User talk:Joseph collina

Rx for the American Dream

by Joe Collina PROLOGUE

“If you do not like our country, you should leave.” How many times have we heard this? Usually, this unfair, take-it-or-leave-it argument is made when a citizen criticizes the way the United States of America operates and the criticism is valid. The other person, the one making the take-it-or-leave-it comment, probably wants to believe his or her country is totally without fault. Being unable to refute a valid criticism, it becomes expedient to simply brush the stated flaw aside - putting the critic in the awkward position of defending his or her patriotism. It is essential to our nation’s well-being that an American citizen be able to criticize his or her own government - without being labeled unpatriotic or, even worse, a traitor. When a loyal citizen voices criticism of the government, that criticism should be viewed in the way a parent’s criticism of his or her own child is viewed. It is an act of love. It is a call for improvement. It does not signal a lack of patriotism. It is in the spirit of patriotism that the following comments are being made. ABOUT THE AUTHOR The author practiced criminal law, in Illinois and Texas for thirty-one years before he, and his wife Mary, also a criminal lawyer, retired and moved to the Nashville suburb of Franklin, Tennessee. During his thirty-one-year, legal career, the author served as the chief public defender for five, rural, Illinois counties, as an assistant district attorney in Southern Texas, as a chief-deputy state’s attorney in Lake County, Illinois, and as the chief public defender of Lake County, Illinois. The author has handled almost every kind of criminal case possible - including the trials of capital-murder cases, murder cases, various felonies, and misdemeanors. During the seven years immediately prior to retiring, the author, and his wife, Mary, concentrated their practice on handling criminal appeals. THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The President of the United States is the chief executive of a massive government having a population of nearly 300 million people; he or she is also the commander-in-chief of its armed forces. In addition to exercising executive powers, that the United States Constitution grants to the President, our President has the legislative power to veto legislation. (1) It takes a 2/3 majority, in both the House and Senate, to override a veto. (2) This is an awesome legislative power. Seldom does a Congress have the super majority that would be needed to override a veto. In addition to the executive and legislative powers granted to the President by our Constitution, the Office of President, over the years, has usurped power that is not granted to the President by our Constitution. Recent presidents have assumed added powers. First, recent Presidents, starting with Harry Truman, have usurped the power to wage war. As commander-in-chief of our armed forces, our current and former presidents have argued that they need to be able to protect the United States quickly in the event of an unprovoked attack - without the delay required when seeking the approval of Congress. Few can disagree with that argument. Nevertheless, our Constitution clearly states that it is our Congress that enjoys the only Constitutional power to “declare war.” (3) Unfortunately, the President’s power to wage an emergency response, without congressional approval, has been greatly expanded by the chief executive. In recent years, most notably during the Vietnam and Iraq wars, Congress has been content to allow our presidents to wage major conflicts without any formal declaration of war. Congress has been willing to accept these “presidential wars” by passing resolutions approving such endeavors - after the fact. This has led to several major disasters. Billions of dollars and thousands of human lives have been wasted on undeclared wars that we did not, and could not, “win.” Second, the Office of President has usurped extra-ordinary, legislative power by means of issuing “signing statements.” When the President signs a bill into law, at the very time of signing, the President also issues a “signing statement.” By means of said “signing statement’ the President expresses an intent to ignore all, or part, of a new law. This power is far more awesome than the power to veto legislation. Congress cannot override a signing statement. When a citizen carefully reads Article I (the Legislative Article), Article II (the Executive Article), and Article III (the Judicial Article) of the Constitution of the United States, one can see that We the People, and the Sovereign States of the United States, clearly intended that the great bulk of our federal government’s power be vested in our Congress. It was not the intent of the framers to have any President declare a war. It was not the intent of the framers that any President have the power to ignore the laws of the land by means of “signing statements.” (4) It is the opinion of many loyal Americans that the greatest threat to our future liberty lies in the possible future abuse of power by our very own government - particularly in the abuse of power by a President of the United States. We are not immune from tyranny. We have the ability to create an American dictator. Constant vigilance is in order. For example, what if a President ignored the Constitution and the laws of the United States - to the point of causing Congress to institute impeachment proceedings. Assume further that Congress actually impeached that President - the one who had come to assume that he or she is above the law. Lastly, let us assume the said impeached president refused to relinquish presidential power; but, instead, that President announced, “As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and in the interest of national safety, the President is ordering the military to impose martial law.” That my fellow Americans would be the end of our democracy. Fortunately, a possible solutions are available. First, the United States Supreme Court needs to find there is no legal basis for “signing statements” in our Constitution. Congress makes the laws. The President executes those laws. The President is not a super legislature. Our present Supreme Court claims it intends to “strictly interpret” the Constitution. Well, let us ask it, “Where does the Constitution of the United States provide for ‘signing statements?’” Second, the United States Supreme Court needs to find there is no legal basis for any sitting President to wage war - absent a direct attack upon the United States by a foreign power. A criminal attack, by non-national “terrorists” is not an attack by a foreign power. A terrorist attack is a crime. Our police, prosecutors, and constitutional courts can deal with non-national, terrorist criminals. Under our existing Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Third, a constitutional amendment should be passed - stripping the Office of President of its awesome veto power. In recent years, many Americans have been arguing that we have a “do nothing” federal government. It is true. In fact, we cannot seem to solve any of our nation’s major, thorny problems. In large part, this has been due to vetoed legislation or a threatened presidential veto. Congress has been entrusted by our Constitution, and elected