Introduction
The ideas expressed below are my personal opinions. They are based on my experiences of the past
seven decades. I proclaim no special
expertise beyond my ability to observe and draw conclusions.
Religion
I’m not a big fan.
Don’t get me wrong, if it works for you, fine. I just find that organized religion has
probably done more harm than good in the grand scheme of things. Yes, some good has been done following religious
teachings, when done selectively. My own
background as a Catholic would find that almost everyone I knew was a
“cafeteria Catholic.” This term meant
that you picked and chose those beliefs to follow, like food selections in a
cafeteria. I find this to be a bit
hypocritical but essential if you are to follow any given organized religion. My Jewish friends, the happy ones, also
followed a selective belief system. Call
them “deli Jews.” I think all ancient
book based religions will require this approach.
I have my greatest experience with Catholicism and a few
other Christian religions. I also have a
limited knowledge by association with Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. With the exception of Buddhism, these
religions are based primarily on a published “rule book.” The Christians have the Bible, Jews have the
Talmud, and Muslims have the Koran.
Buddhists have a collection of texts and teachings. The original source of these books and teachings
generally go back thousands of years.
Much like the US Constitution, the original philosophy had mostly good
intentions and may have worked relatively well when written, but times have
changed. The problem here is that they
all needed updates and these changes were slow to develop and subject to
influences that may not have been so well intentioned.
The original teachings were in ancient languages, making
them difficult to translate with accuracy.
You also have the fact that they were transcribed by hand and open to a
level of interpretation by the writer.
Centuries after the original works were written you have important
individuals lending their own interpretation by selecting which portions of the
original works are to go forward and which are to be ignored or destroyed.
So, even if we are to have blind faith in the original
source of the material, i.e., God speaking to Moses, Jesus speaking to the
apostles, the angel Gabriel talking to Muhammad, what came out of those
meetings is questionable.
In my own birth-religion, Catholicism, the pope has the
ultimate say in the here and now. Over
the years, popes have been good people and popes have been scoundrels. Even some of my namesakes make the list of
scoundrels: John the VII who was caught
in bed with another man’s wife; John XII also a philanderer. Other popes are far more culpable than these
minor transgressors.
The period of the Inquisitions lasted 700 years. During this time, the Catholic Church, in
order to eradicate heresy, tortured and killed anyone with whom they disagreed.
During this same period, witch-hunts also provided a means
to advance the control of the Church. The Church here refers to both Catholic and
protestant religions. Witches were
tortured and finally burned at the stake.
The methods of torture were horrendous.
This was done so the witches could be purified and enter heaven. The Church was doing the victims a favor. Estimates of the numbers of witches found,
tortured and burned were as many as 100,000.
As a footnote to the witch-hunt period, it was also common practice to
kill animals thought to be purveyors of Satan’s will and this included
cats. The wholesale slaughter of cats
didn’t help matters when rats then brought in the bubonic plague. No cats meant many rats.
A quote from George Carlin on religion: Religion
has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who
watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten
specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will
send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and
anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end
of time. But,
he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.
Over the centuries, the Catholic Church accepted
“indulgences” which were remittances of cash and valuables to pay for sins
committed. My own brief church/financial
experience was as an altar boy in the church.
I lived in a modest two-bedroom one-bath home in south Florida with no
air conditioning. I was occasionally
tasked to carry heavy bags of money from the church collection over to the
beautiful split-level priest’s house. It
was air- conditioned and had wall-to-wall carpeting. The house was built on a small lake and had two
new Cadillacs parked out front. The
priests were living exceptionally well for the time (1950’s) and I was being
asked to draw from my twenty-five cent allowance to donate to their cause. I missed the logic.
My specifics here reference the Catholic Church but similar
evils have been part of organized religions since their inception. In modern times, the Muslim faith has been
hijacked by clerics for their own benefit by warped interpretation of their
basic teachings. The Christian faith has
also been turned into financial empires by televangelists promising “snake oil”
cures but only if you send them lots of money.
I feel that all religions should be taxed. All revenues that don’t go directly to easily
identifiable charities would be taxed at a flat rate. These charities would have to funnel at least
90% of all derived revenue directly to needy individuals. All other expenditures would be paid with
money left over after taxes.
In general, all religions with which I have any degree of familiarity
are of dubious value to the fulfillment of a better life. If you find solace in their teachings and
camaraderie, by all means take from them what you will. I would never judge you based on your choice
of religious doctrine and I would accept that you would allow me the same
freedom.
