referendum because they feel that the 50% plus one majority is not enough to make this decision.  However, the vote was fair and square and the losing side is just being a spoiled sport.  

I personally think this vote needed to happen.  Britain was always independent from the EU because they kept the British pound as opposed to switching to the Euro.  They supported the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush Administration whereas the rest of Europe either sat back, gave token consent or denounced America.  Britain is still a world player and it is flexing its conservative roots.  Basically, they never needed the EU, but as to whether the EU needs them remains to be seen.

Final Thought:  The EU has been expanding and changing itself since after WWII.  It started as a means to prevent future wars in Europe and then expanded into a faceless bureaucratic monstrosity that barely has any semblance to democratic ideals.  British citizens didn't want that and thus they are out (my analysis).  See you tomorrow for my analysis on the Britain's exit.

Eliminating the Payroll tax!

The payroll tax is a tax all Americans in the U.S. pay.  This particular tax is a name for the two taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare part A.  So how could they get rid of this tax like so many Presidential Candidates in the current 2016 election have promised?  

Basically, candidates like Ted Cruz, Trump and former candidate Rubio would integrate it into the regular tax scheme.  Basically, you would be taxed at the current tax rate with no payroll tax being taken out.  This allows you to keep more money in your paycheck and apparently could mean the elimination of tax returns as the payroll tax is taken out first and causes issues math wise with the IRS.  But what about actually contributing to Social Security and Medicare part A?  Well, the IRS would take a percentage of what you pay to the government in taxes and pass it on to Social Security and Medicare part A.   This is much easier to do as you are still contributing by you paying taxes with just the exception that the IRS takes the money out of the total amount you pay in taxes rather it being two separate (three technically) taxes.

However, if the Candidates really wanted to do the right thing, they would eliminate the income tax with the payroll tax and switch to a national sales tax.  We would get to keep all our money, but we get taxed when we buy stuff.  The more you pay for something the higher amount of taxes you pay per year.  Under this system, just like the income tax system, a portion of what you pay in taxes will go toward Social Security and Medicare part A.  The only difference is that you don't have to file for income taxes any more, and illegals, criminals, foreign visitors and others all contribute to Social Security and Medicare thus adding more money to the system.  

Conclusion:  Obviously I want the income tax gone, but I'll settle for just the payroll tax going away for now.  Reason being is that Social Security and Medicare will still get funded, and it saves time and effort with respect to filing taxes.  Eliminating taxes is a good thing as it frees people up monetarily so they can buy the things they need (or want).  Still, I think a sales tax makes more sense, but this is just my take on the issue and why I'll be voting Republican in the United States 2016 Presidential election. 

Monuments to evil: What do we do about them

I was reading the Economist and there was an article about old Confederate monuments and monuments to Southern heroes who are by all respects and purposes racists.  With the Confederate flag controversy and its removal from government land, should such monuments be removed as well?

The answer is not clear cut.  Some can be removed and some should never be removed.  The Economist writer believed that such monuments should have a plaque added that performs an educational function to inform people of our country's past and to serve as a reminder to future generations that we should not commit such atrocities and evil ever again.  Basically these monuments to segregation, slavery and massacres are artifacts and thus can become a learning tool.  

Another idea was to place monuments that countered the original message of the current monuments next to them or replace them altogether as a memoriam to the victims and people's defiance to racism and evil.  This is also a nice idea that people can get behind, but I don't like the idea of just replacing the "evil" monument with a new one.  Instead I would like a museum to be made to house these removed monuments when applicable or mock ups of the originals along with other artifacts of our country's racist past to serve as a reminder of what evil looks like so we can say never again.  These museums can be called "Facing History Museums" where we look at massacres, slavery, segregation and discrimination of all peoples in the United States.  As such, a section on Native Americans, Black Slavery, and Internment of the Japanese in WWII among others, and the 1960s discrimination and our nation overcoming these evils one by one will be included.   We can use these museums and monuments to say we have made mistakes and we want to embrace them so we never make them again rather than try to hide them.  

Conclusion:  I like the ideas of the plaques and of the alternate monuments that were suggested by the article.  However, under no circumstance should a monument be destroyed if it is possible to move it instead.  A museum with these removed monuments to Indian massacres, racism against Asians and more should be created or one per State in the major cities so that people can access the information there.  Even small halls in America's Natural History Museums could work and have artifacts dedicated to educating the public on the darkest parts of our history.  We have to say never again, and we can do this through education.

