Presidential Elections 2016, Who Gets My Vote?

I know many of you are confused with regard to the upcoming presidential election.  Since no one on Facebook, or the rest of the Internet for that matter, has an opinion on the best candidate, I thought I would put my curds aside and whey in on this critical situation.  You know this is going to be good because we just had a cryptic “Little Miss Muffet” reference.  Where else do you find such stuff.

What is a Tuffet anyway?  Noun, meaning small mound or low seat

I have done all the research for you so you don’t have to think.  Normally I would vet all my research through Snopes but, since nobody else seems to do this, I decided I would use the seemingly popular Hopes.  You see, Hopes is the process where you just say whatever comes to mind and you “Hopes” it is true.

For those of you with short attention spans I will cut to the chase.  You need to vote for “The Donald.”  Now, before you get upset, let’s look at the alternatives.  It is a simple process of elimination.  If this whole campaign is desperate for anything, it is a little more elimination.

Let’s start on the Democratic side.  We can’t have Hillary.  She claims to have been born in Chicago but we know she spent a lot of time in Arkansas.  I don’t know where that is but it sounds foreign to me.  We can’t have foreigners as president.  Hillary also comes with a lot of baggage and I’m not just talking about her eyes.  Her husband Bill is a well-known philanderer who managed to have an affair with the only Jewish girl on the planet who didn’t know how to get a stain out of a dress.  Not to be outdone, Hillary too, has been having an affair with some guy named Benjamin.  She certainly sent him a bunch of emails that everyone finds interesting.  I think his last name is Gazi, yes, that’s it, Ben Gazi.  He sounds foreign to me too.

Hillary's new Do, Looking for the Gen Y and Gen Z support for her second term.

Next, we have Bernie.  His campaign slogan, "Feel the Bern" seems a bit too up close and personal.  As my movie-buff friends know, if you spend just one Weekend at Bernie’s you will find out why you can’t vote for him.  He is stiff, uncommunicative, and would begin to smell bad by Monday.  I know, some of you are saying, what better way to patch things up in the Middle East but to send in a nice Jewish guy to talk things over.  I say to Mr. Sanders, “go back, run your chicken franchise, and leave the politics to the folks that care and, make mine extra-crispy.”

Feel The Bern

On the other side of the political fence, we find our first Republican victim, or candidate if you will, Ted Cruz.  Why would Mr. Cruz want to run for president?  He already has a movie star (Tom) and a missile named after him.  His real name is Rafael Edward Cruz and he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  How can you trust a Canadian who doesn’t know his own name?  How do you get “Ted” out of Rafael?  I also heard he is an evangelical, whatever that means.  According to the dictionary, it comes from the Greek word euangelion.  It certainly is Greek to me.  If Mr. Cruz is following something from Grease it should be the words of Principal McGee when he said, “If you can’t be an athlete, be an athletic supporter.”  So I say, no to Mr. Cruz.

Next in line is Jeb Bush.  For those of you who say, he’s just another Bush; let me say to get your heads out of the shrubbery.  You must not head down the shrubbery path because you will undoubtedly run into Mr. Monty Python:  “First you must find... another shrubbery!  Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here, beside this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a two layer effect with a little path running down the middle.  ("A path! A path!")  Then, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!”  But I digress.  As anyone who has ever dealt with politics in Florida knows, it keeps getting “curiouser and curiouser!”  To quote that famous Florida political intellectual and Jeb Bush advisor, Tweedledee, “Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”  We have never had an ex-governor from Florida as president and I don’t think we need to go experimenting now.

Little Jebbie, the Nutty Bar from Florida

Up comes Ben Carson, or should I say Doctor Carson. His most famous quote, “I do a lot of doing.” He was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital.  He has performed surgery on infantile brains for many years.  In this capacity, we could certainly use him to our betterment.  If the Congress, and the infantile brains currently occupying that body have any chance at all, it will be with their surgical removal.  President NO, Congressional brain surgeon, YES.