Government
The government of the United States is broken. It has been destroyed by greed and financial
influence. I’m sure I don’t need to
summarize the most recent years of stalemate, corruption, in fighting, deceit,
cronyism, and abysmal decisions regarding our courses of action in world
affairs. We have sent our fighting
forces into battles that are unwinnable.
These actions have been taken with little or no planning or the setting
of any discernable attainable objective.
The cost of these wars has never been acknowledged. Lives are lost; soldiers are maimed both
physically and mentally; veteran care ignored; and domestic needs go unmet
because we no longer have enough money.
Politicians seem to have one overriding objective, to stay
in office. They will do this by
sacrificing anything they can to attain longevity in office. The fuel for this engine of survival is
money, lots of money. The needs of the
nation are secondary to job security.
The money raised comes mostly from campaign financing. The purchasing of an influential member of
congress through campaign donations was difficult before 2010. Now, after the Citizens United decision, it
is a legal activity. Large corporations
and billionaires could now buy politicians on the open market, and do so
legally. I say legally with the caveat
that they are only buying influence and access, as they don’t actually own a
human being. The result however is the
same.
This disastrous decision by the Supreme Court opened the
barn door, the horse escaped and then the barn was burned to the ground. The only recourse would be to rebuild the
barn and capture the horse. This
metaphor means that only a constitutional amendment will right the wrong. How do you motivate government leaders into
meaningful campaign finance reform?
These are the same leaders who most benefitted from the decision. The realistic answer is that you don’t.
You will never get a constitutional amendment passed through
an already divided congress when there is no upside to either of the prevailing
parties. The only “stick” large enough
to beat some sense into these intellectual wannabes is the collective outcry of
the majority of voters. That outcry
won’t happen while the bulk of the voting public can’t tell you the name of the
vice president. Who would write the
amendment, or perhaps collection of amendments, that would be needed to clean
up the current mess within our government?
I would propose a gathering of real intellectuals. Perhaps they could be drawn from our
universities and institutions of higher learning. These would be constitutional scholars, legal
minds, sociologists, and individuals from virtually any discipline that would
be willing and capable of working on the problem. Their first objective would be campaign
finance reform. They would be tasked
with the writing of a comprehensive constitutional amendment that prohibits the
gross corruption of our political process through unfettered financing of
political careers. This task force would
then be responsible for working within the existing structure to get the
amendment passed. Built into the
amendment could be other gems like term limits, full disclosure of revenue
sources, and campaign spending limits.
Another possible solution to campaign finance reform, still
requiring an amendment, would be a singular restriction on funding. That restriction would identify a single
blind trust created for all campaign expenditures. You can donate what you want to the
politician of your choice but that individual will never know the source of the
money. This amendment would also make it
illegal to spend money, outside the blind trust, to organize support for or
attempt to promote a politician through any recognized media. Individuals may still use social media to
voice opinions but billionaires would not be able to buy media time to promote
individuals. Free speech should mean the
thoughts of individuals, not corporations.
A billionaire can talk just like any other person; he just shouldn’t
have a bigger voice because he has a bigger wallet.
Prison Reform
Our prison system, laughingly referred to as Corrections and
Rehabilitation, is an abomination. It
lacks fairness of structure and in many cases; it has been corrupted for
financial gain. Prisons should never
have been turned over to private industry.
The profit structure of business is counterproductive to any sense of
fairness in the operation of a penal system.
All prisons should be operated directly by governments. There should be no profit motive in their
operation.
We should join the rest of the educated free world and
eliminate the death penalty. I say this
not for ethical reasons or because I think some individuals no longer deserve
to walk among us, it is just too costly.
These costs go beyond the true cost of executing an individual but to
the social capital lost in the process.
The death penalty is proscribed arbitrarily between the states and the
constitutional dictate (14th amendment) of “equal justice under law”
is not possible.
Statistically we hold a higher percentage of our population
behind bars than any civilized nation in the world. Something is wrong with this picture. Mandatory sentencing guides may have been
well intentioned to fight the drug war but their implementation has been blight
on our civilized society. Judges should
be given latitude to use common sense, based on the nature and facts of a case,
to arrive at an appropriate and fair sentence.
Sentencing should not be a robotic process. Mandatory sentencing has been used as a prosecutorial tool to illicit confessions, at times from the innocent, to avoid
the risk of some draconian loss of freedom.
