Lent Post: Freaking ISIS, Man

Salvete.

ISIS. ISIS ISIS ISIS. This is a fun one to talk about.

For one, ISIS is not a political entity that we have seen in the past century. Let me explain. Since 1900, I'd say a good ninety percent of countries have been formed out of peace. WWI is over; let's create Estonia. We need to establish peace in a region; let's create South Sudan. Many were created and then thrust headfirst into war, such as Israel and potentially like nations such as North Korea and South Sudan. All of these examples had clear support, and powerful nations like the United States or the Soviet Union were able to pave the way to a region's own sovereignty.

ISIS, however, had no direct help, nor did it request any. It was formed because a terrorist group wanted power for its fanatic beliefs, got a few weapons, and carved out their own territory. It was born directly through war, it was bred for war, and it will likely die from war. ISIS has a stable economy, controlled territory, a set of trade networks, and a compatible system of government, so it would seem like a country. The world hasn't seen this kind of aggression since the Korean or Vietnam Wars, perhaps since the dawn of WWII. Thus, no traditional nation on Earth today knows how to handle it. No one can recognize ISIS's sovereignty since ISIS and the rest of the world have no respect for each other, and they regard each other as evil incarnate.

Personally, a nation that is to war what America is to liberty should be dealt with in kind. If ISIS is allowed to live, the entire Middle East and former caliphate would be thrown into a diplomatic frenzy; Iraq, Syria, and Libya would no longer have control of their own nations and would have to put up with this "non-state." Some nations would want to (and currently do) make trade agreements with ISIS for the oil that they control. ISIS would be, for all practical purposes, a nation, just like Jordan or Turkey. The only difference is that ISIS would try to seize its neighbors like a power-hungry Germany before WWII. The economic and diplomatic flurries would never end. Destroy them now, if only to save the diplomatic hassle later.

Lent Post: Guys, I Think NBC Is Dying

Salvete.

Yes, it is the day before Lent starts, but I might as well get started.

When I watched the Superbowl, I was looking forward to all the new Superbowl commercials. In the most recent Superbowls, good commercials were few and far between, but perhaps this year would be different. While there were several good commercials, I found a surprising number of NBC commercials for NBC shows- on the NBC football channel. I had heard on The Blaze that NBC was running out of profitable enterprises and thus could potentially go out of business, but I didn't realize the gravity of that statement. When I saw the endless ads for The Blacklist, however, I came to grips with reality: NBC is desperate for views. Whether The Blaze made a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether NBC just didn't make as much profit this year, it didn't seem to matter.

Let me explain. If I were a media company (say, PNC, the Plaustrum News Company) in charge of filming the Superbowl, I would have a good chunk of time to use as needed. If my shows were doing successful, I would use the time and sell it to large companies, gain millions of dollars in revenue, and help fund the already-popular shows. Had I used the time to promote the shows to the masses, it would have meant lost opportunity and lost revenue. If my shows were doing poorly, however, and my company was thus going out of business, I would use the Superbowl to promote my own company. I would have to sacrifice an enormous short-term benefit to stay afloat in the long run. Given the context, it seems like NBC is in the latter position.

It could've been an overreaction. An anomaly, albeit the Superbowl, was possible. The SNL forty-year reunion, however, helped to confirm the theory. NBC poured its heart and soul into the anniversary, inviting all the big stars from the show and having a whole hour-long red carpet with about a three-hour-long episode. It... wasn't funny. Sure, the Jeopardy sketch was ok, but the Californians sketch went on for far too long, and shortly after my family and I turned off the television to go to bed and do other things. I think that the anniversary special was part of NBC's last stand; SNL was NBC's flagship program, and even it failed. Why else would NBC celebrate the 40th anniversary as the must-see event rather than save the grandeur for the 50th?

It's tragic to see such a large corporation plead for help, but it could be possible that NBC will take its last breaths in a few years. Or it could get bailed out like all the other corporations this day and age. What a time we live in.

