Taking a week off.

Stupidly....I injured my back and cannot sit for very long to type.  In fact I herniated a disk moving furniture for some family, and needless to say, this type of injury really sucks (avoid it if you can).  Hopefully I'll be able to write soon, otherwise I will post what I manage to type when and where I can.   Hope to be back to normal soon.  See you hopefully in a week with the usual five posts a week.

Black Friday

Post Thanksgiving post!  Hope you all enjoyed your time with family and friends, but there is no reason to stop the festivities the day after.  Yea, it may be black friday, but I am not going shopping, I am going to spend some more time with family and friends.  Hard to believe a day that once represented the stock market crash now represents sales and people losing their mind about buying stuff (I'll stick to buying from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Think Geek).  So stay home and be with your family some more.  Enjoy your long weekend and see you next week where we pick up where we left off on The Jormungand.

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.  

I'm taking a break from the usual to say how glad and thankful I am to have you all as readers.  Without you all reading then I would not have the courage (or stamina) to write as much as I do.  

With the world in turmoil and opinions a dime a dozen, thank you for being there to listen to mine.  I hope you all have a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.  

Issue 729 Fixing democracy 6 November 25, 2015

The Supreme Court is becoming a problem.  How you ask, well let us get started.

Supreme Court problem:  The issue at hand is that they are more and more legislating from the bench.  Basically for those that do not know, they are making laws without respecting the separations of power in our government. The Supreme Court is supposed to say if something is legal or not with respect to if something is constitutional and nothing else.  But they are ignoring this by ruling that the penalties in Obama care are a tax, or that the government has power to define marriage and what constitutes being married.  As such, rules I believe should be put in place to limit how they rule on issues and laws.  They first should look to see if the issue is a federal government responsibility with respect to the powers outlined in the United States Constitution.  If it is, then fine, they can rule on it, but if not they then determine if the level of responsibility lies with the State governments, local government or if it lays with the people.  Basically a checklist on whose level of authority is this under.  In this respect, they can even determine when they deem it a State responsibility which States can make or ignore laws based on those particular States Constitutions, or similarly local governments’ charters.  However, as a check and a balance if rights are being violated and the Supreme Court says that something ultimately lies with the power of the individual people, then no government may usurp the people's power.  So if it violates people's rights, like government deciding who can get married, or people's right to contract, then the Supreme Court can overturn any law.  So the checklist will look as follows:

1) is it in the United States Constitution and is it a federal government responsibility or power?

2) If not 1, then is it a State responsibility or power as per their Constitution(s), and if so is it indicative to that State's Constitution or is it broader to be a responsibility of all States?

3) If not 1 or 2, is it a local government's responsibility or power, and is it indicative to just that particular local government or all the local governments in the country?

4) If it is not a responsibility or power of 1, 2 or 3, then it belongs to the people as per the ninth and tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the law or act is to be immediately overturned.

5) If at any time the law or act in question is determined to be an issue of rights, privileges and immunities as held by the people and or as listed in any level of government Constitution or charter, and that law or act is in violation of those at any level of government, then the power and responsibilities in question will be placed with the people as per the ninth and tenth amendments and the law or act will be immediately, overturned. 

6) If the law or act is not clear in purpose, ambiguous and/or is not easily understood, then the law or act is overturned in keeping with the principle that if the people do not understand the law, then the law is unenforceable and open to abuse.

7) If the law or act attempts to clarify or protect a right, privilege or immunity, then the Court is to determine if said right, privilege or immunity in question needs to be clarified, and if said law or act actually adequately defines, protects or hinders those rights privileges or immunities in question.  If the clarification or protection would hinder the expression of a person's rights in any way that law or act is to be overturned.

Simple Checklist right?  If you will notice, both 4 and 5 make it so that if the issue is not any government's responsibility or power, or if it is a question of rights, privileges and immunities, then the laws are overturned.  These insure that laws and acts made by legislative bodies and agencies and departments are always inferior to the Federal, and State(s) Constitutions, and local charters. Additionally, if the right, privilege and immunity is listed at any level of government or simply determined to be a power or right held by the people, then automatically the law is overturned if deemed in violation even if the law or act in question comes from a higher level of government. For the sake of example a local government's charter says that anyone can marry anyone as per their religious right to marry, then a federal law may be overturned which say was attempting to define marriage to just a man or a women.  Get it.  Rights of the people would trump laws and acts by government.

