Why Republicans are Suddenly Comparing COVID to Cancer.

 I couldn't figure out why Republicans were all of a sudden comparing COVID to cancer. The comparison seems very dumb, but it's the same progression as when they were comparing COVID to the Flu.

The CDC has now posted numbers from 2020 and COVID was the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. And number 2 is cancer. So it just follows along with the new bar they set for COVID over the past couple of years.

-The flu has killed more people than COVID.

-The flu has killed as many people as COVID.

-The worst flu season was just as bad as COVID.

-The Spanish flu killed more people than COVID.

Since COVID broke those bars, now they moved on to Cancer.

-Cancer has killed more people than COVID.

So any time you hear anyone compare COVID to Cancer, it may sound dumb (and it is) but if you want to know why they're doing it, it's because Cancer deaths are the next bar they set.

Last year, COVID deaths were around 345,000. This year COVID deaths are around 458,000. Last year the over all death rate in this country increased by over 16% (that's a massive shift). And this year, COVID has killed more than last year.

Get vaccinated. Since they want to compare it to Cancer, if there was a vaccine you could take to cure cancer, wouldn't you take it?

Hopefully the new drug will also help, but pretending that COVID is no big deal is about the same as thinking cancer is no big deal.

My problem with how NFTs are currently being used as opposed to how I see them operating in the future.

 

My current issue with how NFTs are being sold is this. Right now in order to increase their value almost immediately they are playing on the scarcity. But that automatically means they are not making enough to meet demand. This is fine for collectibles, but NFTs will move beyond collectibles soon.

GameStop is working on their NFT game selling right now and this is how I see it ideally operating:

Instead of setting a specific number of NFTs to be sold, they should generate the NFT dynamically upon sale. Scarcity can be created in this scenario, not by how many are sold, but by when they are sold.

So a game could have a preorder NFT specific for everyone who preorders the game and these NFTs will specifically identify the token for that release set. There shouldn't be a limit to how many people can pre-order it, just these NFTs should be generated to fill the demand.

Then, after release, they can start generating "Grand Opening" NFTs and these specify NFTs for first day buyers. Again, no limit to how many NFTs can be made, just an identifier that places this one as a first day buy. Then they can do one for buying it in the first 3 months.

Ultimately, they can stop selling all NFTs for the game after the sales dip and they have met all of the initial demand. After that, the new NFTs can be cut off and people will have to buy pre-owned NFTs for people selling their NFTs online. This would essentially make the digital market exactly the same as the physical market.

One might be wondering how businesses benefit from doing this. This model is actually better for everyone. GameStop would get a small percentage from all NFT sales going through their market, both new and pre-owned. The publisher would also get a small percentage. This would give them their true dream of taking a cut of used sales. Meanwhile the consumer can still own and sell their digital asset whenever they like.

This model has not been done yet, but I think we're closing in on this. This model can be used for all digital assets. Comic books, music, games, etc. could all be sold digitally like this one day.

As a Stadia gamer, I would absolutely love to see them do their purchases in this way.

What Bitcoin and NFTs have taught me about value.

When we start to talk about digital currencies and digital ownership, the question of whether or not they have value always comes up. It was obviously something I thought about before I ever bought my first bitcoin.

Defining value was the first thing. How does something have value? And the answer to that question is so obscenely simple yet mind blowing all at the same time. Things have value when someone else agrees that it has value.

It doesn't have to be everyone agreeing, just even one other person agreeing that it has value, makes it have value.

Let's say you have a $5 bill. Why does it have value? Only because the people around you agree that it has value. If you take a trip to France, that same $5 bill you have suddenly has no value. You would have to find someone who agrees that it has value in order to convert the value (a money changer) to something you can use there.

It's value is fully dependent on the people around you and how they feel about it.

So does Bitcoin have value? There are millions of people who agree that it does in fact have value, therefore it does. So long as there are exchanges, even one, Bitcoin will have value. The difference is, Bitcoin is on a global scale. There are people in every country believe that Bitcoin has value and therefore it does have value in every country.

If you go to El Salvador, their entire country now agrees that it has value and you can just straight up trade your Bitcoin for goods and services there. No conversion needed.

