Issue 217 Corrupt Science November 29, 2013

Science is not all fact. In fact the majority of it is theory. What they call fact is simply what they could not disprove given the current information available through experimentation. But, the science can be corrupted if money or ego gets in the way.

Ego: There are a number of scientists who want fame and the fortune that comes with it. This was most certainly the case in the earliest days of the scientific community as they searched for the missing link between man and monkeys. So much so that these so called scientists made fake skulls and even fake bodies that would only later be disproven through advances in science and technology. We also have a similar issue today. The scientists who said dinosaurs may have had feathers were at first vilified. It would only be later that his ideas would be accepted by the overall scientific community. However, a new issue has arisen. Now that the feathered dinosaur idea is accepted the scientific community rejects any counter argument to the idea. As such, scientists who present evidence to the contrary are now being vilified instead. All this pertains to ego, as the pride of these scientists gets in the way of questioning how our natural world works.

Money: Money is also another motivator for corrupt science. A great example is the global warming/climate change debate. Many in the media will quote statistics that the earths temperatures have risen 7, 20 or even 30 degrees within the last 100 years. One problem, within the last 100 years the earths temperature has only increased by 1.2 degrees according to climatologists. If you also look at the whole ice sheet melting you will discover that during the winter it completely recovers only to melt again. As to why the water is possibly warmer is still in question however. But what about the polar bears you ask? Well the truth is polar bears while listed as endangered have never sunk to a level that would classify them as an actual endangered species. In fact their numbers are only growing. So why all this misinformation? Well it is because government pays for the research on global warming. These scientists are being paid to prove something rather than seek the truth. So they fudge the numbers so as to "prove" what the government wants. These scientists know that if they contradict the people giving them money then they will loose their funding and thus be left without a sponsor for not just their research, but their lively hood.

Another example is the debate over what’s better to raise a child. Are gay couples, single parents or traditional families better able to raise a child? Well it depends again on who provides the funding. Usually I see gay advocates who fund studies on gay couples having the gay couple coming out on top or equal to that of the traditional couple. Likewise those who fund studies on single parents, or traditional couples have there group come out on top. So its not about proving who really is better at raising children, its about the funding these scientists are getting as there results are used to support the "dog and pony" shows put on by these advocacy groups.

Conclusion: Ego and money are the primary movers and shakers of science and are what obstruct the pursuit of the truth. Coercion and ideology also play a role as well, but from my perspective do so at a much lesser extent. So if someone says this is fact, make sure that the fact comes with legitimate information to back it up.

Issue 216 Thanksgiving November 28, 2013

What is Thanksgiving for? Well back in the early days before The United States was the United States, people and members of government would routinely announce specific days as a day to give thanks. When America became a Republic it was given an official day in November as a day to give thanks for what we have and had. This if I remember correctly was done by George Washington. However, the idea and concept of a day of thanks did not go away till much later in America's history, but now we only have one national day of thanks due to changes in tradition. So what should we be thankful for?

Family and Friends: Family and friends support us. They help shape who and what we are and give us information and even empower us to push forward in life. I, at the very least, know that this was the case with me and my family and friends. It does not matter if the family is related to you or how many family and friends you have, for it is about just having them by your side in the first place.

Inventors and Businesses: Some may question why be thankful to this group. Well it is these people who make our lives easier. Think about it. The computer was an invention to make life easier. However, that invention would not have become so ubiquitous if it were not for a business that was willing to sell it. Same with the internet. It was designed for the military so that they may communicate in the event of a nuclear disaster. But, it was businesses that took it and made it essential to everyday life with more uses to come. Inventors and businesses make life convenient so that we have more time to do the silly, mundane or just plain stupid. But they also allow us to be more efficient and that also frees up time to spend with the family and friends you cherish.

The Troops: Our soldiers are literally sent into hell whenever they are sent off to war. All this while our politicians sit back comfortably in their chairs back in the capitol. Our soldiers come back scarred by the horrors of war and then face another battle trying to reintegrate back into a normal and every day life. Pray for them, and bless them for they do what many are unwilling to do.

Conclusion: Give thanks for what you have as you probably do not know how lucky you really are. On Thanksgiving these are the people I will be giving thanks to for everything that they have given me. Love, an easier life, and a life without fear.

Issue 215 Eliminate the Department of Education Novmeber 27, 2013

You are probably saying "why are you eliminating the department of education?" Well if you will give me a few moments I will tell you why it is one of the least needed Federal departments existing in our government.