2015: Analogies and Hopes

Salvete. It is the dawn of 2015. The legislative branch is now fully in the hands of Republican leadership, yet California remains a Democratic hellhole for another two years. The country has just gone through a phase of anti-police sentiment. I've been growing a beard. After skipping most of November and all of December, I sit down to finish working on the promised 100th post.

Now, it's both a 2015 post and an important milestone, so a double feature is in order. First, what I've been planning for a while:

I came up with a few political analogies; I hope that they will be useful in explaining conservative positions and in arguments.

The Palestinian-Israeli crisis is like two brothers who shared a home, who for the sake of this analogy we will call Joseph and Levi. They both lived peacefully with one another, and they both owned half of the house. Levi is wrongly convicted of murder and is dragged away to prison, presumably to spend his life there. Joseph, seeing as his brother has not returned for years, raises a family and takes his brother's half of the house for his descendants. Meanwhile, Levi can't think of anything but home, and leaves the prison years later due to his good conduct. He comes home a changed man but finds that not only has his brother failed to keep his half of the house ready for his arrival but that his brother has taken over his half of the house. Joseph and Levi both erupt in a fury over who deserves the house; sharing is no longer an option. Joseph's neighbors almost unanimously side with him, while the mayor of the town and the legal offices side with Levi. In name, Levi owns the house, but Joseph defends his claim to the death.

Saying that guns or video games are the only contributing factor is like saying that cacao and sugar are the only contributing factors to a chocolate cake. Sure, there could be a lot of both ingredients, and it wouldn't be a chocolate cake without either of those two ingredients, but there are far more factors involved. Besides, each of those ingredients are useful for many other recipes; eliminating sugar and cacao altogether would have tremendous consequences outside of simply stopping chocolate cakes from being made.

The topic of illegal immigration is like watching people cut in line at the DMV. You don't hate the guy who cuts in line, but you'd wish that the DMV security would do something about it, especially considering all the people who have to wait to get in line.

To say that "education is a right, not a privilege" is like saying that a customer has the right to take an apple from a store. Yes, the customer (store manager willing) has the right to purchase the apple, but the store owner simply cannot hand the apple over to the customer. No matter how desperately the customer wants or needs the apple, it would be simply foolish to assume that the customer has a right to take the apple from the store without purchase. Education is an investment, a product; it is not a right. That said, people have the right to educate themselves, just like a customer can purchase seeds and grow his/her own apples.


Those are the analogies that I've put aside for about a year. Now, for my hopes and blessings for 2015:

To the Republican Party: May you accept change from the outside while still holding your core values. May you put the legislative to good use, and may you find strength to challenge the executive. May you find unity in a single, virtuous candidate and cease your division for the better.

To the Democrat Party: May you judge your presidential candidate neither by gender nor by race but by quality. May you learn to see the Republican perspective, and may you flourish on a more honorable platform.

To the Peace and Freedom Party: May you go away and never bother us again.

To America: May you have the courage to face Russia head-on in this upcoming debacle. May you set yourself as the immovable hegemony that you once seemed to be. May you never lose sight of your ultimate goal: to be a beacon of liberty, both within your borders and without.

To California: May you look beyond squabbles over water and focus on the true state of the system of California. May you see the sense in the Six Californias project. May your leaders have more wisdom than any previous California legislature (that's not saying much; you can do it).

To the American citizen: May you treat each other with decency and honor. May you learn more about politics and act accordingly. May you think deeply before protesting, and may you see more of the bigger picture.

And to myself: May I have the strength to do another 100 more of these posts over the course 2015 without taking month-long breaks. Happy New Year.

Vote Charlie Schaupp or Dan Logue: Why I Voted Mostly Republican During This 2014 California Election

Salvete.

Long story short, I was rushed for time on the ballot. I thought that I could write my ballot and send it in by mail by today or tomorrow, but the deadline was Wednesday. I looked at the ballot and told myself that, by in large, I trusted the Republican Party more than the Democrat Party. I voted along those lines. The other reason... I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll explain later.