Chris Christie.  What can you say about Chris Christie?  He only got that name because his mom stuttered.  He threatened to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge and Mayor de Blasio had to issue a tsunami warning for Lower Manhattan.  He launched his presidential campaign in his old high school gym.  Luckily, he had an aide that knew the way.  He wanted to have the announcement in the school cafeteria but there is still an outstanding restraining order.  He would certainly be a boon for late night comedians.  I say, it’s just too risky.  He looks like he is one jelly doughnut away from a gastronomic explosion of epic proportions.  The serious flooding in New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy could have been prevented by just moving Mr. Christie a few states to the left.  But, sadly, Mr. Christie doesn't move to the left.

Governor Christie enjoying his famous "Baby on a Bun"

Now, we come to the Wicked Witch of the West, or should I say Carly Fiorina.  Her most famous quote, “They must be engaged, and they must be asked.  I will ask them.  I know them.”  Moreover, my personal favorite  Fiorina quote, “To keep our nation safe, we have to begin by beating Hillary Clinton.”  This sounds like someone prone to violence.  Who could have guessed that a person with a last name that sounds like a hot breakfast cereal would be so bitter?  She always has so much to say.  Another quote, “I fought my way to the top of corporate America while being called every b-word in the book.”  How many b-words can you think of in five minutes that would fit here?  Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Queen Fiorina

How about John Kasich?  He claims to be from McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania.  Everyone knows Cleveland Rocks, not McKees.  As the governor of Ohio, he should know this.  I think Cleveland is somewhere near Ohio.  For those of you who are unencumbered with pop culture references, Cleveland Rocks is a song from the album “You’re Never Alone with a Schizophrenic” and was used on The Drew Carey show.  A quote from Mr. Kasich, “Frankly, it’s time we punched the Russians in the nose.”  Another pugilist has been heard from.

John Kasich, wants to punch the Russians in the nose.

Marco Rubio.  First, let me say I would never vote for a person that has a name that sounds like a children’s water sport game played in Miami.  "MARCO…….RUBIO."  "MARCO…….RUBIO."  For those of you who live up north, the game is sort of like tag in a swimming pool.  For those of you living above the 30 degree north latitude, a swimming pool is a body of water located outside your home that is not frozen.  Mr. Rubio was born to Cuban parents living in Miami.  To quote Mr. Rubio, “40% of the people who come here illegally come legally.”  I wouldn’t trust a candidate who uses sexual references to make a point.

Marco.......Rubio

On to Rand Paul.  His debate quote which we will share here, “If you want to read a story, it’s called ‘The Speckled Monster.’ It’s an amazing story.”  I think the book he was trying to think of was Pippi Longstocking which is a Swedish children’s book of a precocious girl with pigtails and freckles.  A speckled monster, I think not.  Shame on you Mr. Paul, and isn’t your name backwards?  Shouldn’t it be Paul Rand?  Who has a first name of Rand except maybe that Scotsman named McNally who wrote that Atlas thing?

This brings us to “The Donald,” my personal choice for the next president of the US, or POTUS.  Yes, “The Donald” should be the next president.  You know he is an American through and through.  He was born in these United States of America.  He is famous for his semi-intelligible speech that makes his quotes unassailable.  While not rich in his own rite, he does have a rich uncle.  He is loved by his three nephews, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, who would make excellent cabinet members.  He was born in 1934 to Walt and Lillian Disney.  They named him Donald and now, as a presidential candidate, he is simply called "The Donald."  Since Donald is technically a duck, his younger years were spent being called Donald Duck.  With his good friends Mickey and Goofy, he had an enviable childhood.  While The Donald speaks well from a podium, the fact that he refuses to wear pants is a distraction during other public speaking engagements.  The Donald is known for his short temper and positive outlook on life.   As a duck, he knows his way around bills.  As the religious right must already know, The Donald literally walks on water.

The Donald

When asked about his party affiliation The Donald answered with an enthusiastic, "YES."  We have all seen his aggressive nature help him with sharks, ghosts, mountain goats, and forces of nature.  ISIS would be no match for his pranks.  It’s hard to find representative quotes from The Donald but who can forget such brilliant one-liners as, “Aw, phooey!” and “Hiya, toots!”  And, when he gets excited he can mutter, “Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.”  He is generally kind to animals, except his occasional run ins with Chip and Dale.  He loves his hammock.  He loves his future First Lady, Daisy.