So now, do NFTs have value? Same principle. Digital ownership is no different. (Disclaimer though, not all NFTs are created equal. I wouldn't put my faith in a bored ape NFT, but that's my own personal opinion.)

Let's discuss this in terms of a physical piece of art.

Why does the Mona Lisa have value? The same exact reason. People my have varying opinions on why the Mona Lisa has value to them, individually, but ultimately it has value because other people believe it has value.

So do NFTs have value? As long as you can find someone else who believes it has value, it has value. Inevitably people discuss "right clicking" NFTs and downloading the image. They suggest that makes them worthless because you can download it for free.

But guess what, you can "right click" the Mona Lisa. Everyone on the planet who has the internet has access to an ultra high res scan of the Mona Lisa. I'll even share it with you.

Click Here to Download the Mona Lisa.

I right clicked the Mona Lisa, therefore it has no value. It is the same logic. And people will say "but it's different". I agree, in my opinion the scan is vastly superior to the original because it will not deteriorate any more and I can show people around the world without them having to travel anywhere to see it. But that's my opinion, and so long as there are people out there who disagree with that opinion and believe the original is more valuable, it will be valuable.

To me, owning an NFT from my favorite artists holds far more value to me than owning the Mona Lisa. Honestly, not a huge fan of Leonardo's style. The Mona Lisa doesn't hold any value to me. But it doesn't matter that it doesn't hold value to me as long as it holds value to someone, it has value. And it is because of that NFTs do have value.

Sure, I'd like to own the Mona Lisa so I could sell it immediately for the cash, but wouldn't you like to own a $3 million NFT of Wonder Woman that you could sell immediately for the cash also?

While it has taken some time, digital ownership is growing every year. And every year more and more people agree that digital assets have value. It doesn't matter how many people disagree, so long as there are people who agree that it has value, it does.

Digital investments work the same as physical ones. They will decrease and increase in value with scarcity and interest. The more people interested and the fewer available, the higher the value. It works exactly the same as physical assets.

And now you can understand why NFTs are selling like crazy right now. This is the ground floor for collectors. Buying legit official NFTs right now will be the equivalent to owning Hank Aaron's rookie card in another 30-40 years.

Watch Dogs: Legion - All Clothing Companies and Locations

Store Name	Piccadilly Circus	Camden Market	Stockwell	The Battersea Mall	Inspire Towers	Millennium Bridge	Westminster Palace
Apic	x	x			x
Bellingham's							x
CMPLX	x	x		x	x
Cuffline	x
Davies & Co.	x			x	x
Embelia		x				x
Exomod		x
Ferbland	x
Fydel	x				x
G3M			x
Hattai		x
Jacobus	x			x
Jeete Raho		x
Leather & Suede	x			x
London's Best		x
Maikel	x			x
Maison Berthier	x
Nelson's						x
Old Reservoir	x	x
Parker & Sons	x			x
Rekena					x
Robbie's Tees						x
Rosado	x			x
Score/Line	x
Sons of Chaos		x
Pirate's Chest		x
Trainer Box	x	x			x
Travel			x
Trebble	x	x
William Finn							x
Yarrow				x	x

Abbot & Brown only has one location in the Oxford Circus in the City of Westminster.

I put this together because I have seen a severe lack of information regarding clothing store locations and seems no one has taken the time look around and catalog them. Shopping is one of my favorite things to do in Watch Dogs: Legion, so I thought I would give it a shot. I mean, what else are you supposed to do with all the ETO you get?

One of the misconceptions I would like to put down is that Piccadilly Circus has everything. While it has the most, it certainly does not have everything and some of my favorite shops are not there.

There are three locations where nearly every shop can be found: Piccadilly Circus, Camden Market, and the Stockwell station. Stockwell station is small but it has two hard to find clothing stores stationed right at it.

Where are the big three locations?

Piccadilly Circus

If you take the Piccadilly Circus fast travel, when you come out of the station, head West and follow the bend in the road. It is hard to miss all of the clothing stores marked along the way.

Camden Market

This market is on the West half and far North of the map. If you have played the single player missions, you have probably done the Clan Kelley mission in the very beginning in this area.

Stockwell Station

This station is almost on the direct opposite side of the map as Camden Market. It is on the East half of the far South of the map.

Find one I am missing?