Drug costs

I seem to always come back to this issue.  Heck I work in a pharmacy and some of the prices for prescription drugs are outrageous.  But I will continue to revisit the issue as drug prices do not need to be this high.

Drugs cost a lot due to a number of things.  You have the obvious shipping and handling costs, liability insurance if something goes wrong, and of course profit motivation so that the companies that make these drugs can stay in business.  Then there is federal regulations which does testing, dictates how drugs are shipped and handled, and basically controls every aspect of production to sale to the person with a prescription.  Actually, the federal regulations in my opinion increase the cost the most because you have things like generic Flonase (the allergy nasal spray) costing $200 for the original prescription version, but the OTC version (which is exactly the same drug) costs $26.  That is a major contrast.  It went down to just $26 just by the regulations by the federal government being eased up because the drug is no longer a prescription item.  So if the drug Flonase is just as safe as an OTC with its regulations as it is as a prescription drug and its more numerous regulations, does that mean that we can reduce, or even taper down federal regulations from year to year that do not add to the maintenance of the quality and safety of a drug.  That alone would reduce drug costs.  Another method that deals with the regulation problem and saves money is by accepting drugs from other countries with equivalent or superior safety regulations.  This would save money for drug companies to get their drugs to the market faster if the drug is approved in Britain or Sweden first as the United States (last I heard in 2007) has the most numerous regulations in the world which adds onto the cost of everything.  Or we can just make a bunch of drugs OTC's and save a lot of time and hassle.

With regulations reduced or adjusted to meet real world safety standards for new drugs, and potentially adjusted for drugs on the market for a specified number of years, costs will go down dramatically.  But this is not enough.  Patent laws are one of the biggest issues we face with respect to drug costs.  Most U.S. drug patent laws give drug companies a 10 year window of ownership of a certain drug formula with the potential for renewal.  However, almost seven years of that 10 is all research and development for that drug of which over 70% of those potential drugs never making it to market.  So when a drug finally goes on the market after 7 years of development the drug company has to make up the costs for all the money invested into the drugs cost and all the failed drugs too.  As such, by removing this 10 year monopoly on a drug formula we actually slow development, but at the same time free up time constraints on the drug company.  This means the drug will go to market at the same time as the patent kicks in, meaning the drug company will now have ten years to make up the enormous costs rather than three, thereby distributing the cost over time. 

Another way to make drugs cheaper is to eliminate labor costs or even the production of drugs at the drug company’s factories all together.  This can be done by 3D printer technology.  Already approved in the United States for certain drugs, 3D printers eliminate 90% of the labor costs at the drug factories themselves.  To eliminate manufacture of drugs at the factories, the drug company can license pharmacies equipped with 3D printers to make the drugs there in house.  Thus the cost of materials, and labor shift to the pharmacies which means drug companies do not have to worry about labor or shipping costs which reduces the costs to produce the drugs as a whole and potentially reallocating the saved money for research and development costs.

Final Thought:  Some of the regulations on drugs also apply to medical devices and products.  Therefore, eliminating costs or reducing the things that artificially increase costs aid in making medicine cheaper for all.

Harambe

By now most of the world knows the name Harambe.  The silver back gorilla Harambe was shot and killed because it was perceived that it was a danger to a child that had fallen into Harambes enclosure.  I have seen multiple videos on what occurred (all were edited) and this is my opinion on the matter.

For one, that child should never have been able to fall into the enclosure to begin with.  I do not understand how a modern zoo enclosure is capable of being penetrated by a child.  I do not entirely leave the parent of the child blameless in this as any parent has looked away only briefly to find their kid doing something they are not supposed to do.  However it is obvious to me we have a zoo enclosure problem.

Now as to what happened after when the child had fallen in.  I am not the zoo keepers.  I do not know how that gorilla reacts to various stimulus let alone a crowd making a lot of noise and panic after a child falls into a silver back gorilla enclosure.  I have seen video of the gorilla agitated and also calm in the videos I watched.  As such the zoo keepers get the benefit of the doubt with respect to do, and thus unfortunately made the right decision.  

Final Thought:  We now have activists calling for the complete shutdown of zoos and some more moderate people calling for gorillas in general to be released back into the wild.  Zoos however serve a purpose.  They are designed (at least currently) to support awareness and money for programs for conservation, studying animals in ways that cannot be done in the wild, and even act as endangered species breeding centers.  We need zoos, and enclosures can be designed in ways that maximize space for the animals to mimic their natural environment and habits, while at the same time keeping the general public out of the enclosure itself and thus ensuring the safety of both the animals and the people visiting.  For animals that are too old or need freedom, a preserve can be set up to protect them.  Harambes death does not have to be in vain.