Honestly, the candidates that I voted for didn't seem to matter too much to me. The county that represented me was heavily Republican conservative, so I knew that the man who represented us before (whom I both admire and respect) would be reelected. The positions for governor, lieutenant governor, et cetera had not made a very strong campaign in the past few weeks (I heard that the gubernatorial candidate ran out of campaign money), so I made little effort to promote them. I have strong opinions about the propositions, though, and I have tremendous support of a couple candidates that were outside my district and thus outside my vote.

The first one is Dan Logue. I shook hands with this man; I had a brief talk about Six Californias. He is a good man. I did research; he's well qualified (as a businessman and the choice of the Chamber of Commerce, among other things). He's well grounded in history and character; he seems milktoast at first glance, but he's a great guy. I heard him talk with a small group of about 10-15 Yolo Republicans. I wasn't all too impressed, but he got my vote. I'm campaigning on my own time, walking around my neighborhood with a sign endorsing Dan Logue. It's raining today, so I'm blogging about him. I want him to win.

The second, and perhaps the more interesting, is Charlie Schaupp. I heard him speak in a room of ten people- including myself and Schaupp. This man is beyond incredible. He is an ex-lieutenant colonel of the Marines, well-grounded in politics, the military, and farming. He follows party lines simply because Republican policies are better than nothing, but he is not hesitant to walk up to big-name Republicans and call them out for corruption. He is, pure and simple, a good leader. Want more proof? He went up against the Republican turncoat Bill Dodd during the primaries. The Democrat candidates were backed by millions of dollars, while Schaupp paid a small sum of about twenty thousand. Even still, Schaupp was able to oust two of the candidates and practically tie with the third. Why? Because he is the best man for the position. Period. Moving on...

Now for the reason why I voted Republican. On Monday, it was announced that Bill Clinton was coming to my area to endorse the Democratic candidates in the area. Naturally, everyone who could go went to the campaign rally, Democrats and Republicans alike. I was not pleased. They made the Republicans look like monsters, spreading false rumors and drumming up cheap support. This was an utterly cheap move by the Democrats in order to get more votes. As a Modern Whig, I was uncomfortable, to say the least. I respect Bill Clinton as a leader and a speaker; he did give the best speech of the lot. I will not stand, though, for a political ploy to draw potential voters in before bashing the other side. The Democrats even brought in representatives from other districts, such as Ami Bera, in order to get media coverage for said candidates. It's just... my vote speaks for me. I voted red.

Now for the propositions. I found most of them quite interesting, and I encourage the reader to delve deeper. Both sides of each argument are exceedingly complex. I'll go down the issues one by one.

Proposition 1 is a bill to spend over seven billion dollars on water infrastructure. Honestly, we may be in a "drought," but I don't think that the seven billion dollars would be spent wisely. Heck, it may be easier (and cheaper) to hire Arrowhead or Dasani or another big water company. That said, Republicans and Democrats both support it because it's better than nothing. I still say no.

Proposition 2 relocates the money that California spends. An extra 0.5 percent would go to balancing California's budget, and at least fifty percent of the money in the budget balancing fund would go into paying off debts. This could help turn around the poor economic state of California, if only by a little. The one catch is that it cuts out the excess spending to California public schools. While opponents consider this the fatal flaw of the proposition, I actually see this as a plus. Less money means less corruption and more efficiency. Yes.

Proposition 45 means that the Insurance Commissioner must approve any health insurance rate changes. This would slow down any health insurer's ability to adapt, especially considering the looming Obamacare that will wreak havoc on most health insurers. No.

Proposition 46 means that you can sue doctors for more money. It's stupid; I generally don't like people suing other people anyway. It also requires doctors to have drug screening, but I would like to think that people will know if any doctor's drug consumption affects their work. No.

Proposition 47 essentially lowers the penalties for drug possession. Drug possession is still illegal, but it's no longer a felony. As a Republican conservative, I would say no, but as a libertarian, I would say yes. I might post about drugs later, but I'll save you the details and say that I put yes, although I would undoubtedly understand and perhaps commend you by voting no.

