Personal Tale: Photos From The Swiss Alps

   Recently, I was traveling through the gorgeous Swiss Alps and stopped at many locations with incredible scenic views. The experience was so stunning, that the images are ingrained vividly into my memory. There were not a lot of signs in the areas I stopped at so I don't know the precise locations. However, all of these were taken along highways 8 & 2 toward central Italy from Interlaken, Switzerland. This stuff is like candy, for the soul and mind.

   *All of these photos I took personally with an IPad. Do not reproduce without permission. Also, if you notice a dark smudge on the top corner of these photos, you'll have to excuse my stupid self for not folding the flap for the IPad protective case to move it out of the camera's way.

Brexit Fallout: No Fear

   On Thursday June 23rd, a referendum was held in the U.K. as to whether they would remain in or leave the European Union. The referendum announced a historic decision that shocked global markets: they would leave. The impact on the pound sterling was immediate, as the pound has dropped to a  30 year low against the dollar. Global investors have been losing confidence in the British economy as Standard & Poor's has lowered the U.K.'s credit rating to 'AA', down from 'AAA.' Economists and banks have drastically cut growth forecasts for GDP growth in the U.K.

   The situation in the U.K. is being described as the start of a "political crisis", and market scenarios indicate a recession is expected in the U.K. for at least the next six months. Gold stocks have soared, and many investors are selling U.K. linked financials. Meanwhile the media headlines go something like this:

   "Good luck"
   "A tragic split"
   "Britain jolts the world"

Or this:

   "The British are frantically Googling what the EU is hours after voting to leave it"

And this:

   "Anger over 'Bregret' as Leave voters say they thought UK would stay in EU"

   Many of the mainstream media reactions regarding the Brexit decision are that of despair, anger and regret as shown above. But the story that media continues to push: that UK markets will tumble further is only harming the markets even more. The stock market is very much a psychological game. Investors tend to react to positive news with exaggerated confidence (meaning they will take more risk), and react to negative news with the opposite effect. In this case, gloom and doom reporting by the media has a powerful effect on investor psychology, and this can lead to less investor confidence and more volatile global markets.

   It is best to avoid buying into the mainstream narrative that often invokes a fear response in investors which if not contained, can lead to a very drastic situation. To quote Franklin D. Roosevelt: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Don't overreact and don't pay much attention to mainstream media. Let us embrace a more independent British nation.

Music With A Message 02: "I Won't Say Anything" by Bad Religion

   Punk ain't pretty. But in the case of Bad Religion, they're a lot more accessible than other punk bands (especially the closer you get to the roots, like this or this.) And if you're into bands like Blink-182 or Green Day, Bad Religion will be an easy plus.

   This song is a nice little jam to go along with an uplifted mood. It compliments a music aided session of positive introspection and hopefulness. Lyrically, the song seems to briefly touch on the subjects of politics (not 100% about that one, but most likely), religion and death. Even with the eyebrow raising topics, it never strays from it's radio-friendly, almost playful sound which makes it a truly great add to any library.

 

Idea: From Far Right Wingers to Hard Leftists, Universal Basic Income Is An Idea With Growing Popularity

Courtesy of 'the daily blog'

   What if every month, you as an American citizen, received a check from the government for about $8,000? And what if I told you that the check had no strings attached--it's "free" money, merely for existing. Does that sound like some kind of socialist utopia? It certainly does. However, this idea is not new, nor is it socialist. It has been proposed by prominent enlightenment era thinkers such as Thomas Paine and Marquis de Condorcet. It also has support from modern figures such as libertarian Charles Murray and liberal Anthony Atkinson. Yet, the concept is experiencing a mainstream revival and is being taken very seriously by economists, sociologists, politicians and even Silicon valley visionaries from all ends of the political spectrum. That is because it's true aim is to create a new flavor of capitalism.