Feel free to leave a comment if you see one I do not have on this list!

My Thoughts on this Election...

My thoughts have shifted greatly this election season. I went from thinking it possible to have the most compassionate president America has ever seen to considering voting for a third party very seriously, to surrendering to the madness.

I am always examining the evidence, so my thoughts may change by the time I actually vote, but at this point we pretty much have as much information about the candidates as we can have unless something new should arise.

First I will discuss Hillary. I do not like her. She is very insincere. At the beginning of the campaign she went on a tour to find out what her platform should be. While it could be admirable to do such a thing, it also shows a lack of self conviction. Bernie Sanders did not need to take a tour to create his platform. He was wholeheartedly convicted of his issues long before he ever ran for president.

Hillary has consistently changed her platform to adopt policies closer to Bernie's because of his success. The problem with that is ultimately her lack of conviction. I have little faith she will carry through on any of her campaign promises.

She tries to take the middle ground between Wall Street and the average American, but she does not get that there is no middle ground. Wall Street wants all the money and basically wants citizens to be their slaves. Her pandering to them will lead to America's downfall.

She has a hit and miss record regarding war decisions. She seems to simply go with whatever everyone else is feeling and that is often times a bad thing. I do not believe Hillary would be able to avoid a war like Obama has.

I do not find her to have as much compassion and seems very jaded by her time in politics. I also know that she has done some very shady things to become the nominee. In other words, she is a typical corrupt politician.

And I believe anyone holding Bill's infidelity against her should ask themselves how they would feel if their spouse cheated on them and then everyone blamed you. Through my research I have found there are two ways to look at Hillary's actions regarding Bill's infidelity. You can view it as trying to cover it up and bully Bill's mistresses or you can view it as a natural reaction when faced with the woman who your husband cheated on you with. It's really in the eye of the beholder. I personally see it as a natural reaction to being faced with one's husband's mistress and I have a hard time blaming her for the things she said regarding them.

As a side note, unrelated to this but brought up in this regard, I do not believe there is any good evidence Bill ever raped anyone. The one claiming he did changed her story and claimed she received nothing from the Clinton's. I don't know which story of the mistress to believe so I am choosing innocent until proven guilty.

In any other election, Hillary would almost easily be the worst candidate... but then there is Trump.

I believe anyone who believes Trump and Hillary are equally horrible candidates are over simplifying the issues. They certainly both have their faults, but Trump is far and away the worst here.

The reason I did not bring up abortion in regards to Hillary is because there is no difference between her and Trump. Anyone who buys that Trump will spend 3 seconds thinking about abortion has not been paying attention to anything he's said prior to declaring his run for office. If anyone was ever using the issue of abortion to get into the White House, it is him. He's been a Planned Parenthood supporter for decades and even complimented them during the first Republican debate. So kid yourself if you want and believe he's made some miraculous turn around, but I do not buy it for a second.

Probably because next to every thing Trump says is a lie. The first evidence I submit to you is his Politifact record. You could try to say they are bias, but that doesn't explain why almost all Republicans and Democrats have nearly the same percentages on truth and lies... except Trump. Trump has about the same record as internet memes... And honestly, I'm pretty sure internet memes are where Trump gets most of his information. I mean really, Cruz's father shot Kennedy? Really?!

Hillary has told lies, that is for sure. But when compared to the sheer volume of lies that Trump has told, Hillary does not even come close.

Then we can discuss the 32+ lies in the first presidential debate or his equally bad record in the second one. The inability to remember what he himself said. Most people remember that he said "uh, yeah, I guess" when Howard Stern asked him if he thought we should go to war with Iraq. What most people forget is that he immediately followed that with "we should have gone in sooner." He did not just want to go to war with Iraq, he did not know why it took us so long.

Trump has already had his share of sexual harassment suits. But when added with the context of bragging about sexually assaulting women, it is hard not to believe at least some of those cases are legit. And anyone who thinks that was "locker room" talk is either a sexual predator or needs to report some people because what he said is illegal. Then when asked about it in the debate, Trump did not even seem to understand that what he said was sexual assault, nor did his apology include anything about denouncing sexual assault.