Proposition 48 is perhaps the most fun to debate. It allows North Fork Rancheria, a casino company, to establish a casino that is outside of native American lands, call the grounds "native American lands," and pay native Americans money to operate the casino. Here's where the "buts" come in. The casinos will establish outside reservation soil. But that would mean that casino companies would be able to plant casinos everywhere in California! But shouldn't casinos already have the right to start up anywhere, according to libertarian principles? But the casinos will affect the environments around them, perhaps turning certain towns of California into miniature Las Vegases or worse? But wouldn't that be a good thing, creating more jobs and establishing economic hubs where they otherwise would not be? That's a lot of "buts." I voted yes, my friends independently voted no, it's a weird loop of political contradictions. Yes?

So that's my opinion of the 2016 California election in a nutshell. You may realize that this is my 99th post. I have something planned for my 100th post, and it's currently in a draft. Expect it soon, perhaps after the elections. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to enjoy my night before campaigning for Dan Logue tomorrow. Vote Dan Logue!

On the Subject of Unions and Integrity

Salvete.

I used to be a part of a union. It was awkward, but, aside from the confrontation between the union representatives and the manager, things were relatively fine. Personally, I've always had qualms with the unions, but my employment under the unions slightly altered my opinion. Whereas I used to view unions as merely sucking time and money away from businesses and corporations at the expense of the taxpayer, I now viewed them from the perspective of an employee under the union. I had an employer who pushed me to my limits, but I had a union that ensured that I wouldn't be able to give it my all. For example, I often worked the closing shift at my store. I needed to empty the trash, sweep the store, and generally prepare for the store to open in the morning. That said, there was the mandatory ten-minute break after two hours of work, not only cutting into the precious time needed to close the store but also disrupting the flow of my work. If the store wasn't ready by closing time, there was no way to make up for the losses. In this way, I now fully understood what the phrase "right to work" meant: not just a simple catchphrase, but a summation of why modern-day unions fundamentally don't work.

That said, I began to better understand the purpose of unions, having experienced a union firsthand. Granted, I wouldn't shed a tear for them were they wiped off the face of the earth, but I recognize that they are organizations to be reformed, rather than removed. Ergo, here are a few reforms that I propose to change unions for the better:

1. Become more localized and less centralized. I want a union representative that knows the team, that is friends with the manager, that can say exactly what the situation is in an individual store, find the solution as quickly and efficiently as possible, and solve it. That simply can't be done from a headquarter, and it's the reason why corporations employ managers and assistant managers. It would intimidate any employee for a stranger to call their name and ask them to sign a union form before bickering with the manager and calling in union reinforcements (true story). That's not an organization that I want for myself.

2. Rely on volunteer work. I understand that there would have to be a few paid positions to keep the whole nationwide structure together, just as in any large organization, from corporations to governments to charities. However, one of the biggest problems of unions is the endless lobbying, the plagues that are corruption and bureaucracy. Heck, some of the unions are even larger and more powerful than some of the corporations they detest. Volunteer work turns an organization hellbent on obtaining power into an organization hellbent on achieving their goals, while similarly refuting the argument that union workers are simply out there to get out of work and reap benefits.

2a. Raise their own money. The corporations have to do it, so why can't the unions? If they claim to be so hardworking and dedicated to helping their fellow man, then this should be a slight road bump. For me, this is the worst crime of unions: ignorance. Unions have ironically decided to become more anti-employer than pro-employee, yet they rarely put themselves in the shoes of the employer. The union elite need to learn the hard work and sacrifice that come into moneymaking before they can boast that businesses can follow union lines while still keeping an ample profit.

3. Make membership optional. I think of union membership as job insurance- with perks. In the instance that your boss is a jerk or that the company goes through tough times, the union is there to make sure that workers get their just dues. That said, I have not encountered any person in leadership, public or private, who would fire someone at the drop of a dime. I hope that I never do see such a person. I'm sure that there are several thousand workers interested in joining unions, if not several million. Personally, I would rather skip paying union dues and refuse to conform to the union's political goals while risking the one-percent chance that I would be fired on any given day (one percent is frighteningly large, actually... it's probably more like 0.1 percent).

Now yes, I do realize that these reforms would cripple the union structure as we know it. Unions need to have their government funding, and they will stop at nothing to make sure that they have power and control. Quite honestly, unions are rapidly becoming worse than the most stereotypical corporations. Heck, at least corporations supply services to their customers, while unions do little to help their clients. Perhaps it is time for unions to refresh themselves.