   On the basic income website, it states that "a basic income is an unconditional income granted to all on a individual basis, without means test or work requirement." You read that correctly--you can receive a basic income without even having to work. Essentially, UBI is a new system of welfare that seeks to replace the traditional welfare state which has failed to adequately help the very people it intends to help (in 1996 extreme poverty in the US was estimated at 636,00 while in 2011 it was estimated at 1.5 million.) But this idea has many economists intrigued for several reasons. One of the most obvious reasons is that it has never been done before, but economists are not even sure what to expect from it, which makes it all the more interesting. However, some economists believe that a UBI will eliminate the poverty trap, which is when your income rises and you lose state funding, therefore leaving you with no net gain or even a net loss.

Courtesy of this YouTube video

   The growing interest in UBI is strongly associated with growing fears that within the next 20 years, half of all US jobs may be replaced by automation. Proponents argue that UBI will help ease this transitional period in the market by helping workers explore other career paths or even be more willing to open up businesses of their own. Opponents argue that guaranteeing people income without any conditional could cause an incentive for people not to work. But an experiment with guaranteed income to residents in a Canadian province called Manitoba showed that providing a basic income to citizens did not have a significant effect on the labor market participation of the recipients. These results however, are disputable and in no way conclusive about the effectiveness of a nationwide UBI system. Finally, some opponents still argue that giving money to everyone won't necessarily solve poverty.

How would we even finance UBI?

   Funding a UBI system is certainly achievable in rich countries like the US, Canada, Germany, Switzerland etc. Some of the funding could simply be drawn from the replacement of old welfare programs. Additional revenue would have to be raised by several possible ways. One of them is through a raise in income tax, although doing this can be more harmful than good as it would potentially increase people's rationale for tax evasion or have other adverse effects. An interesting alternative would be through a system of taxation that is popular in Europe known as value-added tax or VAT. A VAT is a tax that is based on the increase in value something goes through in each stage of production or distribution. Another idea is funding through a land tax. A national land tax based on all the land in the US (whose entire value is estimated at $23 trillion) of just 5% could raise about $1 trillion in revenue.

Courtesy of 'fastcoexist'

Conclusion

   The support from people of all political ideologies proves that this is certainly not a strictly partisan proposal, but rather something that needs to be seriously studied and considered along nonpartisan lines. Could this be a solution to poverty? only in practice would we know for sure. But I would advise for us not to forget the wise words of Maimonides, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." 

-----

Redirect to: 

Article in The Economist

Our state of Alaska closest to already having UBI

 

Book Review 01: "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat

   Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, author and statesman. His most famous work is The Law, which is an easy-to-read flagship Libertarian work of philosophy that is highly critical of socialism (and communism.)

From 'wesley gospel' website

   A few months ago, a couple of buddies and I were given a copy of this book from our local Republican representative (although he was really Libertarian) for free after meeting with him and voicing our concerns about a political issue. At the time (because we had a rather heated disagreement), when he gave us the book I thought to myself "what a joke! I'm not reading this crap!" and I tossed the book aside. I didn't throw it away though, I kept it in my library without giving it much thought. Today, I decided to pick this book up after having gone through my whole library for the summer and give it my full attention. In short: I have a much better understanding about Libertarianism, but I still have my reservations about it.


   In The Law, Bastiat, living under the growing influence of socialism, famously states that "socialists despise mankind" and "want to play God." A revolutionary for his time, Bastiat gives his formal definition of law as the "collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense." The purpose of this common force is only to defend persons, liberty and property. However, the premise goes against the act of taxation, as it states that

...Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force--for the same reason--cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups...