by the People, to draft the laws of our land. If the President can simply ignore congressional legislation, then what we really have is a government of one. Is that a representative form of government? Prime ministers of other democratic countries do not wield veto power over acts of their parliaments. No other major, developed, free country has a chief executive that has the power to ignore the elected representatives of the People. England, Canada, Germany, Italy, etc. all have parliaments with prime ministers who act as the chief executive officer. The prime minister can summarily be removed by parliament. The parliamentary system has worked well in England for nearly 900 years. The jury is still out on whether the United States, given its direction in recent years, will be able to preserve democracy for that long. But, what if the President ignores corrective measures? First, Congress should cut off all money budgeted for the Executive Branch. Second, if that does not work, impeach that “run-away” President. The Constitution grants awesome impeachment power to Congress for a good reason. But, what if that “run-away” president refuses to step down - after a lawful impeachment process? What if he or she instead orders the military to implement martial law? It is then my friends that we will have lost our democracy. At that time, our only remedy would be to utilize our Second Amendment, our Constitutional right to bear arms, and stage another American Revolution. (5) THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES When an American takes the time that is necessary to read the Constitution of the United States, it becomes immediately obvious that the framers intended to vest the greatest federal power in our legislative branch. Article I, Secs. 1 and 8 provide: Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; 1.	 To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Although Congress enjoys these extensive powers, set forth above, one would never know it. Members of the House of Representatives find themselves running for re-election every two years. (6) In recent times, this has amounted to running for office continuously. Running for congressional office requires a huge financial bankroll - a bankroll that is critically necessary to finance TV, magazine, and newspaper advertising. Many house members become  preoccupied with campaign financing and “beating the bushes” for votes. Most house members tend to “run scared.” They are afraid of losing the next election. They feel forced to care more about winning elections than the welfare of the country and its People. Many Americans feel that in order to do a competent job in Congress, for the People of the United States, a member of Congress needs to first be a statesman. He or she cannot be a statesman when preoccupied with campaign finance and/or soliciting votes. He or she cannot be a statesmen while pandering to contributors for the monetary funds needed to seek re-election. The safest way to avoid angering one’s contributors and a district’s voters is to “do nothing.” Doing nothing is what the House of Representatives does best. Important matters of state, to wit: waging, or not waging, war, caring for the citizens’ welfare, balancing our federal budget, etc. are often tabled or otherwise delayed - often out of fear of making a mistake that could cost a member his or her seat in the next Congress. We need campaign reform. Our Constitution provides more political independence for members of the Senate of the United States. Senators need not run for office once every two years. Senators are elected to six-year terms. (7) Nevertheless, Senators must run for a statewide office. Running statewide requires even more money than does campaigning for a House of Representative’s seat. So senators must, like the members of the House, pander to the big campaign contributors. Senators who fail to put duty before self-preservation often find themselves representing the contributors rather than the People. Many of us have heard politicians say, “I cannot serve the People, if I do not get elected.” We need campaign reforms. The Senate has its own problems. First, the sovereign states with a population of less than a million people enjoy the same number of United States Senators representing them in Congress as the people living in states having millions of citizens. (7) In the Senate, there is little doubt that a single voter living in North Dakota has a lot more per-capita clout, in the Senate, than a single voter living in California. This system of representation may have made sense in 1787 - when most of the sovereign states had similar-size populations and the nation was viewed as a loose confederation of sovereign states. It hardly makes sense today. As if the Senate did not already have enough problems, in addition, it takes sixty (60) votes to cut off many debates. That means legislation that is favored by the majority of the Senate’s members cannot pass without a “super majority” - of at least sixty (60) votes. So, we have a “do nothing” Senate - as well as a “do nothing” House. Is it any wonder that nothing important gets done? Oh, we can get a resolution praising “our troops” passed. And, we can probably get a resolution praising Mother Teresa passed. But, on the most-important, legislative matters, such as controlling our huge national debt, our continuing lack of universal health care, lack of adequate funding for Social Security benefits, waging (or not waging) war, etc., we cannot get the congressional action that is so badly-needed. So what can we do to improve this mess? First, why have a Senate rule requiring sixty votes to bring a bill to the floor for action? Please, change this darned rule. Second, for both the House and Senate, we need to pass viable, campaign-finance laws. If our Supreme Court continues to find these campaign-finance laws to be a violation of our freedom of speech, (arguably the Court is guilty of a major, constitutional misinterpretation, to wit: the Court’s ruling equates campaign “contributions” to “speech”), then at least let us limit the length of federal, political campaigning - thereby limiting the amount of money needed to run a congressional, political campaign. (8) A shorter campaign season will lessen a candidates need for money and thereby decrease the influence of big, corporate donors on our legislation. Third, if possible, pass a constitutional amendment changing the numbers of senators elected from each state. The numbers should be changed to a number that is at least somewhat proportional to each state’s population. Square miles of land do not vote. Square miles of land do not need representation in Congress. There is no logical reason why citizens living in Montana or North Dakota should have greater representation in the Senate than citizens of California or New York. Most Americans now live in urban areas. Yet, it is the rural farmer who has the greater political clout in our Senate. Could this help provide an explanation for why Congress can quickly pass farm subsidies; but, most urban subsidies somehow manage to die in Congress? THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Article III, Secs. 1 and 2 provide: Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In reading the foregoing, judicial article of the United States Constitution, three provisions “jump out” and catch our immediate attention. First, we notice that the justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life. Second, Supreme Court justices cannot have their financial compensations decreased during their terms in office. These job security provisions should permit our supreme court justices to feel relatively independent. Their appointments for life frees them from the ugly prospect of having our justices running for re-election to a non-political office. Nevertheless, one cannot help notice that Congress retains the power to keep a Supreme Court justice’s salary static. For these lifetime appointees, given our constant inflation, a static salary diminishes the complete independence of our Supreme Court - at least over time. [In fact, there have been frequent complaints, made by various Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, to Congress, complaining about the “static” salaries for our Supreme Court justices.] Supreme Court justice salaries should be indexed for inflation - just like Social Security benefits. Other than its stated, constitutional jurisdiction, specifically set forth in the judicial article, the Supreme Court does not wield unlimited power. It is our Congress that has been granted the awesome power to determine the very existence of any and all lower courts and to determine the subject-matter jurisdiction of the entire federal judiciary - including the Supreme Court. When a citizen reads Article I (Legislative Article), Article II (Executive Article), and Article III (Judicial Article) of the Constitution of the United States, one can see that We the People, and the Sovereign States that drafted our Constitution, intended the great bulk of federal, governmental power was intended and designed to be vested in our Congress. It was never intended that appointed justices make law. It was only intended that the judiciary interpret laws written by Congress. It was also intended that the Supreme Court be the “referee” - in the event of possible legal disputes between our sovereign states or between the branches of our federal government. Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has, periodically, has done considerable damage to our political system by making new law - instead of interpreting our laws and/or arbitrating our disputes. The best example of “judicial legislation” can be found in the Roe v. Wade decision. (9) Although I personally favor a woman having the right to choose, (within certain limits), it was not proper for the Supreme Court to legislate abortion rights, to wit: to set out the legal differences it felt vested during the three trimesters of pregnancy, to bar the sovereign states from legislating against or regulating abortion, and to create a “right to privacy” that does not exist in our Constitution. No one ever elected the Supreme Court justices to write new laws. They were not granted that power by our Constitution or any other law. Nevertheless, in Roe v. Wade, the Court did just that - it wrote new law. Is it any wonder that many citizens were offended by the Supreme Court’s usurpations of a legislative power? The impact of Roe v. Wade has been very damaging to our nation. It has pitted our citizens against one another. It has changed the political landscape of our country. People who were once Democrat have since become Republican. People who are devout Catholics, or fundamental Christians, found themselves pitted against other religions, and the courts, on an ethical issues. Matters as serious as life versus death, determining when life begins, determining to what extent sovereign states can regulate the practice of abortion, etc. are best left to our elected representatives. If one does not believe in that premise, one does not believe in democracy. Abortion is not addressed in our Constitution. Other than the Fourth Amendment, the right to privacy is not addressed in our Constitution. The Supreme Court had nothing to interpret when it decided Roe v. Wade. (9) Nevertheless, the high court chose to legislate. It harmed our country. No Constitutional amendments are needed to correct similar abuses by the Supreme Court. Congress already has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Do it. In order for our Constitution to work, there must be checks and balances. Congress has not been doing its job. It has, in recent years, been “doing nothing” of any real significant value for the People. Oh yes, Congress can pass draconian laws against drug dealers and sex offenders. No one likes drug dealers or perverts. But, when it comes to reining in a “run-away” Executive Branch or a “run-away” Judicial Branch, it fails to help the People. When it comes to fiscal responsibility, (only Congress can spend tax dollars), it fails. When it comes to providing affordable health care for its citizens, it fails. Maybe that is why recent polls show Congress has an 11% approval rating. Again, Congress has been negligent in recent years. Statesmanship has taken a back seat to political expediency. We sorely need campaign reform and/or shorter, federal election “seasons.” WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES It is easy and convenient for We the People of the United States to blame the troubling direction in which our country seems to be headed on the Government of the United States. But, if we are truly honest; and, if we really want to improve our plight, we must begin to look at ourselves. We have brought on many of our own problems. First, there is no Santa Clause. We continue to insist on good, affordable health care for all Americans - especially for our children. But, when asked if we are willing to pay additional taxes to fund this project, most Americans answer with a resounding - “NO.” Any politician who even suggests raising taxes, in order to guarantee decent health care for all Americans, can watch his or her political approval ratings plummet. Ask Hillary Clinton how Americans feel about universal health care. However, it would not be fair to say we are a band of “heartless devils.” When a person without health insurance shows up at an emergency room, the patient usually gets half-way decent care. But, who do you think is paying for that “free” care? The physicians? The hospital? No, you are. Health care costs for others are increased - so the medical provider can recoup the cost of the “freebie.” The increased costs are passed on to other patients - to those with money or good health insurance coverage. Of course, the victimized insurance companies are not about to pick up the tab for freebies. Premiums rise. You pay more for your health insurance. Yes, you are currently paying the cost of health care for the poor. In the case of health care for the very poor, initially, the government pays; but soon afterwards, taxes increase, and again you pay. Would it not be more fair, if we simply “got real” and approved some kind of a plan whereby each person, rich or poor, paid something? Remember, you are paying now. A uniform plan, of some kind, would insure that those who can pay do pay - at least a little. Second, believe it or not, the United States of America was not created for the purpose of providing an international police force or to provide a remedy to cure all the world’s wrongs. But, it seems, at times, that We the People have forgotten that fact; and, we have come