Conclusion:  A simple checklist like this will do wonders in defining what can and can't be done, especially if the Supreme Court wishes to continue to determine what is constitutional or not.  So expanding and limiting their power at the same time would work which this checklist does.  However, determining the obviously wrongful acts like murder, theft and the similar will be necessary to prevent changes in attitudes and maintaining the idea that the ninth and tenth amendment provide for unwritten rights will also be necessary as well.  For let us face it, we are a forgetful people and defining what can and cannot be done is absolutely necessary to maintain our Republic.

Issue 728 Fixing Democracy 5 November 24, 2015

In this issue we will talk about reallocating responsibility of which level of government does what.  Let us start.

Changes of responsibility:  So the federal government is supposed to do one set of things, State governments another and local another.  Basically, we just make sure each one sticks to its own responsibilities.  For example the federal government has a forestry service.  They basically stop forest fires, preserve the forest and act to aid in conservation efforts.  But some of these things run counter to each other due to fighting fires in forests meaning that parts of the forest needs to be removed to act as a fire break.  The reason being is that again interest groups get in the way as conservation groups, in their effort to preserve the forests, help to enact laws that may hinder firefighters from going in and stopping the fires.  As such the National Guard, primarily a State level institution, should get the role of fighting forest fires.  The conservation role will be separated as well and turned over to the forest ministries and their equivalents in their respective States.  By doing simple things like this it eliminates competing doctrines in agencies which can paralyze them and cause our tax dollars to go to waste.  Another example would be the jobs that homeland security does.  The air national guard can do airport security, the FBI already does counter terrorism, and the Army national guard already coordinates with fire, police and other rescue personnel in disasters.  As such, the entire apparatus of homeland security is redundant as all their jobs are done by other bodies in and at all levels of government.  New York City has its own counter terror group and shares info and receive info from the FBI and CIA.  So we can have major cities protect themselves from terrorists, coordinate with other bodies for broader national defense and areas that do not have the counter terror teams set up like NYC does can have that placed in the national guard or FBI branch offices, or simply placed in SWAT teams run by the States.   

Another example would be national monuments.  No one wants them to go away and they are deemed national treasures.  But why is the federal government in charge of them.  States already do a good job with their State parks and monuments, so why not turn over the national ones to the States who are more than equipped to handle their upkeep.  It is not the federal government's job to maintain monuments, so why is it doing so?  Why is it wasting taxpayer dollars which can be better spent elsewhere and the States can get the revenue from those people visiting those monuments as well?  Well, lobbying is partly to blame for all of this.  The federal level departments and agencies who handle monuments also lobby congress.  Yes, government even lobbies itself.  And thus sending it to the States makes sense as now the government lobby is broken up and no longer has an influence.  How about Fannie and Freddie, the mortgage loan giants.  They were created and supported by the federal government to back loans, but that is not the federal government's responsibility, it is the private sector, so break it up and privatize it.  Welfare is a local government responsibility, and thus should be turned back over to them.  Education and environmental protection are both State and local government jobs, the federal government really should not have a say there either.  However, environmentalists, industries, advocacy groups and even the government all lobby for power and control.  But if the jobs were placed where they belong, we may not be having as many problems as we have now with respect to corruption.

Conclusion:  We are centralizing political power in the higher echelons of government and that causes problems with competing doctrines, lobbying and of course power struggles that can paralyze our government.  It is time to fix that by giving power back to where it belongs and doing it smartly.

Issue 727 Fixing Democracy 4 November 23, 2015

Continuing with this series, we get to ways to end Gerrymandering.  What Gerrymandering is, for those who do not know, is when politicians divide up electoral districts to make them have an overwhelming majority of people from one political party to ensure that that particular party gets elected into office.  Basically it makes it easier for one politician from one party to get elected over the other.  However, this is a form of corrupting influence upon our nation and it must be stopped.