Prosecutors should have to prove your guilt and not coerce a confession
by the threat of some excessive penalty.
I would propose that federal guidelines be enacted setting
minimal standards for the operation of all prisons. This would include federal, state, and local
facilities. It should not be cheap to
incarcerate individuals. Facilities
should be safe, clean, and operated by well-paid professionals. Federal oversight and regular inspections
would be required. Video surveillance of
all living spaces with long-term recording of activities is essential. This video system would not be under the
direct control of the monitored prison and off-site storage of the video would
be essential. Video surveillance of
prisons would help curtail the atrocities outlined in recent news articles in
Florida regarding the torture of prisoners by guards. Inmates should not be subjected to attacks by
other inmates or the cruelty of guards.
We can do all of these things by severely reducing our
incarcerated population. Since a very
high percentage of inmates are so placed due to drug related offences, we need
to overhaul our drug laws. The war on
drugs has been an abject failure. If we
were to legalize most currently illicit drugs, provide access to these drugs at
reasonable prices, and require counselling for this access, we could lower our
crime rate and severely reduce our prison population. By legalizing and supplying most of these
drugs, we would take away the financial incentive of the dealers. The war on drugs would be over. This does not solve our drug problem but it
would at least be more manageable.
If we realize that people who want drugs manage to get them
anyway, legalization is not as shocking as it may seem. People acquire the money to buy drugs mainly
by committing crimes. Provide the drugs
of choice, or at least reasonable alternatives, for free or at cost and the
crime rate plummets. Drug offenses would
then be restricted to people who refuse to work within this legal system.
I would further propose a multi-tiered prison system. Such a system would recognize that
rehabilitation is possible with a certain percentage of individuals based on
age and/or prior criminal history. I
realize that some individuals are beyond redemption but we should be able to
salvage some of the rest.
I would start with a low-level first-tier system of
incarceration suitable for lesser first time non-violent offenses. This would entail a loss of freedom for a
limited period, perhaps five or fewer years.
Here education and counseling might be of great benefit and impact. Successful graduation from such a facility
would expunge your record of conviction so as to not act as an impediment to
future gainful employment.
The second tier would be restricted to violent first time
offenders and would offer some of the same benefits of the first tier
description with the objective of rehabilitation. Both the first and second tier facilities
would provide some limited recreational activities, the access to which would
be based on progress.
The third tier is reserved for repeat offenders or for
transfers from the lower tiers where their inclusion at those facilities is
found to be disruptive. This facility is
geared to be more punitive than rehabilitative.
Small private cells, no recreational access, exercise restricted to that
which is medically necessary for survival, food would be just nutritionally
sound and provide enough calories to maintain weight. The minimum stay here would be two years
where good behavior could result in a transfer to a level two facility for the
remainder of their sentence.
The fourth tier is a dead end and would be reserved for
capital offenders who might have once been placed on death row. Life in prison with no chance of parole
offenders would make this their home.
The facility would be similar in structure to the third tier in terms of
care. Assisted suicide would be an
option on a voluntary basis.
The last, often overlooked aspect of this revised
Corrections and Rehabilitation system would be the reintroduction of the
individual to society. We too often drop
these people back into the general population with no money and no means of support. Is it any wonder that we have high levels of recidivism? We need to provide temporary housing and
employment assistance upon their release.
We can’t expect someone to not commit a crime when left with no reasonable
alternative.
Gun Control
I will preface this section with the fact that I have a
concealed weapons permit and own several handguns. I will also start off by saying that I feel
the right to purchase, own, or carry a gun, should be a limited right. Convicted felons, the mentally unstable,
minors, and substance abusers, are among several groups of people that
shouldn’t be allowed to own or possess a weapon. Identifying most of these individuals would
seem rather simple. Identifying the
mentally unstable might prove a bit more difficult.
For those of you who would question my need to own a gun I
will provide you with a brief background.
A friend of mine, Glenn, was shot and killed just weeks before the birth
of his first child. He was killed by a
robber that had just thrown his pregnant wife to the ground. When Glenn attempted to assist her, he was
unarmed. A second friend, Mike, was
killed in his front yard by robbers. Mike was unarmed. A third friend Joe was shot in the head by a
robber who had just grabbed his wife’s purse.
Joe lost an eye and had permanent damage to his jaw. I live in Miami, Florida, and our criminals
have guns. If Glenn, Mike, or Joe had
had a gun for protection, perhaps their outcomes would have been different.
