Issue 717 Preventing Gun Violence November 9, 2015

We all want to prevent gun violence.  That is something everyone can agree on.  But how?  Here are some ways to do so.

Gun Violence prevention:  These are some methods to prevent gun violence:

1) Counselors in schools: Some kids and young adults are angry.  They experience bad home lives or have to deal with issues relating to other kids in school.  As such, giving a place for these kids to talk and for councilors to empower these kids will help resolve the anger as much as possible.  Perhaps using some techniques for patients who experience post-traumatic stress and/or anger management techniques can help these kids overcome their anger issues and thus not resort to violence.  (In all cases the kids will have the privacy of Doctor patient privilege save if they pose a danger to themselves or others if it comes to that.  This insures that the kids know that they can speak freely and thus approach the councilors in confidence).  It can even be mandatory or as part of a class on dealing with stresses in everyday life.

2) Team up with Churches:  Religion can help a lot.  By getting Churches and other religious institutions involved to aid in reinforcing morality and faith, this can help guide young kids and young adults into finding ways to deal with issues without resorting to violence.

3) Reforming Mental Health:  One of the biggest issues with gun control is mental health.  There is a lack of reporting on people who have mental health issues to the people who perform the background checks.  This must be fixed as soon as possible.  Additionally, people with mental illness in the United States cannot get help unless they are deemed a danger to themselves or others.  This too must change so that these individuals can receive help sooner before the danger becomes all too real.  The last few mass murders with a gun all happened (as far as I know) due to a mentally ill person who managed to get their hands on a gun (both legally and illegally as the case may be).  As such, a network on which people seeing counselors/therapists can be created so as to aid in tracking these individuals treatment which will include a grading system for the therapists to judge if their patients pose a threat to anyone.  This grading system can then be used by background checkers to see if the person can get a license for a firearm.  Also, an ask for help clause should be made so that if a person who has a mental illness is not being treated, they or a personal representative can request help for them to receive some sort of treatment.

4) End some forms of Victimless Crimes:  Drug gangs seek to protect themselves because they cannot call the police.  These gangs infringe on each other's territory and this results in shootings.  Gangs also use guns for intimidation, and of course out right murder.  This can end via legalizing drugs.  The gangs will cease needing to exist as there will be now legitimate ways to get these drugs which will force these gangs to break up, go legitimate, or resort to other forms of crimes.  Basically have a special pharmacy or clinic dispense the now legal drugs with a prescription insuring the safety and security of the addict.  Same can be said for prostitution and them trying to protect themselves.  By legalizing these amongst similar victimless crimes we can reduce gun violence and our prison populations while we are at it.

5) Bullies:  School bullies are one of the major reasons why kids turn to violence as many students feel like they cannot do anything to save themselves.  They see school staff as incapable of protecting them.  As such two things need to happen.  One, victims need to be empowered and kids seeing other kids being bullied need to go to the aid of those kids to surround the bully so the bully knows they are alone in their stupidity.  The Second thing is real punishments for bullies.  This means being scared strait, in school punishments so they don't play video games all day, extra school work for their actions, embarrass them, or appeal to their ego and charge them with a code of honor so that they will defend kids from being bullied instead (make them see that they can become a hero of justice to a degree).  Basically ways to deter them from actually performing the act of bullying.  This can even mean showing them the horror of what their actions can result in like footage/pictures of kids cutting themselves due to stress, committing suicide or committing murder out of revenge.  Make them realize that their actions have really horrible consequences.

Conclusion:  While these ideas will not solve all gun violence, it will at least help reduce it.  And that should be the goal.  To reduce the need for a gun outside of something for recreational shooting sports and personal defense. Anything is better than arguing about faulty gun control measures and not getting to the heart of the issue, the human heart.

Issue 716 Gun laws that work November 6, 2015

We are going to go over some current gun laws that are already in effect that we know actually do something to prevent crime, while also pointing out some limitations.  Let us begin.