The New White House

Yes, The Donald would make an excellent president.  He is known around the world.  In Sweden he is called Kalle Anka, in Denmark he is Anders And, and Aku Ankka in Finland.  In Germany there is a group known as D.O.N.A.L.D., which is an acronym for “German Organization for Non-commercial Followers of Pure Donaldism.”  In Italy he is called Paolino Paperino.  The Donald is also pro-military and is almost always seen in his sailor’s uniform.

While we are on the subject of the military and defense, The Donald says he plans to make Goofy the Secretary of Defense.  When told of this strategy, Mr. Putin (that Russian guy) was said to have soiled himself.

The Donald's New Secretary of Defense, Goofy

Oh, I almost forgot another candidate, Mr. Trump.  His first name is also Donald but he should not be confused with the original Donald.  The True Donald.  We all know someone who likes Mr. Trump, because Mr. Trump likes Mr. Trump.  His most famous quote is, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."  This sounds like he doesn't have any supporters on Fifth Avenue in his home state of New York.  I say, he most certainly would have lost at least one voter with that shot.  Even if the "somebody" he just shot was previously a supporter.  Trust me, if you get shot by your current presidential choice, you're not voting for that SOB anymore.  So, the BS meter has Mr. Trump's quote in the "major pile of" catagory.

The 'other Donald' Who we don't think is a duck.

I read up on Mr. Trump and much of the commentary had to do with his hair.  Sure, the man is "follicly-challenged", but have you seen what's underneath that squirrel's nest.  It's downright scary.  One of my problems with Mr. Trump has to do with infrastructure.  Our bridges are crumbling.  Anyone who has ever played Bridge knows, any bid with NO TRUMP, can be a good thing.

Long live The Donald.  The Original.  The One and Only.

Ducks Rule

“We're all mad here.”  and  “I am not crazy my reality is just diffrent than yours”
― Cheshire Cat

Our Broken Government

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 attainable objective.  The cost of these wars has never been acknowledged.  Lives are lost; soldiers are maimed both physically and mentally; veteran care is 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 benefited 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

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 (14^th 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 and murders of prisoners by guards.  One mentally ill inmate in Florida was scalded to death by guards with 180 degree water.  The two guards responsible for his death still work in the criminal justice system.  Inmates should not be subjected to attacks by other inmates or the cruelty of guards.

Darren Rainey, Torture Victim at Dade Correctional

We can improve the situation by severely reducing our incarcerated population.  Since a very high percentage of inmates are so placed due to drug related offenses, 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 counseling for this access, we could lower our crime rate and severely reduce our prison population.  The federal government has already done something similar with methadone.  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 civilian 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.

Religion

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.

The Case for a Secure National Identification Card

Background

Identity theft in the United States is rampant.  Fraudulent use of false identification costs American businesses and individuals billions of dollars annually.  One estimate for the year 2012 placed that year's cost at 24.7 billion dollars.  Everyone loses since this financial expense is built into the retail prices we pay for merchandise.  The current hodgepodge of personal identification is apparently far too simple to collect and misuse.  Social security numbers, drivers licenses, birth certificates, and other means of identification are not secure and, once compromised, difficult or impossible to make secure.  Social Security cards were never supposed to be used for identification but, lacking any other unique national identification system, these numbers became the de facto standard for many situations.    Our national security has been compromised by our inability to properly identify people in certain situations.

Currently, identity theft losses far exceed (by about $10 billion*) household burglary,  motor vehicle theft, and property theft.  Prosecutions are rare because, while you suffered the initial loss, when you get reimbursed for the proven loss by the credit card company, they are now the victims and will almost never prosecute.  In my most recent case I had a suspect, acknowledgment from the Apple store that video existed of the fraudulent transaction, but couldn't get a detective from Miami-Dade to even bother with the case.  As the desk officer informed me, they are woefully understaffed and almost never get involved in credit card fraud. 

Proposed Solution

Issue a nationally recognized bio-metrically secured identification card.  This could be a federal government, private industrial consortium, or preferably, a joint federal/corporate managed project.  Participation in the program, for individuals, would be voluntary.  No one would be required to have such a card but it would be to their advantage. Certainly anyone whose identity has been compromised would be motivated to participate.  Since only the person bio-metrically identified on the card could use the card, the loss of the physical card is not as tragic as other ID card losses.