I believe that anyone who owns a gun should be required to
pass a qualification test with the weapon before being granted ownership. This competency requirement would involve its
safe operation and storage. I believe
all gun sales, even private sales between individuals, should require a
background check. This might be done
with a national license requirement where such a license would be needed to
make the purchase. This document could
be as simple as a national identification card valid for voting, check cashing,
gun purchases (with the proper box checked), and other functions where a reasonably
secure identification card might be required.
This card is not required of all individuals and it would not, by mere
possession, be an indication of gun ownership.
It would only indicate that you could purchase a gun.
Doctors and mental health professionals would have access to
the national database, specifically the information granting an individual the
right to own a gun. It would be their
responsibility to flag any individual they thought to be at risk of harming
themselves or others due to their diagnosis.
Since individuals with the national license would already be
pre-approved to own a handgun, the still required check prior to sale should be
a simple matter of checking the current status.
This would help eliminate those acquiring weapons because the federal
government fails to complete the check within the current three-day limit.
Sales of ammunition would also require the national
permit. All Internet sales of weapons
and ammunition would require a national database authorization. Gun storage would be the responsibility of
the purchaser. Gunlocks and/or safes
would be required for proper storage in any facility where access may be gained
by an individual who cannot be approved for the national license due to age,
mental infirmity or other reason dictated by law. Failure to do so that results in the acquisition
of a weapon or ammunition by non-authorized individuals would subject the owner
to criminal charges.
The mechanics of producing a very secure card might be
difficult but certainly better than the current situation. The card could use biometrics, retina scans,
fingerprint data, photo facial recognition, and embedded (EMV) chip technology
to verify the individual. I’m sure
current technology could make it very difficult to falsify. Personal sales of guns between individuals
could still take place but might require a trip to the nearest point of sale
location for a quick verification scan.
This could be a simple inexpensive merchant service. Possession of the license still requires a
status check prior to any gun sale.
I further believe that a concealed carry permit should be a
national right with a uniform policy across all states. It should not be a state’s right. Crossing state borders by a permit holder
should not subject that individual to different sets of laws. States could administer the licensing program
but there should be one national policy controlling the purchase and possession
of firearms. The national identification
card mentioned above could double as a concealed weapons permit with the proper
certification.
I further think that limited gun registration and tracking should
be a national mandate. All
semi-automatic long guns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition
would need to be registered to an individual.
This would not prohibit the sale and possession of so-called “assault
rifles”, but would track and identify those who own them. All sales of such weapons would be
tracked. Barrel ballistics and serial
numbers would be matched with recertification required if the weapon is altered
to change the weapon’s ballistics.
Possession of an unregistered high capacity magazine long gun by an
unlicensed individual would be a criminal offense. Possession of that same weapon by an individual
not allowed to possess a firearm (felons, mentally unstable, substance abusers,
etc.) would be a very serious criminal offense.
There might also be a requirement that you must be a US citizen in order
to own a gun.
Any individual that commits or is suspected of committing a
crime with a gun should be promptly brought before a grand jury and, if
probable cause is found, that jury could also deny bail for a specified time.
Terrorism
Since 9/11, the threat of terrorism has been advanced in the
national consciousness. We have suffered
both domestic and foreign terrorism. Every
time there is an act of terror, we, as Americans, look for the quick solution. Cries of “bomb them into oblivion” (foreign) or
“ban the guns” (domestic), become part of the well-choreographed national
knee-jerk.
Our politicians pander to the masses with chest thumping
bravado and senseless rhetoric. We
promise a War on Terror as if it was something that a war would solve. We have declared wars on poverty and drugs
without solutions to either problem. In
the case of the drug war, we have done more damage than good.
We demand a physical entity upon which we can easily direct
our wrath. Recently our political
wannabe’s have run amuck with bigoted demands that we come down on the Muslim
hoards. I half-expect one of the recent
presidential candidates to suggest internment camps for those of the Muslim
faith. He is already fortifying the “Mexican
Wall” and hopes to ban Muslim immigration.
I feel that the war on terror was lost long before 9/11. It was lost when greed and corruption became
a national pastime among our businesses and politicians. It was lost when we went into a series of
wars without goals or objectives. Most recently,
this involved the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of the Saddam Hussain
government, and the destabilization of the entire region. The end result has been the replacement of
al-Qaeda with its nastier brother, the Islamic State.