to believe our own “propaganda.” We have been told, that during World War I, it was because the USA entered the fray, [near the end of the hostilities], that “we won the war” for our Allies. Well, our contribution was important; but, we did not “win the war.” In fact, Germany, France, and England “bled themselves white” fighting WWI - from 1914 until 1917 [when we finally came into the conflict]. The combatants, and their civilian populations, were already sick and tired of all the death, the massive destruction, the enormous expense, and widespread misery that WWI had caused. (10)		In 1917, when we entered the war, the European combatants were bogged down in trenches. No victories were in sight. A truce was inevitable - with or without America’s participation. Nevertheless, even though our losses were minimal [compared to the massive losses of the other combatants - estimated to have been be near 40 million] (10) our politicians were quick to take the lion’s share of the credit. The People of the USA bought into the political “propaganda” that was dished out by American politicians. It made us feel better about our sacrifices during that nasty, world war. Our participation in World War II was considerably greater. We lost a very sizable number of men and women. American deaths were close to 300,000. (11) Our financial contribution was even more substantial than our contribution of human casualties. Basically, the USA financed the lion’s share of the Allied war effort. Russia, France, England, and the other Allies counted on us for war supplies. We definitely truly helped the Allies win WWII! That claim was not propaganda. Nevertheless, we tend to forget that we fought a much-weakened Germany. Russia and Germany had been locked in a fatal embrace - from September of 1940, when Hitler attacked Russia, until June 6, 1944, when the USA, and its Allies, opened a second, Western front. During those three to four intervening years, Russia and Germany killed each other on a gruesome, massive scale. It is believed at least 10 million Germans and as many as 20 million Russians perished. (11) Our losses pale in comparison. Our losses would have been much worse, had Russia not battled the Germans (nearly alone, on the ground) for 3 ½ long years. However, our participation in these two, great wars did not make us the “world’s protector” or the “world’s policeman.” Our participation does not give us a license to go around the world, willy-nilly, telling other, sovereign nations how to run their affairs. Other countries resent our high-handed approach to foreign policy. They, like us, do not like to “bullied” and/or “badgered.” They instinctively push back. They learn to hate us rather than love us. Yet, we like to fancy ourselves as the one, great, “world power” who can “show them the way.” This arrogant attitude has lead us into the many “mini-wars” that we have become entangled in since WWII. We need to stop this awful meddling. We need to attend to our own affairs - not the endless trials and tribulations of the Earth’s peoples. Besides, “The tail cannot wag the dog.” We simply do not have the resources to “fix” the world. We may not have the resources to “fix” our very own USA. Third, just as we have developed a bothersome penchant for meddling in the lives of people living in other countries, we have recently developed a similar penchant for meddling in the lives of our fellow Americans. This trend may have begun with the “War on Drugs.” Few can legitimately argue that heroin, cocaine, or the like are good for us. They are not good. But, do we really want to spend huge amounts of our scarce, financial resources incarcerating pitiful, dope addicts? Can we afford it? Instead, let us start treating addicts more effectively and on a grander scale. Let us focus the criminal law and our costly prisons on big-time dope dealers, illegal drug importers, and the manufacturers of harmful drugs. We may have enough resources to make a positive impact in that fight. We are not having much success eliminating our abusive uses of illegal and prescription drugs using our current tactics. Perhaps it is because we have developed a habit of fighting the spread of controlled substances that has caused us to use similar, pesky, motherly methods to control the manner in which our fellow man chooses to live. Our society, especially our governmental bodies, have recently ventured into the role of playing “super-parent.” We must wear a helmet on a motorcycle; we must wear a seatbelt in an auto; children must be placed in a rear seat (where they are sometimes forgotten by a busy parent); we must not smoke marijuana; we should not smoke tobacco; we should not eat trans-fats; we should not eat too much salt; we should not eat too much sugar; we should not have abortions; we should not use sex toys, etc., etc.,. . .		Isn’t time for us to begin worrying about, and trying to modify, our own behavior; and, to quit worrying about and trying to modify the behavior of our neighbors? It seems we may not only have become the world’s “busybody.” We have simply become “busybodies.” Hey, it was a free country. If our neighbor wants to sky-dive or smoke tobacco, it is his or her right - unless and until it hurts another person, it is not our business. Finally, let us not make the frequently-used argument that people who live dangerously often get hurt, go to the hospital, run up medical expenses, and/or die young. That argument is not valid. We all experience only one final illness - whether one hides in a bomb shelter eating whole grains or whether one races motorcycles and/or sky dives. It can even be argued that early deaths actually save Social Security’s total benefit payout. The cost-saving arguments simply do not add up. THE NEWS MEDIA No one in his or her right mind would argue that our news media should lose its freedom. Voters will not be fully-informed - unless the media educates them on current events and governmental activities. Without an informed electorate, a democracy will not work. However, in accepting this premise, that we do need a free press, one nevertheless finds it very disturbing to witness our news media abusing its freedom and power. We all know that media owners must be able to make money - in order to exist. Most consumers would not be willing to pay $5.00 for a newspaper or magazine. Pay-per-view TV would go over like a space heater in a desert. Thus, the media, for the most part, has been forced to turn to commercial advertising for the bulk of its revenue. In fact, for some Internet enterprises, fees for services have been completely abandoned. Google, AOL, and other Internet, media entities now profit on advertising dollars alone. This trend is very beneficial to the media’s consumers. The consumers enjoy free entertainment and frequently become better-informed about the products they choose. But, as with most other events in our lives, there is usually a negative side to everything positive. [Aspirin can cause problematic bleeding. Too much insulin can cause comas - even for diabetic patients.] Commercial advertisers gain power over an otherwise free press. The media provider does not want to lose its advertising revenue. The commercial advertiser wants the maximum “bang for its buck.” The media gradually loses some of the independence it had originally enjoyed - before it became