Fixing it:  Obviously this is a bad practice as it ensures little to no compromise with respect to politicians as they have to appeal to only their political party and the voters in that group.  Also it causes the politicians to become more extreme as without the need to appeal to the other side, the views of their ideologically pure constituents can become more and more radical. As such, they become more radical too so as to not be replaced by more ideologically pure politicians. So a better method must be developed and enforced by law to prevent gerrymandering and its influence on the nation.

One method already in use is a committee of non-elected/non electable officials which are selected in the same way a courtroom chooses a jury.  This committee then distributes the districts up as equally in population size as possible without looking at things like race, ideology or other factors.  California already does this (note: States make the congressional districts, not the federal government).  However, this has a weakness.  It does not account for regional needs such as urban, to suburban to rural.  It only takes into account population density.  As such there is an additional alternative people may or may not like.

The alternative is to have the States, when making electoral districts, divided into regions.  In this case, a city will be its own electoral district and rural areas, wilderness areas and the like will have each their own districts as well. In the case that there is only two representatives for a particular State, then one representative will represent all the urban areas and some suburban areas, and the other will represent all the rural, wilderness and other sparsely populated areas.  Now the reason why this is controversial even if the representatives are actually representing regional needs is that the size of the populations in those districts will be vastly different.  Cities can have thousands of people living in them, but rural areas can have less than a thousand distributed throughout the entire State.  So people see this as unfair that a few hundred have the same voting power as potentially one million.  The Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter once in favor of having districts with population sizes that are almost equal irrespective of the fact of people's needs.  To overcome this the Supreme Court ruling would either have to be overturned or electoral districts would need to stop being constrained by State borders.  This would mean a total loss of power to the States which would in effect reduce lobbying as well to a degree as power becomes more distributed.  But this may also mean that Congress may need to be reworked as well.  Additional houses of representatives may be needed so that rural areas and urban areas do not overwhelm each other’s votes.  Even then, Suburban and wilderness areas would need representation.  Basically it gets really complicated and thus making sure cities, suburban areas, transitional areas, rural, and wilderness all have an equal number of representatives if we end up not having to rework the very government itself that is.  Again, none of this respects population size and thus will be seen as unfair.  

Conclusion:  I wanted to make it clear to you my reader that there is alternatives out there, but our current system is the fairest. As such, to reduce the corruption of gerrymandering the committee idea is the best one with respect to reducing corruption and preventing politicians from becoming too radical (let alone the districts themselves).  In that respect the committees insure that districts potentially have people who will disagree and thus play devil's advocate to ensure no ideas get out of hand.

Issue 726 Fixing Democracy 3 November 20, 2015

So we got Congress and the Senate, the Vice President, but what about the Electoral College.  It aids in creating corruption and allows people more power than they normally would have.  So how do we fix this?

Fixing the Electoral College:  Our current electoral college works as follows.  Each State chooses a slate of electors, with two for each electoral vote that State has with half representing one candidate running in the Presidential election and the other half representing the other.  From there, we the people vote and then the majority vote decides which slate of electors votes who then vote for their chosen candidate.  Somewhat simple right?  Basically it makes the system a winner take all vote as the candidates need a certain amount of electoral votes to be elected President.  Problems are caused by this however.  For one, a person in a Blue State (Democrat party) like New York State overrides their Republican brethren with respect representation in that State.  Which means that it is almost pointless for a Republican to vote in New York as they will always be outvoted.  So you lose representation.  Additionally, this helps Swing States like Florida as more attention is going to be paid toward it due to how many electoral votes they have and how they can go for either candidate.  So Florida gets major benefits from politicians as they want to play nice to manipulate the voting in their political party’s direction.  This also means that businesses in these swing States gain advantages as well as explained in Issue 722 with the example of Sugar growers having superior say in political circles if they originate in a swing State and thus make them able to manipulate the market in their favor (hello lobbyists).  