Trump cannot negotiate peace with the Republican party. How well do you think he'll do with a hostile foreign power? It is all fun and games until he is President and tells a Naval Destroyer to blow Iranian civilians out of the water for making inappropriate hand gestures. Then we go to war. And apparently all anyone has to do to stop Trump from peace negotiations is withhold the plane ladder.

If Trump got his way, he would be a ruthless dictator. He wants to appoint a special task force to put Hillary in jail even though she has already been tried on a federal level. Say whatever you like about the 30,000 emails but we don't know what was in them and it was not her deciding to delete them, it was her attorneys. They complied with the subpoena. If we have a problem with something it should be the subpoena as it was worded. And if you want to blame a person, you'll need to blame her attorneys as they were the ones making the decisions.

But assigning a task force to jail your opponents is default dictator behavior. That's exactly how things work in Africa.

Trump is a compulsive liar who will start a war his first week in office. He's stated multiple times he's willing to use nuclear weapons. He has serious problems.

Ultimately I feel the way the Pinocchio fact checker states in an interview. Hillary is playing chess. Trump is playing checkers... badly.

I held out hope that a third party (anyone but Gary Johnson) would rise in the polls, but that hope is gone. None, including Gary Johnson, are even doing as well as Ross Parrot did in the 90s. And it's far too late in this election to believe that will change.

I wanted to vote third party anyway, but I feel like at this point that would be merely trying to avoid being blamed for what either candidate will do. But that feels like a cop out to me at this point. I know Hillary or Trump will win, and I know Trump is just horrifying. We can bounce back from Hillary, but I fear Trump will start a war we can't win. And while he is alienating our allies, the war will be brought here.

I can't cop out on this. I have to cast a vote that is most likely to keep Trump out of office.

Healthcare in our hands, not uncaring insurance companies!

You know an Amendment is going the right direction when the people who don't care about you are pumping millions of dollars into a campaign to stop it. When you see anything that says "Vote No on Amendment 69" you can rest assured that it has been paid for by the insurance companies who enjoy ripping you off.

As I have pointed out before, the practices of insurance companies makes it clear they know they have your business and will rip you and the company you work for off as much as they can legally get away with. They do not care about your health and well being and would much rather reject your claims than approve them.

Those same companies are pouring millions into anti-ColoradoCare ads.

Why are they so opposed to it? Well, they would not be able to steal your money anymore. We, as a state, would be in control of our health care, not the corporations seeking only to increase their profit margins from one quarter to the next. We would be able to make health care decisions based on what our state wants and not what those trying to get our money want.

Insurance companies make decisions based on what will increase their profits in the short term. These short sighted goals leave customers being thrown under the bus so that share holders can shake their heads in approval because they increased their profits 3%.

Taking decision making out of their hands and putting it in the hands of the state means our needs will be met over any other goals. We get to decided how our coverage works. We get to decide where our care comes from.

Vote "Yes" on Amendment 69!

The Current Health Insurance System is not meant to protect you!

Our current insurance policies are not meant to protect the consumer. They are meant to protect the insurance companies. If you have ever lost coverage because of something stupid, you know what I mean.

My family lost coverage one time because an email (of which I get hundreds a day) slipped through the cracks and unlike all years previous, I had to re-sign up that year. There were no phone calls, no letters in the mail, just an email. We lost coverage and could not get it back for a whole year.

Then we got to learn about the glorious world of independent insurers. Man, those guys are rip off artists. We had to over pay for a horrible plan which did not really help us much except for insuring that we would not have to pay millions, just thousands if we got sick.

Basically we were one illness/injury away from permanent debt that entire year. Why? It certainly was not to protect us. It was to protect the insurance company. This year one of my co-workers did not want to send in all of his private information until the security of that information was assured. Because of that, he may lose his coverage.

Amendment 69 would eliminate all of that. No screenings, no paper work hassles, no re-signing up, no calculating co-pays. If you are a Colorado citizen, you have full coverage... AND it is way cheaper for most people!

Our current system is not only abusive to the low income, its horrible for the middle class as well. Amendment 69 would bring back consumer protection and allow us (colorado citizens) to decide how our healthcare works. Not insurance companies that could not care any less about the health of your family.

Vote Yes on Amendment 69!

Amendment 69 will save you thousands a year.