overly-dependent on commercial advertising dollars. Advertisers routinely kill programs their managers do not agree with. When this practice results in the cancellation of a situation comedy, we probably should not become alarmed. But, when the commercial advertiser does not like a valid, editorial comment or, worse yet, the news itself, then we have good cause to worry. An even greater abuse of our free press has recently shown its ugly head. The abuser can be a local radio station or a major, news-media provider with a “political agenda.” If these media providers, with the agenda, were to confine their editorial comments to their editorial pages, one could find little to complain about. If a TV, or other broadcast- media provider, were to make it clear that its publication is purely an “editorial comment,” that should cause us little reason for alarm. But, when a news-media provider, with an agenda, deliberately slants the “news,” in order to make it “fit” it with its own political preference - without making it clear the publication is an editorial - then we have political propaganda being disseminated. Distorted news is not news. Without naming names, we all know who the so-called “news reporters” and “news providers” are. One need only turn one’s dial to any one of our many radio or TV stations, having an agenda, in order to find some self-appointed expert presenting a recent event in a distorted, political manner. And one only need listen to, or view, that same news story, without the “political slant,” from another, less-biased network, to witness the difference. We all know which network is being criticized here, don’t we? Distorted news is not news. The solution is not government censorship. All we need do, to make the media more responsible, is modify our laws regarding liable and slander. If a public figure, a movie star, or a political candidate can prove that a media provider deliberately published false, slanderous, or libelous material, the victim of that media abuse ought to be able to sue the offending media provider. In order to make this solution work, the “protected source” rule needs to be abolished. Why should a reporter be able to claim he or she is “protecting a source” - thus escaping all liability for maliciously ruining someone’s life and/or reputation? If a “source” is not proud enough of what he or she has to say to go public with it, maybe it is not true. If a reporter refuses to disclose a “confidential source,” to a court of law, maybe there is no “source.” Maybe that slandering reporter and the slandering media should be sued. Some will say the proposed, foregoing solution will have a “chilling effect” on news reporting. (9) Good. That is exactly the medicine we need in order to return to honest, fair, and responsible news reporting. Absent some reasonable remedy - being made available for those victimized by media liable and slander, we will eventually turn all of our news media sources into the kind of “scandal rags” one finds at a check-out lane in the supermarket. Is that what we want? Many honest, competent, and responsible people avoid becoming a political candidates. Can we blame them? Once one puts his or her hat in our political ring (or a toe in the political swamp), given today’s liable and slander laws, that candidate opens himself or herself up to being attacked with every type of “cheap shot” imaginable. This “gotcha” media is not good for America. MOTHER EARTH vs. JOBS AND BIG BUSINESS Polluters make the same arguments, successfully, over and over again. “If you (that is us, the People) force us to clean up this mess that we have made, (or are now making), we will be forced to suspend operations and thousands of you will be thrown out of work.” Like lambs to the slaughter, the voters become frightened, and they “press” their elected representatives to “give the polluter a break.” “We don’t want to lose our jobs. We need to protect this (polluting) industry.” becomes the battle cry. This polluter tactic works. Of course, the polluter’s obvious, manipulative tactic does not work each and every time that it is used. But, it works often enough for us to have witnessed a gradual degradation of our environment. Cynics like to call we environmentalists “tree huggers.” Some enjoy calling environmentalists “enemies of business.” In actual fact, it is the polluter who is the true enemy of both the People and business. There are many budding, new businesses that manufacture and sell environmental equipment. This equipment includes sensing and testing devices. The equipment also includes pollution, clean-up equipment. When a polluter is successful, at calling off the environmental hounds, that polluter is hurting these budding, new, environmental businesses. Pollution is not good for business when it inhibits the growth of new businesses. Of course, pollution continues to be good for the polluter’s business. In addition to many new, budding businesses - that make clean-up and testing equipment - there are many additional, budding, new businesses that manufacture and sell environmentally-friendly, alternative products that can compete with the pollution-causing industries’ ways of doing things. Some good examples of alternative products would be windmills, geothermal power plants, solar panels, nuclear power plants, energy-efficient vehicles, railroad-transportation vehicles, railroad tracks and rail equipment, public-transportation vehicles, etc. When a polluter is successful at calling off the environmental hounds, that polluter is also stifling the growth of these cleaner, budding, new businesses. Unfortunately, the voters have been “running scared;” thus, we continue building oil, coal, and natural-gas-burning power plants. The USA gets a mere fraction of its energy from our sun, wind, nuclear reactors, and geothermal power sources. Clouds of smoke continue to billow from the ugly smokestacks of our coal and oil powered electric plants. The USA continues to employ huge fleets of “18-wheelers” to haul our heavy freight across the country. These vehicles clog our roads and highways with traffic; and, they continue to spew partially-burned, fossil-fuel, exhaust fumes. The USA, unlike Europe and Asia, has not chosen to adequately employ more energy-efficient, modern railroads to haul freight. The USA not only continues to build and purchase thousands of 18-wheel trucks; but, it continues to build and use millions of fuel-inefficient, private vehicles. Every day we see people driving a 5,000-pound, pickup truck to and from their workplaces. They are not hauling hay, lumber, or heavy steel. They are carrying a ten-pound briefcase or a three-pound, lunch bucket to work - with a 5,000 pound, V-8, gas-guzzling, truck. That is crazy. Ideally, we should be using public transportation; or, at least, we ought to be using fuel-efficient vehicles - as do most European and Asian commuters. Oil is a precious, limited, polluting resource. It ought not be wasted hauling lunch buckets and briefcases to and from work. Protecting Mother Earth is not irrational or costly. Without a clean, healthful environment, what good will be served when we pass on, to our offspring, a filthy, hot, unhealthy planet? If all we have left to leave them, at the time of our departures, is a stinking, polluted Earth - plus a sizeable bank account - will we have succeeded in making their lives better than our own? Saving our planet is just as important as saving our money. Pollution control is good for business, it will prove valuable to our children and grandchildren. A pocket full of money will not buy clean air or potable water. OUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS The nuclear-age family is quite different from the traditional, Norman Rockwell type family. Our families are no longer concentrated on, or close to a rural, family farm. Neither are our families centered in a single-city neighborhood. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins are no longer around to lend advice or to help us support to our children. In fact, the nuclear family is often scattered around the country. It is quite common for parents to find their grown children living “all over the place.” It is common to have one sibling in New York, another in California, another in Chicago, and yet another in Florida. The care and rearing of children is too often the sole responsibility of a single parent with custody. Divorce has become commonplace. (12) We now hear of a wife leaving her husband because, “I want to find myself.” A husband sometimes leaves his wife because, “She expects me to come home immediately after work every day.” Many children are born without the benefit of matrimony. Sometimes these modern, “atomic families” are more functional than the traditional family; but, more often than not, a modern mother (occasionally a modern father) is a single parent and is forced to raise the kids on her (his) own. Without two parents or an extended family, to help a single parent, it usually becomes necessary to work outside the home - with the help of child care. Nevertheless, being a single parent is an awesome responsibility. Frequently, the children do not receive the care, guidance, and attention that they really need. We have lots of “latch-key” kids - actually “latch-key” kids number in the millions. (13)		 Families are often dysfunctional. Discipline is often far below standard. Worst of all, we have parents who literally “dump” their offspring on the doorsteps of grandparents who, because of their age, have a devil of a time raising the young. Finally, we have a few totally-irresponsible parents who leave child rearing to the State. Our schools are expected to “fill the gaps.” The schools are expected to raise, discipline, and instill values in today’s children. But, our legal system, and the dysfunctional, nuclear parents themselves, abhor strong discipline and/or corporal punishment. For the most part, corporal discipline is prohibited in our schools. Many teachers are afraid (as they should be) of political retaliation or physical abuse from overly-permissive parents and/or physical and mental abuse from the delinquent students themselves. The good teachers are smart; they quit. Many parents expect our school teachers to “take lip” - even physical and mental abuse - from undisciplined, neglected, teenage students. Teachers have been suspended, even fired, for simply fighting back. Our teachers are instructed to suspend the “little rascals;” or, if the behavior is egregious enough to be classified as criminal, to send them into the deep, dark hole of our juvenile-delinquency “system” - from which they will probably never return. So what we find are children, some of whom only need strong discipline, sitting at home on suspension from school, attending an “alternative” school, (where the “bad kids” go), or, living in some sort of a detention facility. If these children happen to be over the age of 16, they may “drop out” of school, become unemployable, and eventually end up in a prison. These lost souls cost our nation millions of dollars and the loss of human resources. A recent study completed by Johns Hopkins University, for the Associated Press, indicates that 10% of our nation’s schools graduate less than 60% of their students. It called these schools “Drop Out Factories.” (13) Sadly, as a practical matter, we will probably not be able to change the nature of our modern, American family. That will require a major, social change. But, we can do something about our schools. Let us quit all these “goody-two-shoes” prohibitions against corporal punishment. [Ship captains were able to control rowdy pirates with corporal punishment.] If a student pushes or assaults a teacher, that teacher ought to have the right to give the student a “street adjustment.” We have done it in our schools in the past - up to and including the 1950s - when some of us went to school. Torture is not being suggested. But, a few swats, in the principal’s office, can do wonders. And, the fear of getting smacked if one pushes or threatens a teacher usually works wonders. I speak from experience. When a 200 pound, 6'3" burley, football or basketball coach tells an unruly student to sit down, that student will sit down. Strict discipline is exactly what many of our spoiled, pampered rascals need today. That is not what they are getting.			It is far better that our children receive discipline in school than in a juvenile detention center or in a prison. Better that they stay in school, and hopefully learn something, than drop out of school and become unemployed, street people. Of course, for the parent who objects to any form of corporal punishment, perhaps you should have used a adequate discipline at home - in order to avoid the need for corporal discipline in our schools and prisons. 		Whether one likes to admit it, we are raising a generation of children who break laws, drop out of schools, use controlled substances, and end up unemployed, pregnant, or in prison. It is not in the best interest of the child [the magic words used in our juvenile courts] (14) to allow our kids to do whatever they choose. In fact, allowing our children to do whatever they please is a ticket to their destruction. OUR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY If a sick person, who is in need of constant, professional medical care, were to seek care in an American hospital, he or she would be hard-pressed to find a hospital bed for less that three-thousand dollars ($3,000.00) per day. [One article suggests it may actually cost as much a $10,000.00 per day.] (15) It is not the least bit uncommon for a seven-day hospital stay to cost close to $30,000.00 - once all the trimmings are added to the “rent.” (15) Granted, we would be receiving intensive, personal, professional care - along with our bed. We would also be receiving what our hospitals label “food.” Nevertheless, we need to consider some facts and alternatives. A room at a luxury hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, can be found for $500.00/day - which would come to $3,500.00 for a seven-day stay. We would need to add the cost of room service, for one person, who would be having three meals per day. At $30.00 per meal, for 21 meals, that comes to another $630.00. [This food would probably taste like “real food.”] We need add the cost for the care of a professional nurse, 24 hours per day, for seven days. That would amount to 168 hours of constant, professional care. At $50/hour that would cost $8,400.00. In summary, at most, it would cost a total of about $12,500.00 for medical care at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino, in Las Vegas, Nevada, rather than the $21-30 thousand tab we