In other words, a man's labor should be free and the fruits of his labor should be protected from unjust attack. This espouses the non-aggression principle that is a core philosophy of Libertarianism. Bastiat goes on to say that legislators seek power over the power because they want to mold mankind in their vision. The principles of government are innately immoral not only because they violate the non-aggression principle through taxation, but because they do not trust humans to govern themselves and therefore see regular citizens as sheep. So for example, in the case of education, Bastiat argues that just because he does not support "socialist" public education, it does not mean he doesn't support education, it just means he does not support the law committing legal 'plunder' (basically theft) by violating our liberty and property via taxation. Libertarians do not support forced fraternity, forced artificial unity, forced association and forced organization. Bastiat further states that social democrats are fundamentally flawed in their logic because if "people are incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence?" All in all, Bastiat believes individual liberty and rights should be at a maximum and government should not step in other than to enforce just laws, and the there should be market anarchy.        

From 'libertarian memes' pinterest

   My take on this philosophy is that much like socialism, it sounds great until its put into practice. I cannot in good conscience say that I would trust a completely free market to protect the environment. I also do not see how such a small government could not easily be bought out by big corporations, much like what we have now, but only worse. Politically I'm a centrist, so I identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative for the most part, but even so I recognize that there is some good to government if policies are implemented properly and there is little corruption. I also believe strongly in soft regulations on the market, as capitalism is not perfect and does have its rough edges.

   Another point I'd like to make is that even though I am not a social democrat, there is a claim Bastiat makes that has not held up

...Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest people? Those people are found in the countries where the law least interferes with private affairs; where government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest scope...

   In several world happiness indexes, countries that are social democracies (heavily taxed welfare states usually characterized by mixed socialist/capitalist economies and large governments) have consistently ranked as the happiest countries on Earth; particularly the Scandinavian countries.
How could this be? Well, my belief is that perhaps Bastiat is still kind of right, but it just depends where you are and who you're looking at. But if he were alive today, he would likely despise the heavy taxation in the social democracies specifically and criticize it as an extreme violation of liberty--but according to the self-reported happiness indexes, I don't think the people under the rule of social democracies mind it all that much.

Stockholm, Sweden (a socially democratic country.) Courtesy of 'planet ware' website

   All in all, The Law is a must-read for anyone who is interested in political philosophy and wants an extremely well-received introduction to the Libertarian philosophy.


-----
I remain open-minded to this idea, but I will eventually post a detailed critique of my perceived flaws in Libertarianism

Idea: Does the Sun Trigger Earthquakes?

Courtesy of 'big think' website

   The Sun is our closest star, and many of us tend to take for granted just how important this celestial body truly is. You, me and almost all life on Earth (except for some potential microorganisms that could possibly survive in the crust by heat generated from the Earth's core) have much to be thankful for toward our Sun. Thankfully, it would be extremely, extremely unlikely that the Sun would ever just disappear, and we don't have to worry about it ending all life on Earth until about 3.5 billion years from now.

   However, even though we have much to be grateful for, its not always rainbows and sunshine (no pun intended.) We know about solar flares, geomagnetic storms and the threat that this poses to our vulnerable power grid. But what if there was more to worry about?

 According to J.D. Ben Davidson, founder of the Suspicious0bservers website and YouTube channel, there is a causal relationship between the Sun's magnetic fields and earthquakes. If Ben is correct, then he may be credited for having made one of the most important discoveries in modern history. The Sun has large magnetic fields that extend across the solar atmosphere, but 'holes' in that magnetic field leave openings for other magnetic fields to stream away from the surface of the Sun. Those magnetic fields in particular are the most important to us because they are interplanetary magnetic fields. What does that mean? It means that these magnetic fields stretch out across the solar system, and connect the planets (including us) to the sun through electromagnetic field tubes. At the same time, electromagnetic field tubes move around a field of electrically charged particles that are emitted from the Sun known as solar wind.

Solar wind artist depiction. Courtesy of 'end of the world' blogspot.' 