Reason 1: The department of education was created by the Carter administration in an effort to increase test scores and overall student performance. Unfortunately, the student performance in the United States has actually stagnated since the department’s creation. So it had many wondering why this was the case. Well, the department of education is allowed to give out additional monies toward schools who meet certain standards. Let it be known that the department does not actually play a role in educating America's children, they just serve as a money tree for additional revenue to schools who desire extra cash for programs they may like and for the communities that surround them. How this works is by mandating schools follow certain rules to qualify for that money. The schools believe that they need the money in order to carry out their mission to educate children (though some may question where and how that additional money is spent). However, many a time the money is not even adequate to fund the program leaving the school needing more, but the money is not the issue at hand, it is the requirements that are put in place to get the money. The department of education mandates that the school implement programs or certain teaching methods in order to get that money. However, if the school deviates from that method the money is cut off. So schools have no incentive to give up the failing methods that are being forced on them. What makes matters worse is that some of those methods are actually incapable of educating children. It is not the teacher but the methods mandated that cause our children to falter in the education environment. This is basically forcing a cookie cutter education system on America's kids when they really need an education system that can be customized to each child as the need arises. Now we have "Common Core" being pushed by the department of education which advocates more cookie cutter approaches to education that makes education dull and sub par for America's kids. This cookie cutter policy is the main reason that students for years now have slowly been deprived of adequate education as standards are pushed further downwards to inflate the value of lower and lower test scores.

Reason 2: What also harms our student population is the student loan program run by the department of education. There are a number of race and other requirements that make it overly complex to get a student loan in the first place, rather than base the loan on the students’ ability to pay it back. But the problem is not necessarily the access to the loans, but rather the relationship between the amount colleges charge for tuition and the growth rate of the student loans themselves. The colleges know they can make the costs of colleges larger and larger, as the department of education will just give out bigger and bigger loans. The result is that students suffer massive debt while the colleges’ pockets get lined with cash. Also, the banks used by the government to distribute the loans get the money back if the student should default, but the student will still be left to carry the debt burden regardless which ruins their credit rating making it much more financially difficult to buy a house let alone a tiny apartment.

What the department of education also does is advocate exclusively for college for an individual. But that is not the only education option for a successful career. There are certificate courses, online schools and even vocational schools that are just as good, if not better at educating students in one particular subject or training the student to be a professional in a particular job. By advocating the college system as the only option to success, they disadvantage students by hiding their options.

Conclusion: America needs an education system that is customizable to each individual student. This allows children to advance at their own pace using the best method suited for their education needs. Also, colleges know that people continuously advocate their pipe dream of success and thus we ignore our other options. The department of education stands in the way of changing the system and allowing the schools to be governed at the local level where they can much more easily make the changes necessary toward the custom education model that will give students the advantages they really need in the education environment. So let’s do away with the department of education while we still can before America's children become doomed to mediocrity.

Issue 214 Work week my way November 26, 2013

Well we talked about a 30 hour work week yesterday, but how about an alternative. My idea is to keep the work week as it is, but have a workers income not taxed on the 31st hour. Interesting right?

The idea: People are desperate for money. Income has not kept pace with the economy in part due to governments’ monetary policies and market incentives which suppress many wages for low skilled workers. Part of that is due to Americas failing public education system which results in substandard reading, writing and math scores. As such skilled workers are higher in demand. So this is where my idea comes in. The economy may already be switching to a 30 hour work week, but people will be at a loss for the money they would have gotten if the traditional 40 hour work week was maintained. As such, let's not tax the worker on the 31st hour that they work. This would allow the worker to keep all the money they earn beyond the 30th hour. Who doesn't want more money in their pocket?

Possible benefits: The main benefits are that it incentives workers to work longer. If they work long enough then they get to keep much more of their income as they would not be taxed once they hit the 31st hour. It would help those individuals on the borderline of poverty by allowing them to keep more money rather than hand it over to the Federal government or even the State governments if they follow suit. It actually may enable some workers to get out of poverty especially if the mandated 30 hour work week goes into effect which mandates time and a half beyond that 30th hour. So a worker getting $8.50 an hour would get to keep the $15 an hour (if time and a half pay is applied) if they work beyond that 30th hour. Yes each $15 dollars you make on the 31st plus hours will be yours. The government will not be allowed to touch it at all. Of course, if the time and a half rule is not applied, then you would still get to keep that $8.50 an hour after that. Overall, more money stays with you in your bank account rather than going toward a government that may squander it.