So what is the solution to our votes counting more, getting other States to be paid attention to, and to reduce lobbying?  Simple, eliminate the winner take all system. Have it by electoral district with each district's electoral vote going toward whichever candidate had the most votes in said district.  Then if the majority of districts in the State vote for a particular candidate, the two electoral votes representing the number of Senators each State has (electoral votes are determined by the total number of Representatives in the House and Senate combined) will go toward the candidate with the most electoral votes in that State.  But if neither candidate gets a majority, then the electoral votes representing the senatorial representation will be divided between the two.   Actually let us scrap that, and make it so that the total number of electoral votes is equal just to the number of the members of the House of Representatives and each candidate must win a simple 50% plus one majority.  No more by winner take all bull crap.  Just win half the 435 plus one electoral votes to win.  This makes it simpler and easier to understand.  Every electoral district is equal which means the Candidates for President will have to visit multiple places to try and win, not just a few key areas of a State to get all of the votes as with the current system. It eliminates the power businesses had if they existed in swing States and thus reduces their political clout and thus their ability to lobby Congress which hinders crony capitalism.  It also means your vote may count more as well especially as you are not locked into the Republican or Democrat majority State situation anymore.  States also become more equal as Swing States and States with a lot of electoral votes do not count as much anymore as candidates are not trying to win a whole State, but instead a majority of the people by electoral district.  Truly much better than the current situation.

Conclusion:  This will be hard to pull off because we are basically removing a lot of power from a lot of people.  It does not eliminate key businesses like banks, international and domestic trade ports and the like, but it removes as many businesses as possible who gained say (lobbying power) artificially through our imperfect system.  Basically it is better than the status quo.  However, I will not go toward a pure democracy with the direct election of the President just yet, as I still fear mob rule.  Until we can counteract that, this solution I present to you here is as far as I am willing to go while fixing the system.

Issue 725 Fixing Democracy 2 November 19, 2015

As we are talking about fixing democracy, we need a canary in the coal mine in office.  No, I am not talking about a literal canary, but someone who can play devil's advocate and hopefully suppress the radical ideas of idealist Presidents.  I am talking about altering the role of the Vice President.

Vice Presidential Fixes:  So we all know that if the President can no longer serve as President for whatever reason that the Vice President takes over.  Did you know that the Vice President is the President of the Senate according to the Constitution?  What this means is that the Vice President organizes debate on the Senate floor and only has a vote there in the event of a tie.  And that is pretty much it.  Or should it be?  If we are going to fix the role of the Vice President, then we need to make him/her the opposition.  This means that the runner up in a Presidential election will be the Vice President so as to be the devil's advocate and be the canary that says the President is going too far.  But how would that work?  How is a Vice President going to be in meetings with the President (especially if the Vice President is not liked) while actually doing the job as President of the Senate?  Well, the Senate is not meant to be in session all the time, and the Vice President is not necessarily there all the time either.  Sure, the Vice President can keep the tie breaking vote as the Vice President represents government and not necessarily the people.  So what about making the Vice President the chief of staff?  The Chief of Staff organizes meetings, and oversees the operations of the Executive branch.  That is one way to make sure that the Vice President is in on the meetings, but that may be pushing it.  The reason being is that the Vice President need not be in meetings to be the canary, and is meant in this case to go public with his/her reservations.  We need a Vice President that is designed to usurp and undermine the President's power via public statements.  So remaining the President of the Senate is fine along with the tie breaking vote.  But adding in the equivalent of a State of the Union address would be most beneficial.  In this case, the Vice President would publically go before the Congress and the Senate and voice his/her concerns.  In this instance, the time frame for these speeches will be the week prior to Election Day each year at minimum and at maximum additional ones can be held or the Vice President may address the people publically through media and the press.  No President wants to be reprimanded or look bad the week before elections are held for that means his or her opposition can gain just the foothold they need to usurp the President's allies in the Congress and the Senate.  People listen and the American people will listen to the Vice President if we give the appropriate title and message in the speech the Vice President will be making.  So we can label it "The State of Opposition" speech. 