   This leads one to understand that there are two 'special' events on the Sun according to Ben, namely peaks in magnetic strength and reversals of polarity. What is most compelling however, is the peaks in magnetic strength. In the graphic at the 3:51 mark in the video I will link to, there is a plot graph showing the natural intervals of magnetic strength emanating from our Sun from a time period of 2010-2013. What Ben observes is that during peaks of magnetic strength there were large earthquakes on Earth, specifically the Magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Chile in 2010, a Magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan in 2011, Magnitude 8.6 & 8.2 quick succession earthquakes in Sumatra in 2012, and a Magnitude 8.0 earthquake in the Solomon islands in 2013. A Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake in E. Russia in 2013 was also recorded in this time period, but Ben has associated that one with a magnetic reversal, which he goes into further detail to in the video. The video makes a compelling case that solar events are somehow triggering a large portion of the major earthquakes we experience here on Earth. He claims that in 2015, 75% of the major earthquakes struck on the marks where there were peaks of magnetic strength.

   If J.D. Ben Davidson is truly on to something,   then this individual certainly deserves to be   credited with discovering information that could potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives in the future. Certainly this potential is too great to be ignored. His mission now is to get the United States Geological Survey to pay attention to his and his colleagues' research papers. To learn more about J.D. Ben Davidson click here.

*Contact the USGS
*Contact Ben or his staff

                                          

Music With A Message 01: "Keep Your Head Up" by Ben Howard

 

   Here is a very accessible folk song for anyone who'll enjoy warm, yet deep lyrics with gentle, guiding imagery. This is one of my personal favorite 'slow' songs and it's a good one to have on your music list for whenever you're having a lousy day and need some self-empowerment.

Cheers!

Poem 1: The Rising Sun

Shh, do you hear that?

--what are they singing about?

The birds are signaling the rising sun,

As the night transitions into dawn,

Perhaps they seek to tell us about themselves,

The Germanic songs speak of bloody wars,

The rise and fall of the world's most hated man,

The iron curtain and to the distance the realized red nightmare,

The death and suffering that followed in this region--

We will tell these tales for decades to come...

But are we doomed if history repeats itself?

I say the record is straight but we are mighty flawed,

And who can speak for the birds?

What stories will they pass down to their progeny?

For man has a very limited and often selfish perspective,

The birds, if they could talk like you or like me,

Could provide us with wisdom of which we've never seen,

Imagine--seeing the world from above all your life,

But for now, it appears they possess an esoteric knowledge,

And we, are merely unaware of what they know,

But at the moment night is giving way to the eerie, foggy morning,

And nature's voice this morning is certainly soothing to hear,

For a tired mind like mine, dreams are at my calling,

I slip into a bed like the rolling clouds and close my eyes, thinking:

"...the birds are signaling the rising sun,

and perhaps, that is simply all we need to know."

from 'dreams time' website

--------

**This poem belongs to Greg and first appeared in the 'Ideas Are Bulletproof' blog. Do not reproduce this poem without permission and proper citation. **

Sociology: A Short Social Critique On the Judgment of 'Race'

Couple from 'gem man' magazine article

   Many of us were taught in school about the legacies of influential historical figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. & Malcolm X. Why are these people historically significant? Because they revolutionized the way our society thought about race, and they were prominent African-American civil rights activists. However, our society is far from having eliminated the social construct of race.

What do I mean by the "social construct" of race?

What the "social construction" of race really means

  For starters, race is a rather ambiguous and imprecise term. For example, there is no clear cut distinction that people can make where someone stops being 'black' and is then considered 'white.' If I had a litmus test with a hundred shades of color and asked a hundred people to identify where black stops being black and it becomes white, the results will not be consistent. There will not be a clear shift in color that everyone will agree is when you become white, or vice versa. 

  Back when the slaves were newly freed, African-Americans faced 'Jim Crow' laws which were laws that were explicitly made for the purpose of continuing racial segregation in the South. These laws made it difficult for the newly freed slaves to do things that were supposed to be guaranteed to them as a right, such as voting. But in this age, it became apparent that there was trouble in the predominant understanding of race. Children were being born that were of African-American and European-American mix, which meant that they had to be 'assigned' to either being regarded as black or white. This is when the majority group began to develop the 'one-drop rule' which stated that simply one drop of 'non-white' blood meant you were non-white. And for some time, this idea prevailed. However, it has one serious flaw: and that is that blood is not specific to any race, blood is blood (to put this into perspective: it would make more sense to discriminate based on blood type.)