I am going to get straight to the point on this one. I really like the idea that people without the ability to pay medical bills will be able to get healthcare under Amendment 69, but what is great about it is they can get their healthcare while saving me money! It is a double win!

I did the exact figures today. Basically, Amendment 69 would cut my health insurance premium costs in half straight off the bat. And if I calculated no other savings aside from that, Amendment 69 would save me $1,360.86 a year. That alone is worth me wanting to pass this amendment.

Now when I add my deductible in (something we seem to reach every year since we have had children) plus the random copays we have to pay,  my savings go up to $4,400.86. I mean, that is a life changing amount of savings. People could buy cars with the amount of savings this could bring.

The interesting thing about this is, that the lower your income, the bigger your savings.

If you want to calculate your savings, they have a website to do so. It tells you exactly how much taxes you will pay versus how much you already pay in health insurance.

http://www.coloradocare.org/for-you/calculate-your-savings/

This is only one of the many reasons I will definitely be marking "Yes" on Amendment 69 in November. But I plan to write more about the other reasons in days to come plus answer some of the criticism I have heard of the amendment.

Judge Your Own Sins, Not Others

The loudest ignored teaching of Jesus and the New Testament. “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:4-5, Luke 6:42. Some have suggested this is regarding any individual sin, so if I am not a drunkard, I can point out a drunkard's sin. This however is not the case. This was said to the Pharisees. They we depraved in their heart and not outwardly. If that were true, Jesus would have had no problems with the Pharisees putting down all of the sinners who followed him. But because even the Pharisees had depraved hearts, they should not be trying to pick out anyone's speck.

Often times Christians (myself included) get delusions of grandeur and place ourselves on a pedestal as if we are the keepers of what is right and wrong. In reality, we were always meant to focus on our own sins and not others. That was the problem Jesus had with the Pharisees. They felt like they were the judges of who was righteous and who was not. And the Pharisees were a very exclusive club for the “righteous.” Jesus constantly fought with them because of how they treated others.

Paul was once a Pharisee, which makes the chapter I am about to go into even more surprising. I was listening to some commentary today and they used Romans to suggest that homosexuals deserve death. Quoted by itself, it sounds very damning but in reality, it is no more damning than the rest of Romans is to every Christian. Every sinner deserves death and everyone is a sinner (Romans 3).

When we point out someone else's sin, it is very much like a prisoner making fun of another prisoner for what they did to get in prison. It does not really matter how they got there, they are both in the same place.

Now it is time to blow the mind of all those letter of the Law people. Sin is different for every person. If you read the 14^th chapter of Romans, this fact is inescapable. He spends the entire chapter explaining that some people can eat meat sacrificed to idols and it is not a sin. While for other people if they eat the same meat will sin. Some people would sin if they did not celebrate certain days while others would sin if they did celebrate the same days.

James even agrees with Paul here. “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” James 4:17. The spirit of the Law is written on our hearts and God has written His own unique writing on each of our hearts to serve God’s purpose.

To top it off, Paul instructs those who eat and those who do not eat to not try to change the other believer’s practices (Romans 14:22). Both are following God’s conviction and if they did contrary to their conviction they would be sinning.

Why? Because the Holy Spirit convicts us. Not you, not me, not the Law, the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin (John 16:8). For us to decide that it is our job to convict someone of sin is to suggest the Holy Spirit is not doing a good enough job and needs our help.

We are to point people to Jesus Christ. When the Holy Spirit comes into their life, He will convict them as He sees fit. It is impossible to receive the Holy Spirit and not be convicted, but what they are convicted of is between them and God.

Does this mean God can convict people of contradictory things? Possibly, but I tend to think there are things God chooses simply not to convict people of. But the important thing is that we understand that these convictions are given to us personally and not to others. We should not be condemning people for their sins. Jesus came to this world to save it, not to judge it (John 3:17). How can we possibly say it our job to judge it when even Jesus who has such authority, chose not to?

"Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." -Romans 14:19

Word of caution

If anyone read this and thought, "cool, I get to make up my own mind if something is a sin or not" then you did not read this correctly. The Holy Spirit convicts us, not us. If we are only convicted about things we want to be convicted about, then we are not being convicted by the Holy Spirit.

So when do we confront someone?