would get from our local XYZ Hospital. That amounts to weekly savings of between $8-$17 thousand dollars. [We might add, if one were to have a full-duty nurse at the Bellagio, one would not need to lean on the alarm button to get an extra blanket or a pain pill.] Now, Mr. (or Ms.) Hospital Administrator, please do not tell us that you do not have major, hospital-management problems. Could it be true that your paying patients are paying the freight for indigent and illegal-immigrant patients? Or are you willing to admit that we have major, management problems in the American health care industry? Some may argue, “But, at the hospital, one has physicians.” No, physicians are not included in the hospital’s billing statement. One pays extra for a physician’s care. So too at the Bellagio. Others may say, “Who cares? I have insurance, it will pay the outrageous hospital tab.” No, you still pay. You pay Social Security taxes for the Medicare patients. You pay taxes for the Medicaid patients. You pay higher insurance premiums for the care those who do not pay for hospital services. Finally, some may argue, “But, I do not pay health insurance premiums. My employer pays these premiums.” Well, not for much longer will your employers be doing so. One major corporation after another is shedding its health insurance burden - or passing it along to you the employee. There is no free lunch. We can add to the aforementioned problems. We expect our medical insurance companies to pay for superfluous and/or optional treatments and/or diagnostic tests - almost anything some doctor can dream up. Our insurance companies are paying for practically-useless, testing procedures. Patients are having nuclear EKG tests - to find out how their hearts function. Well, what is one going to do, if one’s doctor does not like what is seen? Are we really going to have heart surgery or a heart transplant? This is but one example of the assortment of useless tests that one can have. You, the reader, will be able to think of many more. We need medical-care gatekeepers. A gatekeeper can save us the cost of virtually-useless, testing procedures - a burden to both insurer and patient. A gatekeeper can spare the patient the risks and discomfort of unnecessary testing; and, the gatekeeper can protect the patient from the few unscrupulous, greedy doctors who “test for profit.” This would not mean a patient - one who really wants testing - cannot receive it. He or she would simply have to pay for it. There is also the matter of medical procedures that border on crazy and/or unethical. Does our society really need an elderly, often “too-old” woman taking fertility treatments? Do all of us really need to be paying for the post-birth treatment of her six-baby “clutch” of 2 ½ pound infants - in intensive care - sometimes for six months or longer? Again, banning this procedure is not being advocated. But, all the rest of society having to pay for it is being suggested. If one really wants this kind of unethical tampering, with nature’s laws, pay for it yourself. This country is in dire need of a universal, BASIC HEALTH CARE PLAN, for all citizens. It should provide for BASIC medical services - not fancy, and/or experimental, health care for all [ Note, unconventional, unproven, and/or experimental services, guaranteed by our federal government, would not be provided in a basic plan.]. Those who are unwilling to have their health care regulated by a government gatekeeper would remain free to purchase “riders” to guaranteed-coverage policies - out of the funds they now choose to use for their current, fancy, health-care policies. Or, they can choose to pay for fancy extras out of their own pockets - if it is so important to them. It is a free country. The foregoing suggestions will keep it free - not free of cost. BASIC HEALTH CARE must provide guaranteed treatment for any injuries suffered in accidents, non-experimental treatment for cancer, non-experimental treatment for cardio-vascular and/or heart disease, non-experimental vaccinations, non-experimental antibiotics, non-experimental prescription medications, non-experimental (non-elective) surgery, etc. It would not be expected to cover treatments that are a monumental waste of money. [Note, experimental medical treatment and  procedures could also be paid for with research and development grants.] But, with a basic health care plan available for all, sick people would no longer have to do without proper care because some elderly, “too old” woman, chose to delay her child-birthing - with the foreseeable risk of hatching a clutch of 2 ½ pound, critically-ill infants - at the expense of the rest of our society. In regard to our pharmaceutical companies and drug manufacturers, who are well known for charging us $15.00, or more, for a single pill, let us strip them of future patent protections. We cannot take away legal rights that they already have vested. But, if we believe so much in “free-market” competition, and the preservation of our “capitalistic, free-market, drug industry,” then “let’s have at it.” If the drug manufacturers, who currently claim they cannot fund new-drug development without patent protection want to quit, let them stop. If they truly believe in free competition, then competitors should give it a try. Let us see what a truly-free, competitive, free-market does to the price of medicine. Or, if the manufacturers prefer, let us finally regulate the prices of our medicines. OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE INDUSTRY The stated purposes of any nation’s criminal justice system is, or should be, twofold. First, society must protect itself from that small percentage of its citizens who are dangerous to the remaining population. These dangerous people either have committed some horrible crime - the first time they offended - or they have committed repeated criminal acts, time and time again, after having been given many chances at rehabilitation. Second, it is in the financial interest of society to rehabilitate those citizens who offend but are not inherently dangerous. This group of offenders would include the immature, the dim-witted, the greedy, and stubborn offenders who have not committed a horrible crime. It is the job of our elected, legislative representatives to quantify and catagorize the various crimes against society. These elected representatives have a duty to define “horrible” offenses and quantify punishments - in a manner that will adequately protect us. No one wants serial killers, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and the like roaming our streets. The legislatures also have a duty to fashion punishment and rehabilitation for the non-repeat, non-dangerous, criminal offenders. Legislative problems arise when our legislatures, acting under pressure from the public’s desire for safety, or its ignorance, chose to yield to the “clamor coming of the mob” and set excessive punishments - for our non-dangerous offenders - at dangerous-offender levels. Our legislators need to be statesmen. It is the job of our elected, or appointed, prosecutors to diligently prosecute, convict, and lock up society’s “horrible” criminals. Once these offenders are accurately identified, the prosecutors’ duty becomes clear - lock up the offender until he or she is too old to re-offend. In many cases, that will be forever. But, it is