Soft Targets

I have discussed this topic before, but the terror attack in Orlando Florida makes it one that has to be revisited again, and most likely again in the future.  

A soft target is any place that can be attacked that is not able to defend itself.  This means Baseball games, schools, and even nightclubs are all targets.  These places can have security, but they cannot fend off a determined armed assault like with the case of the attacks in Paris and the night club in Orlando.  Terrorists generally will not target police stations and military facilities as they can defend themselves (though there are exceptions like the Fort Hood Shooting).  So we need to harden the soft targets to protect them.  This means police acting as armed security in addition to hired security with police reacting to violent situations that regular security cannot handle.  Bomb proofing walls, windows and doors and making them bullet resistant also helps.  However, these options are also expensive, thus relegating them to stadiums and schools where mass public gatherings are common place with towns and cities having the budgets to provide such security.  But this still leaves places like the public pool during summer, poorer neighborhood schools and dance clubs and popular bars and hangouts vulnerable.  As such, intelligence gathering comes into play.  Basically, if the terrorists are planning something it is up to our police, the military, CIA and other intelligence agencies to share any and all information.  This information takes advantage of terrorists leaving "breadcrumbs" or a "trail" to follow which allows the police to stop the attack before it starts.  Thus the smaller and/or poorer soft targets become defended to a degree.  

Despite all this the soft targets and even hard targets are still vulnerable to a particular type of attack.  That attack type is the one by the "Lone Gunman".  A single person or a tight close knit group who plan the attack independently of the enemy's leadership and act exclusively on his or her own.  An example of this is the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston Marathon bombing and the Orlando Night club shooting.  Our enemies in this case are self-radicalized Islamic terrorists who fall in love with the Jihad death cult mentality.  To defeat this group, you must attack the radical ideology along with ISIS/ISIL and its sister radical organizations who purport this death cult.  Basically make them look as toxic to be in as they really are or worse so that no one would be willing to join them.  So while it will not stop the currently radicalized individuals, it will aid to stop the future ones.

Final Thought:  It is not going to be easy to win this.  We cannot simply carpet bomb our way out or use drones to kill the enemy in retaliation when it is the words of the enemy that are turning our own neighbors into monsters.  If we do not re-evaluate our defensive structure to compensate for all possibilities, share information and cooperate to dismantle this ideology that is on par with the NAZIs and the Soviet Communists, then all will be lost.

Political correctness and Islam

I will state this for the record, Muslims are not evil and Islam is not a violent religion.  However, Islamic terrorists who pervert Islam, or believe in the ideology of death advocated by a radical version of Jihad are the enemy.  Are they Muslim?  Yes they are.  Are they representative of all Muslims?  Not at all and they never will be.

Why do I state the obvious above?  Simple, because if I say Radical Islam, or similar I would be bashed because people are too stupid (my opinion) to realize I am only talking about the psychos who pervert the Islamic faith.  A faith that some of my closest friends share.  But the Islam my friends worship and the Islam these radical monsters worship is not the same and I cannot stress that enough.  However, political correctness tries to silence people who criticize the evil Jihadist Muslims because people cannot see the difference in criticizing the evil Islam and the real one that would not commit such acts as the Boston Marathon bombing or the recent attack in Orlando Florida.  As such politicians refuse to act to tackle the dismantling of the radical elements of the Islamic faith that supports ISIS/ISIL.  They do not want to be politically incorrect or feel like they are isolating one of the largest faiths that exists in the world next to Christianity.  Basically they are afraid to speak or be criticized and fear being called a hate monger which would tarnish their "careers".  

If we could attack this perverted version of Islam we would be stating that it advocates killing your own family if they do not agree with the cause.  That it wants to enslave women as sex slaves and advocates other forms of slavery.  It wants to kill all who are not Muslim unless they convert or are enslaved.  We should say how these terrorists want to make their own mothers into tools for men to rape at will.  How their sisters will be married to men 30 to 50 years older than them to be raped nightly.  Or should I mention that the Jihadists kill babies and young children.  That's right, they are baby killers.  These Islamic terrorist, who pervert the real Islam, commit act of mass murder.  They must be trounced. 

Final thought:  Crush the Islamists who pervert the real Islam.  Defeat their ideology by saying the truth.  That they are monsters who take a religion of peace and use it as a means to recruit mass murderers.  It is time to fight not just with arms and intelligence gathering, but a campaign of words to say why these monsters are who they are.  Show the world their brutality and then crush them without mercy.