Possible costs: A problem will occur with respect to filing for your income taxes. It may in fact make it a little more complex to file for taxes making it a bigger burden on individuals to file there taxes. A.K.A., it will be a bigger pain in the rear. Also, the government may loose too much revenue from this change, and result in a fiscal glut in the federal government. However, these issues are solvable thankfully with respect to cutting budgets and a revised and simpler tax system.

Conclusion: This is my idea and I want any and all critiques which may in fact help me develop it further which would allow it to possibly become more viable as an idea to be put in place. Overall, the intended goal is to keep money in the hands of the worker where it belongs and not the government that spends on useless things and on perks for themselves.

Issue 213 A 30 hour work week November 25, 2013

Currently the United States mandates by law a 40 hour work week with time and a half of pay being given for each hour after that. But there is talk of reducing that number to 30. So let’s discuss the cost and the benefits.

Benefits: Henry Ford was the man who set the standard for the 40 hour work week all those years ago. Many businesses would eventually copy it with it finally being set as the legal standard. The reason why it was copied so much was that it actually improved production in the factories and in other businesses. Thus, the concept of decreasing the 40 hour work week to 30 is believed to have the same effect. Not to mention, if this change occurs, the worker will therefore get time and a half worth of pay after the 30th hour by law. So we have two main benefits, a more efficient workforce and greater chances for the average low wage worker to earn more money.

Already workers hours are being pushed back to the 20 to 25 hour range due to new trends in business. The reason Henry Fords 40 hour work week idea was put into law was that some businesses would have there workers working 60 or more hours a week. Today the incentive is to cut down on hours to the bare minimum. This may in part be due to incentives perpetuated by the government such as forcibly providing health care if your business has a specified number of workers who work a certain number of hours. It may also be due to technology which renders a traditional staff load as redundant and thus less man power is needed. What ever the reason, the trend by business is to reduce the number of workers working per hour which is turning the United States into a part time work force. As such, the 30 hour work week is envisioned to make it easier for the worker to get their hands on higher pay.

Costs: The costs themselves seem to be negligible. Aside from a belief that greater efficiency will result, the only down side is that the 30 hour work week may push more people into the full time worker category. Some of you may wonder why this is bad, even though it is something good as they will have access to benefits. This is because businesses may further reduce hours and even benefits to absorb the extra costs. The reason this would occur is because small businesses will be ill equipped to handle the rules and regulations mandated by government with so many people being pushed to full time. And those that wish to escape it will simply reduce hours of the worker so that they will not even be considered full time and thus the worker may actually loose money or be faced with the business possibly shutting down. So this change will mainly help big businesses while suppressing poorer and smaller ones.

Also, as a libertarian, the government should not be mandating how long the work week is or how much a person should be paid. It should be the market that dictates the persons wage based on their skills and capabilities. The majority of the time the skilled laborer will gain enough experience while working to be worth the larger income. Those that want more money will leave for higher paying jobs once they become available. As such, the work place as part of the free market usually takes care of itself.

Conclusion: I am in favor of the 30 hour work week. The only reason I am though is that businesses are depressing workers hours due to the changing nature of the market. If the government was not interfering so much we may already have a 30 hour work week. My own job as a pharmacy technician is considered full time at 30 hours (yes I am a full time worker). So, in my opinion, businesses will naturally trend toward this new standard on their own if they are given enough time. So if the change does occur, it should be announced a year or two earlier so that businesses will have a chance to adapt so that the negatives do not do any immediate harm.

Issue 212 Loan pay alternative November 22, 2013

Mentioned in the previous article was a method of loan payments in the form of a percentage of income being taken out of your paycheck to slowly pay your loan back. There is more to it than just being able to pay the loan back however. So let's begin.

Concept: Basically each paycheck, money is deducted from your paycheck to pay your student loan back. Simple right. Basically it acts the same way as traditional income tax would if it were to be deducted or automatic payments from your checking account. But here is where it gets "interesting". If you don't have a job then you don't have to pay. So if you’re unemployed, you will not have any money deducted to pay. So literally the paying back of your loans is put on hold until you find a new job. It’s actually a nice idea.