also the job of our prosecutors to “sort out” those “non-horrible” criminals, who can be rehabilitated and salvaged, from those that are horrible and/or incorrigible. It is this screening duty, and the power that comes with that duty, that can lead to serious problems. Some prosecutors, anxious to build a “tough-guy” image with the voters and other lawyers, are primarily preoccupied with grandstanding or “carving notches” on their guns. But, a good prosecutor must, at all times, remain fair and impartial - even when he or she feels like ringing the neck of some goofy defense attorney. The prosecutor must always keep in mind that a courtroom is not a football field or basketball court. The prosecutor, and society, does not “win” if some poor, ignorant slob is sent to prison for longer than is necessary. This is true even when the objective is to “teach that goofy, defense attorney a lesson.” The human being who sits in the dock is not a football or basketball. It is the job of our judges to insure fair trials and, on occasion, to arbitrate silly disputes that arise between prosecutors and defense lawyers. It is not the function of a trial judge, or an appellate justice, to assume the role of quasi-prosecutor. Unfortunately, this is a role that is too often assumed by judges - especially when they are required by law to run for elected offices. We often hear judges campaigning on a “lock ‘em up” platform. All too often, we have also an uninformed electorate - voting for these judges. Many voters and judges have “forgotten” the extremely important role judges play in insuring a fair trial. At times, a presiding, “lock ‘em up” judge results in a defendant, and defense counsel, facing two prosecutors in their courtroom - the prosecutor charged with the prosecution’s duty plus a “law and order” judge who wants to play the role of a prosecutor. This is commonly known as a “kangaroo court.” The proper function of a defense attorney is to protect his or her clients’ legal rights. It is not to “get ‘em off” at all costs. A defense attorney is forbidden from suborning perjury, hiding evidence in his or her own possession, bribing witnesses, etc. The defense attorney is charged with protecting the clients’ confidences, (that is defined as communication only), investigating the facts, researching the law pertinent to the case, and trying to obtain an acquittal when possible. When an acquittal seems highly unlikely or impossible, the defense attorney’s duty becomes “damage control.” Plea negotiating, for a reasonable settlement, is often in the best interest of a guilty client. Or, if one is faced with an unreasonable or unethical prosecutor, obtaining a fair punishment from the judge (assuming one faces a fair judge) or the jury should become the objective. Problems are created when defense attorneys become “rabid,” anti-establishment advocates. They can easily anger the prosecutor, the judge, or the jury - to a client’s great detriment. Another problem arises when a defense attorney treats his or her awesome responsibility as a “just a job.” This “only a job” attitude leads to laziness. Laziness can lead to not investigating the law and facts of the client’s case. This is called ineffective representation. When a client receives ineffective representation, we experience a total breakdown in the criminal system of justice. Remedies are readily available. We need statesmen in our legislatures. As mentioned earlier, “Mr. or Ms. Legislator, your job is not to merely get re-elected. Your job is to represent the best interests of your country, your state, and the People. Quit playing to the mob. Do not worry so much about re-election when drafting criminal laws. The boys and girls at the coffee shop will respect you - if you take the time to explain your positions to them - logically. If you cannot explain your positions, perhaps it is time to change your line of ‘work.’” Judges should not be elected. When they are, the temptation to become a “lock ‘em up” judge becomes too great. Judges must be fair and independent. Appellate court justices should not be elected. They too must be independent. They too must not be tempted to “play to the mob.” In addition, appellate court justices should not be trying to find ways to affirm convictions. A good, experienced, appellate court justice can spot an unfair trial when he or she sees one. They should reverse and remand for a new trial if they do. That will chill future misbehavior in the trial courts. It will chill unfairness by trial judges and elected prosecutors. Trying a case a second time is seldom forgotten. Prosecutors should be heavily-schooled in legal ethics. They should hire mature assistants and train them to be ethical. Prosecutors must understand that they have been charged with awesome responsibilities; and, they have been granted the great power to carry out those duties. Have a conscience. Be fair. And, always, remember that the Courts and/or your bar associations have the power to revoke or suspend your law licenses if and when you abuse power. Finally, defense attorneys should remember that they are not outlaws. Defense attorneys do not have the right to bribe witnesses, suborn perjury, hide evidence in their custody, commit contempt of court, or lie in order to “win.” They do have a duty of loyalty to their clients (however despicable the client may be) and a duty to try to help seek damage control when appropriate. Being a defense attorney is not just a “job.” If one only wants a job, go elsewhere. The client has the right to a fair trial. The client is a human being. Everyone in the criminal justice system must remember that prisons are for dangerous people who do horrible things. Prisons are not warehouses for societies losers, dope addicts, mental incompetents, and the like. It costs tons of money to incarcerate. “The United States spends $60 billion to incarcerate 2.2 million prisoners.” (16) Tremendous cost can be justified, if and when it is spent to make us safe. It is not worth it, if and when it is spent to get society’s losers out of our sight. CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES 1. U. S. CONST., Art. I, Sec. 7 2. U. S. CONST., Art. I, Sec. 7 3. U. S. CONST., Art. I, Sec. 8 4. Bush challenges hundreds of laws; Charlie Savage, Boston Globe, April 30, 2006 5. U. S. CONST., Amend. 2	6. U. S. CONST., Art. I, Sec. 2 7. U. S. CONST., Art. I, Sec. 3 8. U. S. CONST., Amend. 1	9. Roe v. Wade, (1973) 410 U.S. 113 10. Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia, World War I	11. World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 - 45), Joseph V. O'Brien, Department of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice 12. Divorce Statistics, John Crouch, Americans for Divorce Reform 13. Latch Key Kids, Dr. Marilyn Heins, MD, Parent Kids Right; 'Dropout factory' at some state schools, October 29, 2007, Associated Press 14. The Best Interest of the Child, Eleanor Willemsen and Michael Willemson, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 15. 70% RISE IN HOSPITAL ROOM COSTS SINCE 1980, New York Times, October 22, 2007; Is Medicare for everyone a possibility within 10 years? Ray Bronson Knapp, Emeritus Professor, Political Science, University of Northern Colorado, October 28, 2007	16. High Cost of Prisons Not Paying Off, Report Finds, Jennifer Warren, Los Angeles Times, June 6, 2006