Even Dollars

Today's society seems to be dominated by ideas of efficiency, and rightly so: the most efficient methods of using time or resources lead in the end to a more profitable endeavor. With such a premium placed on this virtue of the modern era, it is surprising to see that one of the most mundane aspects of life, paying for goods, is also one of the most wasteful and inefficient aspects of our society. However, the solution is simply and easily implemented: include tax in the price of goods (like gasoline) and set the price to even dollar amounts.

Why the Current System is Flawed 

Go to the average supermarket and purchase a single item; perhaps a book for $4.99. The sales tax of your state is 8.875%. You clearly have no idea how much money you owe until you've checked out, and even then one must receive a number of small coins in change. This scenario illustrates two of the most inefficient and easily fixable aspects of added sales tax: namely the inability to ready exact change if one must pay with cash as well as the existence of change which is detrimental to the company and the individual.

Supermarket Traffic Jam

Let's take them one at a time. First the exact change. Although there are fewer people who pay exclusively by cash today, there are large populations that prefer this classic payment method. However, time is wasted by counting out cash that could have been readied before hand if the price were known. Although the amount of time it adds to a single transaction may be negligible (15 or 20 second) the time quickly adds up when a line of customers wishes to pay for their goods until the amount of time wasted is minutes. The same phenomenon happens in traffic jams: a single car slows down and the car behind it slows down too, going ever so slightly slower. Eventually the chain continues until the freeway is at a standstill without any cause except the magnification of small changes in speed. In such a way check out lines become horribly inefficient and slow means of paying for goods when every transaction takes longer than necessary thereby wasting the time of the cashier as well as every person in line.

Coins are Leeches

When a large supermarket has coins and bills delivered by an armored car, a fee is added according to the weight of the money transported. This is ultimately the reason that dollar coins, although more efficient for a country, are less efficient for a business since they weigh more than a bill and therefore cost more to transport. Since storing and transporting coins costs money, it should then be questioned how to either eliminate or restrict the amount of coins that are handled.

Enter the even dollar method.

Since all goods already have taxes included in this system, a cartload of groceries may cost $214.00. This is an exact number, one that can be paid in all bills. When all customers orders ring up as even dollar amounts the need for pennies, nickels and dimes to give exact change is eliminated which means the store does not have to waste as much money transporting and storing change.

Final Thoughts

Although changing the current system would be complex and involve cooperation between manufacturers and stores in complex agreements over price, in the end including tax in goods saves the public and stores time and money. Of course, I'm not the first one to ever propose the idea: England already includes taxes in the price of goods. In the end, the stores that employ this method will not only gain a competitive edge over other stores by saving time and money, but will draw a larger customer base due to convenience. I understand this is a complex and very involved issue, but the ideas behind it are sound: they only need implemented.

Let me know what you think: do you own a store or business? Could you implement this system? Does it sound feasible for your purposes? Leave a comment below!

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

"You can't say gay couples shouldn't be married, after all, they are born that way." is one of the most common arguments for gay "marriage." The idea is if the public is convinced that homosexuality is innate  and not a choice, then the public as a whole will become more accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage. However, this argument has no scientific support and indeed, neurology may provide an explanation of how homosexuality is indeed a choice.

Hasn't it Been Proven to be Genetic?

The short answer is no--there has never been any biologic or genetic explanation for homosexuality. In fact, Colombia University professors Dr. Byrne and Parsons explain that there "Is no evidence at present to substantiate a biological theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data." Quite simply, there is absolutely no experimental or observational evidence that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, there is much more evidence that it is due to psychological conditions or the persons own free will. This would indeed explain the large number of ex-gay persons who become heterosexual after a religious experience.

So, Why Are They Gay?

Although there are a number of theories, none of which have been tested, I personally hold one to be most likely: namely, that homosexuality is a result of a neural plastic connections favoring homosexual behavior being strengthened by active stimulus. This is simply a smarter way to say that when a person's reward centers in the brain are triggered during sexually deviant acts (such as homosexuality) a connection between homosexuality and rewards builds. Perhaps this short video can explain better than I the mechanism by which I purpose homosexuality is derived.