Gun Laws that prevent crime:  First and foremost, most gun violence is perpetuated by people with criminal records.  As such, background checks that aid in making it impossible for these people to buy a gun legally do work for the most part.  But why are these criminals still able to get guns despite the fact that background checks prevent them from doing so?  Simple.  In some cases the statute of limitations has passed.  Depending on the State's laws, some minor offenses are overlooked past a certain point.  This is reasonable, for you have served time.  More severe crimes however prohibit you from owning a gun for life.  Instances of people getting guns illegally is a person who is legal buying guns and then selling them to people who legally cannot own a firearm.  This is highly illegal for obvious reasons.  Even giving a person who has been forbidden to carry a gun for free is also in violation of the law.  These laws here do deter law abiding citizens, but criminals do not follow the law.  Also, if you have been institutionalized or are "not of sound mind" you cannot own a gun as per the background checks red flags (red flags being instances you would not be able to purchase a firearm).  This clause prevents people with psychiatric disorders from buying guns.  The weakness however is that our mental health system does not treat people with mental issues if they do not show signs of being a danger to themselves or others.  As such, there is no early detection of people with mental disorders who can potentially go on a rampage.  And even those who are registered as mentally troubled may still be able to get a gun because the psychiatrist and those institutionalized by the State may not have provided the information on those mental cases to the people who perform the background checks.  Obviously a serious flaw in the system.

Other gun laws that work well are bans on automatic weapons and certain types of explosives, and waiting periods.  The automatic weapon ban is good for most regular people do not need an automatic, rapid firing, weapon that shoots all the ammunition in its ammo clip in less than 30 seconds.  The only people who need such things are people legally authorized to have such weapons as part of the police, military, government officials or licensed individuals who sell guns and/or provide some sort of other service that the government allows.  In short, getting your hands on a fully automatic weapon or other weapon like cannons or explosives is neigh impossible.  Except there is one loophole.  You can modify your existing gun that you own to make it fully automatic.  People doing this for someone else is illegal (though doing it yourself is not).  The only other effective law is the waiting period.  The waiting period basically says you cannot get your gun till a specified time later on.  Usually the wait is two weeks to a month after purchase, and that is if you clear a State background check.  Waiting periods are designed to make sure a person who is heated with rage, revenge, or similar emotion cannot act upon said emotion immediately. As such, less people going out to get a gun cause they lost a bar fight or to kill their cheating wife or husband (at least they are not going to kill them with a gun that night).  But if the attempted murder is premeditated, with the waiting period factored in, then there really is no hope. 

Conclusion:  Things like the assault weapon ban and similar do nothing to prevent gun violence.  In fact the FBI did studies and their numbers will tell you that most gun laws do nothing to stop violent crime.  The gun laws and their weaknesses above are the only ones that actually do anything to prevent gun violence (from what I have read), though they are unable to stop all of it.  The reason being is that criminals do not follow the law and they never will.  If they did, then the laws preventing murder by saying you cannot murder anyone would be enough.   But criminals do not care about anyone but themselves.  So more gun laws is not the answer.  Strengthening the ones above would however have an effect, but are not the sole solution.  More outside of simply saying who can and can't own a firearm must be done.  And some of those things I will discuss with you on Monday.  Have a good weekend and see you then.

Issue 715 Narc Pharmacy November 5, 2015

In order to facilitate legalized narcotics like Crack and other illegal substances, a special dispensary will be needed.  These pharmacies for our purposes, in describing what they would need to do, will be called Narc Pharmacies.  Let us begin.

Narc Pharmacy:  This type of pharmacy will be the sole distributer of all illegal highly addictive drugs that are made legal.  This mean opium, cocaine, heroin and their variants and counterparts.  These will all be taxed by States with respect to sales taxes and will not need a prescription.  This will ensure that addicts will have access to the drugs they need at any given time (so behavior can be monitored unobstructed) and that States will be able to collect the revenue and taxes to keep these pharmacies running.  However, you must be over the age of 18 with a legal State authorized identification to buy.  Those under age 18 will be required to have a special note from a doctor that authorizes them to buy as it will show they are addicted (we do not need new addicts being created for obvious reasons, especially children).  While allowing the State to garner revenue from these drugs sales, it will remove the money going to drug dealers entirely for addicts will now have access to clean needles and none tainted/contaminated drugs.  Most importantly however, this will allow people to accurately study addiction by bringing it out of the shadows.  This works only if the individual addicts are restricted in where they can use the drugs, in this case the Narc Pharmacy.  In this case there will be a lounge area, or similar where these individuals may relax and use their drugs of choice and an emergency room or two to treat anyone who overdoses.  As such, doctors and nurses will be on staff that specialize in treating addicts.  