Both Jesus (Matthew 18:15-17) and Paul (1 Corinthians 5) do point out there are times when we should confront a brother or sister in Christ. First of all, they should be a Christian. If they are not, then we should not say anything. If they are outside of Christ, then it is not our job to tell them anything regarding sin (1 Corinthians 5:12).

Second, it should be something obviously a sin. Paul confronts a member of the Corinthian church about sleeping with his mother-in-law. Something that would have been appalling even for non-Christians. If you feel like you should criticize someone's music selection, you have missed the point. It is only in extreme cases that confrontation is needed.

Why Democratic Socialism is soon to be very important.

Despite what people believe, Democratic Socialism is not opposed to Capitalism. It actually compliments Capitalism. Democratic Socialism is democratically deciding as a society that certain things (like health care) are rights for every citizen (as many of the worlds happiest nations have found out).

It is not full socialism which puts everything under the governments regulation.

But Bernie Sanders is pushing Democratic Socialism because he has fairly amazing abilities of foresight when he predicted ISIS filling the political vacuum and the great recession. He sees what many young people see but older generations have a hard time comprehending. It's a concept that is obvious to the younger generation because we have been born into it. It is a very simple truth that is inevitable at our current pace of technological improvement.

We are all about to be replaced with robots and artificial intelligence.

Think you are in an industry that is safe from such advancement? Think again. What are you? A stock broker? Please, you will be the first to go. Are you into coding, like me? Sorry, we have literally worked ourselves out of a job.

Maybe you are creative and like to write books. Well, A.I. loves to write books more than you do! Songwriters are safe though, right? Wrong, they have already been replaced and you did not even notice. Movies? Yeah, they are out too.

You can always fall back on working at McDonald's though, right? Hmmm, maybe not. Walmart? I would not count on it.

Sure, there may always be some humans doing those jobs, but they will be a niche and novelty, not the norm.

All that to say what the younger generation already knows. We will be replaced. Sure, it will take some time and there will be resistance but ultimately progress will happen. And mainly because Capitalist businessmen cannot ignore the cost savings.

So what happens when we have all been properly put out of a job and we are not billionaires? We will have to rely on the government or the corporations who no longer have a need for us. By then it will probably be something fairly simple. With solar panels getting more efficient and electric cars going farther and 3D printing of housing drastically reducing building costs and 3D printed food becoming super cheap the cost of living is bound to plummet.

When this happens, the top 1% may hold not just the majority of the wealth in America (as they currently do) but almost all of it. At which point we will have two options.

The first option would be the Republican response. Sorry, you cannot earn any money and are a failure. You can go into debt the rest of your life and be a corporate slave. You will own nothing and have no hope of ever paying off your debt.

The second option is to rely on the government. In such a scenario, I can see why the Dutch are testing out a $20,000 a year guaranteed income. The majority of America may need a guaranteed income in the near future.

Because in this future we are creating, Democratic Socialism is the only form of freedom we will enjoy.

I am not pro-life or pro-choice.

The more I study politics the more I see that picking a side is nearly impossible without taking on attributes we do not agree with. Sadly we come up with boxes and we put everyone in them. Either people are pro-life or pro-choice, there is no other categories.

This is not true despite what people would believe. We can have our own ideas and we do not have to agree with the labels people put on us. By the time I finish this article though, I can guarantee that the pro-lifers will say I am pro-choice and the pro-choicers will say I am pro-life. If that is the case then I feel I have done my job well.

I have self identified as pro-life for a very long time, but there are things about the pro-life movement that just does not make sense to me. I do believe life begins at conception. I believe that deliberately ending that life is murder. However, I am not against sex education and I am not against contraceptives. I am also pro-welfare (which is some how oddly related).

The pro-life movement has taken on this banner of abstinence in a very Pharisee style move. Though as Christians we are instructed not to judge those outside the church (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). It is not our job to try and make all sins illegal. And trying to make the outside world stop having sex is about as useful as holding out your hand to stop a freight train.

What is your goal?

At this point in my life, I have a very specific political goal. To reduce the number of abortions to as small as possible. This, strangely enough, does not seem to be the goal of either pro-life or pro-choice.

I know because I have asked pro-lifers if they could reduce the number of abortions by 42%, would they vote for a pro-choice candidate. The answer, every single time, is "no." And is followed by some answer about not liking the idea of teenagers having sex or not liking contraceptives at all.