From 'can black people get lice' website

Fun fact: did you know that in South Africa during apartheid a "comb test" was administered to determine race? Someone would stick a comb in the person's hair who was in question and if the comb fell out easily, they were considered white. But on the contrary, if it didn't you 'failed', you were considered black. With hair like the picture above, I think he would've failed.

   In biology, taxonomy is the science of defining groups of organisms based on their shared characteristics and giving names to said groups. The science of taxonomy was invented by Carlos Linnaeus (a Swedish botanist), and during the 1750s, in his optimistic endeavor to scientifically categorize everything, he did not even accept the race hypothesis. 

Hold up

   So where did "race" come from then? That's a good question that often keeps people hung up. There is a scientific answer to that question, but you may not accept it depending on your worldview. According to the religious answer, the Bible seems to suggest that all nations (i.e. races) descended from one man and one woman who is famously known as Adam & Eve. On the other hand, according to the widely accepted theory of evolution, Darwin would have argued that as groups of human beings spread all around the world, they develop
ed adaptations to diverse climates that resulted in physical difference such as complexion, skin color and even shapes. 

  Differences in culture emerged essentially for the same reason differences in physical attributes emerged. Consequently, this is precisely the reason why different races have different cultures. Chances are, if I lived on the other side of the world from you and we never meet, we would develop a much different culture from one another over several generations. But in the 1900s, post-slavery in the U.S., to find a convincing way to explain our racial differences, culture was used as another justification for seeing biological differences between races. Inferior races were seen as having inferior cultures, and 'true' races were seen as having the superior culture. And African-Americans were seen as having the 'inferior culture.' (If you are still having trouble breaking away from the belief that those of European descent are biologically superior, please read "Gun, Germs & Steel" by Jared Diamond.)

From 'adastra comix' website

Fun fact: Sociologists practice 'cultural relativism' when studying other cultures. This concept states that when studying other cultures, the beliefs and actions of those within that culture can only be judged through their own culture. In other words, sociologists try their best not to judge other's cultures because they were raised in a different culture than their's.

How cultural relativism can save you from going to prison (don't actually try this.) Courtesy of cartoon stock

Why African-Americans suffer from higher rates of diabetes

   One of the most common arguments for people with prejudiced attitudes to use is to point to the fact that African-Americans have higher rates of diabetes. However, this argument has been proven by science to be untrue as once again, there has been no difference found in the biological makeup between 'whites' and 'blacks.' Furthermore, differences in diabetes rates are only the lingering consequences of a history of racial constructions and a history of social stratification based on that fact. Therefore, the explanation is that any kind of seeming biological differences between people have only arised due to social categorization over time. Similarly, this is precisely the reason why there is the persistent 'ghetto' attribution to African-Americans. A history of social stratification based on race has had detrimental effects on the economic and educational opportunities of many African-American families and have created collections of poor neighborhoods and generational cycles of poverty.

Fun fact: have you ever been so pressured into doing well at something that you didn't think you'd do well, but  when it came time you did do really well? Or has people's lack of confidence in you ever hurt your own confidence in yourself? labeling theory in sociology may help explain this. Labeling theory states that performance or self-identity of individuals may be influenced or even determined by the terms used to describe or classify them by others. This theory plays in right along with stereotyping and why it can be so hurtful to the targets of stereotypes. It can also explain how we may make stereotypes become more true simply by insisting their accuracy.