A Narc pharmacy is designed to be a safe place for these individuals to use drugs and prevent young children from seeing adults taking the drugs or being compelled to try the drugs by an adult.  Also, the exact amounts distributed to each patient, and the quality of the drugs can be monitored to ensure that addicts have a reduced risk of overdose, do not get bad batches or take drugs that negatively impact one another.  In other words, it makes taking addictive drugs as safe as humanly possible.  We literally can identify the most popular drugs, identify which sex, age, gender and so on prefer which drug, all to better understand addiction.  Once this is done, we can then determine the actual number of addicted people in an area, and then provide treatments for those who want them.  Remember, we are not operating on the assumption that we people around addicts can force an addict to go clean.  The assumption we are operating on (based on interviews I have seen that featured alcoholics and addicts in general) is that these people have to want to get clean, and that many will need to hit their "bottom" in order for that to be achieved.  So these narc pharmacies can also provide such services for becoming addiction free as well by helping patients wean themselves off the drugs, or switch from one drug to the next slowly till they are finally clean.  The narc pharmacy can even provide services if needed for those who want to try quitting cold turkey.  Other drugs that are legal or partially legal like marijuana, oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine and sleeping pills may also be able to be dispensed as well as they are addictive as well.  Psychologists that specialize in grief and other reasons for people taking up drugs can also be added for we can operate under the assumption that these people take up these drugs to cover up some sort of emotional pain, or are seeking a pleasure that they at the moment can only achieve through drug use.

Conclusion:  This idea is based on what is already being done in Canada and some European countries, with those drugs being almost 100% legal.  By providing this structure we can even reduce gang related crimes as gangs that sold these drugs will lose almost all their revenue and thus their reasons for existing.  Why have a gang that sells drugs when you can just go to the narc pharmacy and not risk getting shot, raped or robbed.  This means less crime and people who are addicted will not see jail time anymore and finally receive real treatments for their addiction in a stress free environment.  So let us bring drug use into the light so we can see how to really help these people.

Issue 714 Medicare B,C,D: Not a right! November 4, 2015

Did you know that the Supreme Court case Fleming Vs Nestor says that you do not have a right to the benefits of Medicare if the government denies you or changes the law?  This is because the ruling stated that if the Congress can change the law, then you have no right to it.  Now this dealt primarily with Social Security, but unfortunately, Medicare is an add on to the Social Security legislation.  So how do we make it a right, or at the very least discourage the government from restricting benefits further?

Fix it:  Well, the simple answer as I have stated in past issues on the subject is to merge parts B, C and D with part A.  The reason being is that if part A was to go back to the supreme court it is possible, depending on the arguments made, that that portion alone can be ruled a right.  This is because of the payroll tax we pay into to help that portion operate.  However, while A is funded by our contributions in the form of a tax parts B,C and D are all funded through the general revenue of the United States.  In other words, Congress says how much can go into each one of those components.  Now A deals with Hospitals and doctors’ offices.  This is safe, but over budget.  Part B deals with outpatient care, such as rehabilitation and similar services specific to when people leave the hospital but need some extended care.  Part C intends to combine some of A and B together to make up for any gaps in care via a system that pays doctors through regular health insurance.  Part D was inspired by part C, but does takes care of medications by supplementing the paid premiums Medicare recipients will have to make. Basically, the government pays a portion of the cost to pay for private drug insurance.  As such, part D is the only component that is under budget.  Due to A, B and C being over budget however, it incentives government to make adjustments on what treatments and drugs are to be covered so as to reduce and maintain costs.  It also has resulted in low reimbursement rates for doctors and thus some of them no longer accepting Medicare patients.  Hence why change is needed.  As such, Part D should be expanded to include all outpatient care of part B and also doctors care of part A to mimic part C in that respect.  Then we eliminate Parts A, B, and C in favor of Part D as it will take care of all aspects of senior citizens health care.  It however will be funded by the payroll tax that was funding part A (the part that is our contributions) so as to eliminate governments incentives to alter or change the care we receive.  The reason why using private insurance that is paid for almost entirely though our contributions is better is because private insurance has more expansive options for care.  They are better able to detect fraud, and we should be able to (if the capability is allowed) to jump from insurance to insurance, or use the one that provides us with the cheapest health insurance with the best coverage at any given time (with it switching automatically to accommodate needed treatments that suit our seniors the best).  All this can then be ruled on the basis that we are able to contract with private health insurers which is a right and get the government out of deciding for us what is to be covered and what is not to be covered.  Basically, the government can still call our contributions a tax, but they simply become a bank to aid us in paying for our health insurance in this way.  As such, we secure our rights to Medicare.