So there it is. Reducing the number of abortions is clearly not a pro-life goal, or if it is, it is not at the top of the list of priorities.

It is certainly not a pro-choicer's goal as asking the same question with roles reversed is obviously "no" as a pro-choicer's goal is to have choice where a pro-life candidate would take that choice away.

Pro-Life political agenda will not reduce the abortion rate.

The abortion rate, whether illegal or legal remains about the same.The New York Times discusses a rather global study that was done and the legal status of abortion has very little impact on abortion rates. And in some cases, making it legal actually reduces the abortion rate.

Why is this? Because illegal abortion is usually coupled with low access to birth control.

So what are you going to do about it?

I am going to vote for Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is very pro-choice and while I do not agree with the ideology that a fetus is not life or a person, Senator Sander's idea of Universal Health Care has the potential to reduce the number abortions about 40%.

With Universal Health Care, women could have unrestricted access to birth control that could last years. And how do we know that will reduce the abortion rate so dramatically? Well, they have performed this experiment right here in my own back yard.

In Colorado they began and very long experiment where they offered poor women and teenagers free long term birth control. And yeah, they found they were able to reduce the number of abortions by 42%! That is phenomenal!

If you are reading this article and your goal is to reduce the number of abortions drastically, the only candidate who has the potential to even make a dent in the rate is Bernie Sanders.

Concessions

Is this solution without its moral implications? No. I will concede that premarital sex will abound with such policies. But we live in a fallen world and if it means abortion rates are reduced by 40% then those outside the church can do as they please. God will judge them, not me. If almost half of abortions are avoided, that many babies are not killed. That is more important to me than attempting to impose Christian morals on non-Christians.

I will continue to preach nothing but abstinence prior to marriage to the youth who attend the church I am at. God clearly designed sex for marriage and the abortion rate existing at all is evidence of that. But I am not going to make the world perfect. We can only do our best until Jesus returns and reduces the abortion rate to zero.

What are you?

Ask yourself why you identify with whatever label you have placed on yourself. Really ask yourself what your goal is with that label and then make sure that label is really trying to accomplish the same goal you have. In my case, I do not fit into either label.

Why Democratic Socialism is a Champion of Capitalism

Bernie Sanders is running for President. While he could use a different label and no one else would bat an eye, he chooses to accept the label Democratic Socialist. This scares a lot of people just because it has the word Socialist in it. The ironic part is that his ideology of socialism would open more avenues for capitalism in America.

In an interview with NPR, Bernie says himself why he does not simply stop calling himself that. It is because it is what it is. He does not change the meanings of words or change his beliefs simply because they are misunderstood or inconvenient. Bernie is, if nothing else, a man of conviction.

Let's take his idea for the US Post Office for an example. He wants to privatize the post office and turn it into a banking system. This would cut government spending, create jobs, and turn a profit. What does that sound like?

The bad parts of socialism is what we are already doing. When the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was signed by President Bush to essentially bail out the banks that had failed, that is Socialism at its worst. It is the opposite of Capitalism. It is the government holding up a system that cannot hold itself up.

Another example of bad socialism is the Berlin Wall. In reality, Trump is more of a socialist than Bernie is.

Socialism has good and bad, but Bernie is using Socialism as a champion for Capitalism. He does not want the government to control the banks, he wants to break them up into small credit unions. He is not going to take over any industry with the government. At most, he will regulate them with taxes.

I think a big one that people are disagreeing with is free college tuition at state and community colleges. This is not bad socialism. We are already doing this... It is called high school. Up until 60ish years ago people had to pay to go to high school. Now we have a government backed school system that has changed the literacy in America and increased the national wage average. Back then it was hard to get a job without a high school degree and few people had them. Sixty years later, most people have a high school degree but it is hard to support a family unless you have a college degree.

If the scenario for why we made public high schools free now exists for a college degree, why should we not have a free public and state tuition? That may be socialism, but it is socialism that promotes capitalism and entrepreneurship and creates an even playing field for the lower and middle class.

Bernie is the only one passionate about these issues. He wants radical change and we need it. Growing the middle class is good for the Nation. Six banks own 60% of America's wealth. That is not a good thing.