Simply replace the porn addiction with homosexuality and its a pretty concise and intuitive reason for homosexuality. However, what is most interesting about the video was the part at the end. Specifically when the narrator said that porn addiction can be overcome by actively blocking the stimulus. Which brings me to my final point.

Ex-Gays: Evidence Against Innate Homosexuality

There exists large populations of people who, having been homosexual for long periods of time, decide to no longer be homosexual. Many reasons exist for their wishing to leave the homosexual lifestyle, but the most prevalent ones are internal--not dictated by societal pressure as shown here. This includes spiritual as well as emotional reasons. Pretty simply, if homosexuality truly was innate, something one is born with like left handedness, then there should be virtually no people leaving homosexuality. However, large numbers of people do, which strongly indicates that heterosexuality is the default for all people.

Why It Matters

One of the ways that homosexual activists plan on integrating their perversion into the public and achieving their goal of marriage redefinition is by swaying public opinion. One of the easiest ways to do this is by constructing the image of an oppressed people who are unfairly treated due to no fault of their own. Simply put, they want to victimize themselves so the average American will emotionally support their agenda. However, this method can only work if it appears they have no control over their oppression, ie. born that way. By perpetuating the lie that homosexuality isn't a choice, their propaganda is strengthened and their goals are even nearer. So what, dear reader, may you do to stop this? Share the truth: simply explain why homosexuality is a choice and educate the public. In due time the truth shall surface and their foot shall slide; but we can help it along. 

When Does Life Begin?

Pro choice advocates never fail to explain that there is no way to know for sure when life begins and that the answer is purely philosophical: only able to be answered by religion which, they are quick to point out, has no place in government. However, this somewhat logical sounding conjecture is based upon a faulty premise: that there is no way to determine when life begins, when in fact there is a simple and quite clear answer from science, namely, that life does indeed begin at conception.

Biology and Life

Biology, after all, is the study of life, so biologist have determined 7 criteria that all life meets. Although not a perfect model, it does work for all known life including humans. These 7 criteria are:

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to Stimuli
7. Reproduction

By definition, if something meets all 7 of these criteria, then it is alive. This is the way scientists can logically classify viruses as not alive and bacteria as alive. However, when these seven criteria are applied to the zygote (fertilized egg) it becomes clear that it is indeed alive simply because it meets all 7 criteria. 

The only place this is not considered alive is
in the philosophy of a pro-choice advocate. 

What About Sperm and Eggs?

When applying science to the issue of abortion, pro choice advocates immediately argue that sperm and eggs are alive too, so to say purposefully aborting a zygote is murder is akin to saying menstruating is murder as well. However, this is a glaring example of a reductio ab adsurdum fallacy. Sperm and eggs are alive, but they are part of the person that produces them simply because they have the exact same copy of DNA as the man or woman. However, since a zygote contains unique DNA, it is clearly not part of the woman or the man, but instead a new individual. Since the zygote contains DNA that differs from the mother or father, is biologically, scientifically and medically alive, and abortion terminates the viability of the zygote, abortion is therefore murder to any logical mind.

A Final Thought

In arguing against abortion, many pro choice advocates who hear this argument simply reply "All those arguments have been dismissed by the courts a long time ago. If it's not illegal then they must have thought about that and saw its all right." This, however, is putting a large amount of blind faith into an imperfect court system. After all the courts at one time argued that slaves were subhuman and since they weren't people they didn't deserve the same rights as white men (Dred Scott v. Sanford.) Today this is seen as a glaringly racist statement and is condemned as such. In such a manner, the abortion of children on the basis that they are not people and don't deserve the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else will eventually be seen as an infanticidal decision and Roe v. Wade will one day be overturned. 

Of course, there are a number of logistical problems with completely outlawing abortion, but if done in incremental steps with appropriate infrastructure for the placement of unwanted babies in caring homes, this crime against humanity can be eliminated.