Conclusion:  Yes it is a little complex, but only part A is funded by our contributions, while part D works the best out of all the parts of Medicare with respect to budget and treatments.  So by combining everything to work like part D, and funding it like A, would solve the issue of cost overruns and denial of treatments.  Allowing people or having the system automatically switch Medicare patients from private insurance to private insurance so that no matter what, their costs will be covered for whatever treatments they need will also enhance the idea it is a right for it is a contract with private insurance companies.  The government simply helps us pay for it with our payroll tax contributions.  So we can do it, but as Medicare is so volatile with respect to changes, we may not see needed changes for a while.

Issue 713 Public Sexuality November 3, 2015

Public sexuality is an issue that is coming back to the forefront of discussion due to issues of Gay Marriage and similar.  So how far is too far when it comes to sexual expression?

Sexuality:  For our purposes, sexuality will be defined as any public display of affection and exposure of various forms of cleavage of the body.  So can a women bare her breasts?  Well the libertarian answer is yes.  It is her chest and not a sexual organ.  In fact, if she so wishes it, she may breastfeed her baby in public if the need arises.  None of these are sexual acts and women already show midriff and cleavage already (things that were previously banned in public and in some places still are).  In fact hugging and kissing in public was once banned as well.  But that has changed for the better with people being able to pretty much hug anyone in public and kissing, while still restricted (frowned on and discriminated) with respect to male same sex couples, is fine for everyone else.  But what about people's rear ends?  Their butt.  When I was in comic con this October, there were a lot of girls wearing some very "revealing" outfits with respect to their butt cheeks.  Of course the anal cavity was hidden, but in some cases that was the only part hidden.  Women openly wore underwear including thongs. However, this was ok.  Reason being that underwear is basically a bathing suit that cannot go in water.  At least that is the mentality today with my generation and younger.  So this is no longer too far and while also still against the law, it is generally accepted and ignored in some places.  But what about public nudity.  And I am not just talking about nude beaches.  Cultures around the world have public baths, and of course we have communal showers at gyms (suitably sex restricted).  In this instance, these nude spaces are in areas that have been designated as ok to go in the buff.  However, increasingly people are challenging this norm like in Oregon with their nude bike race.  So I would argue that if this trend continues, people will be able to dress in any way they wish including butt naked.  Remember, this sense of modesty and laws supporting it are based on people's sensibilities and societal trends focused through both religion and culture.  But what is too far if we are all going to be allowed to go nude in public and kiss and hug whomever we wish?  Simple, public defecation, and public sex.  No one wants to see someone piss or crap in public (unless you have some sort of fetish), and while it may be entertaining to some, oral, anal, and vaginal sex and its kinky variants are not meant for public display.  At least this is my view, as if it is in the privacy of one's home, I do not have a right to say anything, but in a public park, is well, iffy.

Conclusion:  People have lost the modesty war.  The trends will continue where even men and women can bath together (Japanese hot spring anyone?) and share bathrooms and gym locker rooms.  So sexually speaking this means we are more tolerant and that the human body becomes less of a mystery to opposite sexes and genders.  It is possible that in this case, people will be less curious about things like sex at this point which could benefit people socially with respect to tolerances (though that remains to be seen).  However, the moment we allow public sex and defecation, we may be in for trouble.  My reasoning is that all modesty will be gone and it will be a sign that people do not care who is watching.  If people do not care who is watching then it is possible, in my opinion, that they will be prone to more criminality at the worst and acts stupidity at the best.  People fearing how society will judge them keeps people in line, so people need some sort of boundary or invisible law.  I could care less about public nudity, but public sex, and the slippery slope of resulting human behavior scars me.