As long as poverty, unemployment and a paucity of education
prevail in the Middle East, there will be an endless stream of applicants for
the literal “dead-end” jobs as terrorists.
Religious zealots have, for centuries, been able to bend pliable minds in
any direction they see fit.
While we will never totally eradicate terrorism, there are positive
steps we can take. Reduce or eliminate
our dependence on foreign oil. Remove
all troops and advisors from Afghanistan and Iraq. Cut military budgets and redirect the same
amount of money into domestic infrastructure.
Let the military decide where they want to spend their budget
allotments. Congress should set the
budget but the military should make the ultimate decisions as to the equipment
they want and need. Close all but a few
key strategic bases overseas.
Isolationism is not a goal since we all know the new global
economy will never allow us to be an island.
We can however, remove American targets from foreign soil. If terrorists want to fight us, make them
come to North America. Let us encourage
the moderate Muslim nations to put down the threat of the Islamic State. It is in their best interest to do so but
there is little incentive if we keep leading the charge.
We should provide a fertile environment within the moderate
Muslim communities, both here and abroad, which allows them to disseminate a
more truthful message to their followers.
The Internet and social media should be used for good in much the same
way as the evildoers use them to coerce the gullible. Funding and training could be provided to
organizations willing to take on this task.
This section of my dialogue is dealing mainly with terrorism
as more narrowly defined by the threats from Muslim extremists. We also need to address the terror threat
from all religious zealots with twisted interpretations of religious doctrine
and from individuals with ideologies fueled by racism and other forms of mental
illness.
In my lifetime, acts of terror began in 1966, with the
University of Texas sniper, Charles Whitman.
As similar examples gained national and international recognition, we
have unwittingly provided motivation to other deviant minds to follow. We will never totally eliminate all forms of
terrorism. We can however, make an
effort to make such incidents less common.
Infrastructure
For years now, our budgetary priorities have been skewed
toward military defense spending while we ignore our domestic infrastructure. We are now literally falling apart. The Pentagon accounts for over half of our nation’s
discretionary spending. We spend as much
on our military as the next nine countries combined. Something is dreadfully wrong with this
picture. Our priorities are woefully disharmonious
with domestic realities.
If we, as suggested elsewhere in this document, pull out of Afghanistan
and Iraq, we should no longer need the Overseas Contingency Operations
fund. This so-called Pentagon slush fund
was to finance these two wars. We also
waste monies on projects the military doesn’t need or want. Politicians regularly steer defense spending
to benefit their individual states to the detriment of the rest of the
country. I would strongly suggest that
we provide a specific defense budget, much reduced from its current levels, and
leave spending priorities to a joint task force established within the
Department of Defense and the State Department.
Monies would then be spent in a more coordinated manner on weapons, bases
and projects deemed appropriate by military professionals and not by the
current process rife with political cronyism.
The discretionary funds thus made available would be
redirected to improvements in our domestic infrastructure. These domestic projects would provide
jobs. They would provide projects that
would improve our way of life. They would
save lives. They would protect our
future. Our national defense position would
be drastically improved.
On this list of domestic projects would certainly be our
crumbling bridges. In fact, our
Interstate highway system, conceived by President Eisenhower in the 1950’s,
would also be on this list for both expansion and much needed safety
improvements. Our need for safer
highways is made clearer when you realize that fewer than 100 people were
killed in acts of domestic terror in the past decade while over 30,000
Americans died on our roadways in 2014 alone.
We need to reassess our commodities distribution system with
special attention to trucking, railroads, and airlines. Placing 18-wheelers on the same roadways with
smaller passenger cars is not a safe solution.
Automobiles used for passenger transportation need to be made much
safer. While collision avoidance systems
are an improvement, an integrated system of roadway sensors and vehicle
upgrades would seem to provide an even higher safety potential.
I would also suggest improvements in our power and
communications grids. Both systems could
benefit from national spending on upgrades.
Our power grid could benefit from improvements in both distribution and
matters of redundancy. High-speed Internet
access should be nationally available, even in rural areas that are not
financially viable for commercial services.
Domestic spending for research into alternatives to coal and
oil for electrical power would be of great benefit. Our national defense position would benefit
more from such expenditures than the purchase of upgrades for M1 Abrams tanks
and other projects the DOD didn’t want or need.
Water distribution, from areas of excess to areas of
drought, could be made possible. Water
will be a very important commodity in our future. With predicted changes in our climate, we
will need to be adaptive.