Variations: Similar concepts to this idea have been proposed. One option was to have the need to pay back the loan expire after a certain period of time. So say after 20 years if you paid a certain percentage back, the rest of your debt will be forgiven. I did not like this idea as people who were successful would pay off most or all of their loans before the cut off while others got off from their obligations. Also, those who wished to escape the rest of their debt may work at menial jobs for a short period of time until they reach the cut off so they would not have to pay back the rest of their loan. I find it dishonorable to do such a thing as to not pay what you owe (let alone the part about it being unfair to those who become successful).

Other variations mostly dictate varying levels of income being deducted; with the highest number I've seen being 30 percent. Also, some continue to charge interest even if you are not working. However, I mostly see the ones that charge interest combined with the cut off clause.

Troubles: The main purpose for giving a loan is one: to help those afford something they cannot at the current moment and two: to make a profit while incentives a return on investment. So it is unclear how a bank or even a government will break even on their loans to students. I know many (including myself) are fine with helping those who cannot afford to go to college to actually be able to go. But, college prices are beyond the pale as you and I well know. Something has got to give. I can see this method being applied with a form of the "Sharia Compliant Loans" where the traditional interest is added up front so as to make a profit and the person knows how much they must pay back. In short they have a goal. If this variation becomes successful, then I can possibly see it being applied to other forms of loans as well, such as loans on your home or other lines of credit. However, that assumes this method, where loans are paid back only when you are working, catch on in combination with the variation of the sharia compliant loan.

Conclusion: It is, overall a good idea. I like that you are only asked to pay a percentage of your salary if and when you are working exclusively. I also like my idea of combining my variation of a sharia compliant loan (interest tacked on upfront) with this concept so as to make paying all forms of loans more affordable and lessen the chance of a repo man knocking on your door to reposes your home if you miss too many payments. So I am willing to give it a shot, if the loan is done in such a way that makes it affordable and that the individual pays all of that money back.

Issue 211 Obama's school rating system Novemeber 21, 2013

We have talked about rating schools before, and there is no doubt that we will not be discussing it again. Like right now. President Obama has proposed a school rating system a few months ago which was summarized in the Wall Street Journal article "Obama to propose College Rating System on Bus Tour." So let’s examine it and see if it has any merit.

What it wants to do: President Obama is looking to tie federal student aid to a college's level of performance. As such colleges will be rated on how well they help disadvantaged students the most (all before the year 2015). Financial aid will then be dictated by those ratings (in the year 2018). Part of the rating will be based on how affordable the college is and the outcomes of that education which include graduation rates and transfers. The top performing colleges under this system will get larger federal grants and more affordable student loans given to student who go there. In addition, the plan calls for more innovation such as a 3 year accelerated degree and more online courses.

With this comes a pay as you earn program. This concept has you pay your student loans back by a percentage of your pay check. In this case, the plan calls for 10% of a graduate’s monthly income to be taken out to pay back the loans. Also, the race to the top program will have its funding raised with it being more focused on higher education reforms. So this is Obama's plan in a nutshell.

Critiques: I have come to not like overly complicated rating systems. Especially when the schools involved do not have a uniform standard by which to measure performance. As such one will need to be created either by the government, or the colleges. Both options are dismal as the government is prone to corruption by lobbyists and the colleges may purposely seek to weed out their smaller competitors. Basically, a rating system that favors elite schools would be created either way, even if elite is just another false title.

Also, giving out more loans only incentives colleges to allow their prices to rise. Student loans have a unique relationship with college prices. The higher the loan, the higher the price for college goes. Colleges know they can raise prices more because the federal government will just give out larger loans. But the people who get screwed by this are the students who end up with massive debt. The only good thing I like about this is the automatic loan payments taken out of the paycheck. It may make it easier for a college student to pay their loans back as they don't have to really think about it and they only are forced to pay when they have a job in the first place.

Conclusion: Colleges are not getting any cheaper. As such, alternative methods of education are rising to not only compete, but in some instances take the place of colleges in specific fields of work. I do not see this system working at all save the deduction to pay back a loan through the individuals pay check. It would also be great if the colleges made a bachelors degree a 3 year degree, but only if they make an associates a 1 year degree and make many of the masters and doctorates undergrad courses. Let’s face it, many of the programs and jobs done at the college level don't need a college to be taught, or to take more than 4 years of learning to learn. Especially as many jobs are forced to retrain many of their new hires which costs them money. So alternative education is winning and as such, I question if the federal government is focusing on the right solution to what seems to be an ever worsening problem.