England Remains in Control

Salvete.

Well, Scotland has stayed British for now. My English friend (who currently resides in Scotland) is thrilled about this, while I am, surprisingly, apathetic. I would be equally satisfied with a new Scottish nation and a United Kingdom. It's sad because this election is how I might imagine the "Six Californias" proposal to go: a good run, but overall not enough. I also had a fun titles for blog posts, should the alternative happen. Here are a few, with subtitles as appropriate:

Happy Birthday, World! You Get a Brand New Country!

The Definitely-Not-United-Anymore Kingdom of England... and Wales?

Scotland the Brave but Financially Doomed

Celebrate with Haggis!: The Scotland Success Story

Scotland Falls to Militant Nationalist Radicals; Brits Resume Enjoying Tea

Anyway, those are a few. The 100th blog post is coming up, and I hope to make it big. Stay tuned.

My Utopia

Salvete.

Last Sunday I watched the latest FOX show Utopia. The characters on the reality show quickly sorted themselves out into the "if you're right of center, you'll hate my guts" type and the "if you're left of center, you'll hate my guts" type, and there were quite a few more of the former than the latter. The goal of the show is to determine if (and how) a perfect society can be made. The answer became clear on the first episode of the show: clearly you can't make a perfect society with these people. The society fell into a dystopia almost instantaneously, and I didn't need to watch the Tuesday episode. The End.

It got me thinking about my utopia, my theoretical perfect world. What would the government be like? What would my culture be like? How would the economy run? I thought that I would start with the economy, since economy and government are often more important to a society than the culture. Look at Switzerland, New Zealand, and Singapore- they rarely highlight their cultures, but their economies and governments make them among the most powerful minor nations in the world. Thus, let's start with the government.

For the purposes of this experiment, I will assume that I have control of a small nation, about the size of Kosovo or Luxembourg. The reason is obvious; the mechanics of a small government are far different than the mechanics of a large government. While Russia can focus on imperialism, Estonia would have to focus on nationalist isolationism. While America works better as a republic, Serbia can focus on a more democratic government. Thus, I would have different recommendations for the United States.

The government of my utopia would be republican, and there would be no single individual in charge of an entire branch of government. The military would have complete control over itself, but the legislators would have control of the military's budget, the military's objectives, and a small but elite national army, thus hindering the main army's capabilities. The staff of generals would similarly be heavily scrutinized, so as to prevent a military coup. The judges would be selected from the set of legislators by the set of legislators. Citizens would have all the rights entitled by the United States constitution.

The economy would be slightly isolationist. My utopia would have an independently-controlled currency that is linked to the value of precious metal (gold is cliche, so perhaps a lesser-known element like molybdenum?). There would be low tariffs, low income taxes, and low corporate taxes. This would encourage corporations and businesses to find shelter in my country. My nation would focus on a specific product or commodity and create high quality [insert said product or commodity]. That way, my nation can be put on the map as having moderate economic value. Once the economy kicks off and my nation has sizable control of the market, I would raise tariffs to continue to encourage businesses to manufacture on our soil. Because of low, flat income taxes, my country would have a low minimum wage, if any, and welfare would be little to none. Our nation would try to be as free from debt as possible, and completely self-sufficient.

Perhaps the defining aspect of a utopia is the culture. My culture would be one of religious freedom but a strong Christian overtone. Being a Christian, I am biased, but I believe that Christian doctrine is better soil for productivity, education, and general goodwill for mankind than any other religion, including atheism. This would be crucial for my society to grow and prosper. Independence and ownership would be key defining virtues of my culture, and political parties would be small and strongly anti-corruption. Racism, sexism, and other prejudices would be frowned upon but not banned or limited. Freedom would mix with honor and integrity in a strong, absolute blend of morals and values. Citizens would be encouraged to expand their knowledge by any means possible; contracted private schools and universities would be abundant and well-supplied.

That's a general layout of my utopia. It may change over the years, but I think it's a good start.