Why biologists are fed up with race

   In a scientific article published in the 'Science' magazine website in February of this year, 4 prominent scientific scholars wrote about the uselessness of the reference to race in biological studies. They argued that since biology can not establish a meaningful definition to race, they need to get rid of the reference to it in science because it harms the honest biology research. Biologists alike have come out in support of the idea, and social scientists are finally getting recognition for what they've been saying all along.

Reflection

   There is still much more to say about the social construction of race, but I believe anyone going in would have come out by now with some added value to their understanding of race.

   Now, I invite you to look at something I found on YouTube. This comment came from an individual who's identity will be protected, but whom I have no association with. Let's take a look:

... As a white nationalist I come from a country whose intellectuals have completly destroyed my race my future and my identity. Fuck globalism, and interracial societies...

With the fresh look at race, I'll let the reader decide why that statement is quite ironic.

-------------

SOURCES:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/deviance-social-control-and-crime-7/the-symbolic-interactionalist-perspective-on-deviance-64/labeling-theory-383-8117/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

http://www.biologyreference.com/Ta-Va/Taxonomy-History-of.html

https://anthropology.net/2008/10/01/race-as-a-social-construct/

News: Act Of Terrorism In Orlando Sparks Fresh Gun Control Furor - Is It Justified?

   As you may have heard, a gunman named Omar Mateen shot 49 people dead this past Sunday. The incident has resulted in the *deadliest mass shooting in American history. The attacker, who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and praised the Boston Marathon bombers, committed this act on American soil in retaliation against the gay community, whom Omar had much contempt for. Already full of hate, seeing two men kissing was the particular event that set Omar off and compelled him to grab his AR-15 and rein terror on a gay night club called 'Pulse.'

   The details of this story are gruesome, but what is perhaps most shocking is the fact that Omar was investigated by the FBI not once--but twice. And it gets worse, this individual was able to legally obtain his weapon. The evidence is abundantly clear--we could have prevented this from happening. One might expect that a state that is already on it's toes about terrorism would have easily been able to identify this potential issue, especially considering that Omar Mateen has made plenty inflammatory remarks in the past about his family ties to Al Qaeda and talking about murdering people to his coworkers. This fundamentalist Muslim was never a true American and should not have been allowed to purchase the AR-15 legally, let alone be in our country.

   But this attack was quick to be sucked into politics, and now there has been a lot of questions raised regarding what should be done about gun control.

   There are two main camps in regards to the answer. Camp A says we need 'common sense' gun control legislation which includes banning assault weapons on a federal level and increased background checks. Camp B vehemently opposes such legislation but says that as a matter of fact, more guns in the hands of Americans would mean less gun deaths since armed citizens could quickly prevent such attacks from occurring in the future.

The AR-15 pictured here. Courtesy of the 'Bravo' company website

   Personally, I wouldn't see myself ever needing to purchase an AR-15 for any normal reasons, unless I just want one because they look cool. But even then, it's very true that guns don't necessarily do the killing, it's the deranged maniacs that get their hands on them. For this reason, I can only conclude that the most obvious solution is this: better background investigation. If you've been investigated by the FBI twice and you've been known to brag about things like "yeah bro my family and Al Qaeda are tight", then you probably shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. And you should be thrown in prison once the proper evidence is compiled against you. Otherwise, I see no reason to punish law-abiding Americans from exercising their 2nd amendment rights, regardless of how one feels about it.

--------
*It has been brought to my attention that this mass shooting in Orlando was actually NOT the deadliest mass shooting in American history. The deadliest mass shooting on our soil was recorded at Wounded Knee Creek at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota in which federal agents and members of the 7th cavalry sought to take weapons away from Sioux Indians for their own "safety." There were 297 casualties that resulted from this federally back gun confiscation attempt. Let us not belittle the recent Orlando shooting, but let us also not belittle the tragedy at Wounded Knee. However, the Orlando shooting was indeed the largest mass shooting in RECENT American history.


Sources:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/13/how-the-orlando-killer-omar-mateen-got-his-guns.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/orlando-shooting.html

* http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/knee.htm