Proposed Card Mechanics

While seemingly Orwellian in nature, the fact that the card is not mandatory should lessen the impact.  Participants would request the issuance of a USB-ID (United States Bio-metric Identification) card, as we will call it for the purposes of this discussion.

Our current  ID system is almost solely information based.  A photo on a driver's license or passport is an exception and not regularly used on other forms of ID.  The USB-ID would have a photograph but would additionally use a minimum of three bio-metric means for security.  While others with more expertise than this writer could come up with other ideas, I would suggest the following sources:

1. Facial recognition bio-metrics gleaned from the original photo
2. Left and right ear bio-metric scans
3. Left and right hand bio-metric scans
4. Fingerprints, single finger or full hand
5. Retinal scans of each eye

This list includes at least eight sources of bio-metric data that could be processed for an individual and which could be recorded in the data on the physical card and stored in a central database.  The facial recognition data would be mandatory.  Missing eyes, limbs, visible tattoos, etc. could be recorded and further used to identify an individual.  Current EMV chip technology would be used to record all relevant information on the card.

The individual requesting the card would select three or more means of bio-metric security and would present themselves at a processing center, fixed or mobile, where the physical scans would be conducted.  They would also provide current identification information that would be linked to the card.  Physical addresses, phone numbers, physical personal description, challenge question answers, etc., could all be included as requested by the individual.

The physical card would use all currently available technology to make counterfeiting the card difficult.  Sophisticated printing, holograms, etc., would all be part of the card.

The USB-ID Process

The new cardholder would notify the current national credit clearinghouses that they now have a USB-ID and that all future requests for credit require the use of the physical card and some form of bio-metric verification.  This notification could be done as part of the initial bio-metric scanning and processing of the new card.  Banks and similar financial institutions, where transactions over some pre-set limit are to be conducted, would be required to check if a USB-ID will be needed to complete the transaction.  These large institutions would be required to have the means of verifying all selected forms of bio-metrics.

Credit cards could be coded to alert retailers where transactions over some requested limit would require showing the USB-ID.  Retailers would also have the ability to own or lease equipment to minimally display the digitally recorded photograph (stored on the chip) which would have to match the facial bio-metric information and the individual presenting the card.  The cost of this equipment would be offset by the lower rates charged to retailers for USB-ID secured transactions.  This is possible since the credit card companies would now have lower fraud loss rates.  Retailers who do not participate would run the risk of losing potential sales.  The credit card companies could either charge non-participating retailers higher rates or pass on a portion of any fraud loss.

USB-ID card holders would need an inexpensive reader/scanner for their computers for online or "card-not-present" transactions.  The USB-ID card chip technology would have a rolling number security system that gets updated each time the card is scanned.  The rolling number would be updated through the central USB-ID database.  The loss of a physical card would require an updated algorithm applied to the rolling number on the replacement card to negate the utility of the lost card.  The home reader/scanner could have a fingerprint reader built in, similar to current smart phones.

Other USB-ID Uses

The USB-ID card could be used to provide additional information.  It could be made mandatory for gun purchases where information on the card would indicate that the individual identified on the card was cleared for purchasing a firearm.  A background check would still be required but the card better identifies the individual and prevents the use of forged or false identification to be used for the purchase.

Summary

The intent here is to provide a secure ID card system linked to an individual and that person's bio-metrics and not merely his/her information.  Individuals using the USB-ID system could enjoy lower interest rates on credit cards as the issuing companies will have a greatly reduced risk.  I'm sure there are a few bugs or flaws in this system that I have not thought of but the basic premise, I believe, is sound.  The need for some system to better secure our identities is long overdue.  We desperately need a solution for identity theft and the grief it presents the consumer.  There seems to be little motivation from the credit card companies since fraud is just an expense they pass on to the consumer.



I won't hold my breath waiting for the federal government to come up with anything either, so the motivation will have to come from corporate innovation.  It will take the drive and resources of firms like Google, Apple, Intel, or Microsoft to use their technical resources to develop such a system.  The government would certainly get involved at some point but only as part of the mechanics after the concept is much further along.  I think there may be a business model here that warrants further discussion.

* Bureau of Justice Statistic for the year 2012.

Gun Control

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.