Issue 712 Abortionist Revisited November 2, 2015

I had talked about this idea of having a specialized doctor doing abortions exclusively in a hospital, but I did not really flush the idea out. So here is my attempt to do so.

Abortionist:  The idea behind an abortionist is to create a special class of doctor (or medical practitioner as they violate the Hippocratic Oath).  In this case, these professionals will belong to hospitals only with hopefully all other abortion clinics shut down as a means to eliminate profit motives.  Basically, a hospital will be the only place to get an abortion (still cheap due to the number of hospitals).  This increases the revenue to cash strapped hospitals as well, while also providing a place for the dead children's bodies to be used for medical research or at the very least harvested as such.  But, I do not think that these abortionists should be limited to such a narrow profession.  Sure they will be trained to handle issues when things go wrong during an abortion and they will be able to perform late term abortions if the woman's life is in danger, but it may be too narrow.  As such, they could be trained to aid in assisted suicide.  This relieves regular doctors of the duty so that they do not violate their Hippocratic Oath (especially now as States like California are set to legalize such practices).  Therefore they will be charged with ending a person's life as painlessly as possible by whatever methods they deem appropriate.  It need not even be limited to those who are sick or infirm who wish to die, but can encompass people who simply wish to commit suicide and executions by the State.  Currently, States provide for how things like abortions can be conducted, and how executions should take place (which is sure to happen with assisted suicides as well), but if these abortionists were given authority to decide for themselves the most painless course of action it would be a little more humane.  Also, I will say again, these professionals can harvest the body parts of these dead babies, and now suicide victims for either medical research and even for organ donation.  So in a way, by taking a life, they are also making attempts at saving some too.

Conclusion:  If you have read my past works, then you know I am against abortion save in the case of rape or woman’s life being in danger.  However, abortion is not going away and is a topic of debate not just amongst the political parties, but libertarians as well (along with assisted suicide).  While assisted suicide is less controversial than abortion for it truly is your own body and you are deciding what to do with it, I wanted to eliminate the profit motives of abortion clinics while also professionalizing this service that deals in death.  Thus, by isolating abortions, assisted suicides and executioners to a single profession we can watch and understand the craft.  We will be able to see the select group that performs this sad profession.  Additionally, it will take abortion clinics out of minority areas where they seem to dominate, thus relegating the service to a centralized visible location that services everyone (done in part to eliminate the racial component of Planned Parenthood).  I do not want these people called doctors as they are not doctors due to their violation of the oath, but I cannot say get rid of abortion or doctors aiding people in committing suicide.  As such, this is my compromise.

Issue 711 Policy of Envy October 30, 2015

You know, I have wondered why our country was full of envious people.  I mean we are the land of opportunity right?  Don't know what I am talking about?  Allow me to explain.

Policy of envy:  Our country is envious of those who succeed.  Well more precisely, those who made it big here in the United States.  This comes in the form of progressive income taxes where we tax richer people at a higher rate rather than the same rate.  Now if you do the math, people taxed at the same rate all pay different amounts, with richer individuals paying more than their less economically well off counterparts.  But they pay taxes at higher rates because they are being punished for their success.  

Another example I see is the gift and death taxes.  If you give a certain amount of money to an individual then the person you're giving the money to is taxed.  If you inherit a certain amount of wealth in the form of income or property you again are taxed.  The reason is because people are annoyed at instant millionaires due to someone's dad or grandad giving their money away to their heirs.  It is jealousy.  It is not our business, but yet we made it our business to be jealous and envious of these people who simply get lucky.

Conclusion:  I do not know about you, but this seems wrong.  It seems that it is people being envious of others and therefore want to bring these well off people down a notch.  Needless to say I think it is wrong.  So see if you see it my way, or if you don't agree with me, at least I made you think (I hope) for it could be you that is a victim of the people's envy.