Conclusion: Other than that, the Vice President really has no roll, save maybe formalizing the Vice President attending State funerals, weddings and other events in the President's place.  The Vice President can informally also stand in for the President at Cabinet meetings or other official business, but these will need to be added into the Constitution much like the "State of the Opposition" speech in order to formalize duties and actually give the Vice President any semblance of political clout.  So let the Vice President meet with foreign dignitaries on behalf of the President, perform all ceremonial duties and basically any public duties.  This keeps the Vice President in the limelight in contrast to the President's power, but makes the President's presence all that much more important when he/she does eventually appear in a non-ceremonial or even a ceremonial function with the Vice President.  They will literally be competing for public attention with the Vice President having the advantage of making connections and being the most visible person to the public at large (which will help to ensure that people listen to that speech).   I thought of making the Vice President the Secretary of State, but that defeats the canary in the coalmine idea, so we will have to settle for all ceremonial duties being carried out by the Vice President, formalizing his/her role as a stand in when the President is absent and hopefully adding that opposition speech in for good measure.

Issue 724 Fixing Democracy 1 November 18, 2015

As we looked at what was wrong with democracy, with respect to America's Republic I thought it might be nice to look at ways to fix it.  So here is part one in this series.

Fix it:  First and foremost let us not say cut things, and the usual methods.  Instead I will discuss methods to change our democracy and explain the context on how they will help do that.  One of those first methods is to eliminate the direct election of Senators as prescribed by the 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution.  You may be thinking that this runs counter to the idea of democracy.  That by not being able to choose your senators via elections defeats the purpose of a democracy.  However, these individual senators abide by mob rule. They will do anything to please the populace that elects them even if it means creating chaos in the country.  These people depend not only on your vote, but special interest groups (lobbyists) to maintain power as it takes money to run an election.  However, going back to the system that had Senators chosen by State legislatures with the ability to recall them when necessary removes lobbyist’s power.  The reason being is the fact that the Senators no longer have the power of the vote as the legislatures will then tell them how to vote (those legislators represent us).  They, as they were intended, were meant to vote in line with what the State legislatures wanted and was in effect a check to prevent the Federal government from gathering too much power and usurping the State's powers under the 10th Amendment.  So no more overbearing federal government overstepping their bounds and less lobbying.

Likewise, we want the same to be said for the House of Representatives.  While the Senators go back to being appointed, the people who are actually meant to represent us in the Federal government cause similar problems due to lobbying and corruption.  So the solution that I think works best is to extend their terms to three years in office as opposed to the current two.  Yes, we let them stay in office an additional year, but they will be limited to a maximum of two terms and those terms in office cannot be consecutive.  So why is this better?  Simple, for one lobbyists will have a harder time manipulating Representatives in the long run due to the limited number of terms allowed and the fact that it makes it harder for incumbents (the guys running for office again after already having served) to win elections due to them not being able to hold consecutive terms.  Therefor lobbyists will have to offer short term bribes that have less impact on the United States economy and less likely to be as corrupting as well.  The reason lobbyists are so effective is due to the sheer number of years some of these congressmen and senators serve in office, but limiting the number of years or removing the reins of power helps to fix that.  At the same time this three year term is set up to insures 1/3 of the House of Representatives is being elected each year.  This means higher turnover and thus fresh blood constantly coming into office while acting as a check against a popular president gone bad.  Think for a moment.  People did not like where President Obama was going with his first term in office and so we had to wait two years to create a counter balance with the other political party (Republicans).  But with 1/3 being elected per year, the power balance shifts yearly with popular support for a good President ushering in more people who think like him/her and unpopular support reducing the President's power by removing his likeminded party members from Congress.  It is another check and balance on the system.

Conclusion:  Both of these solutions have to go together.  They cannot be separated for without the Senators going back to representing the freedom of the States and the individual people in them, then the entire change over for term limits in the House of Representatives becomes an outlet for popular support of the President and thus creates a mob rule scenario.  The Senate is meant to be a check on the House of Representatives to prevent mob rule, not support it by maintaining the current situation with the direct election of senators.  Get it now?  I hope so, or you can always ask me questions via google here or my Facebook page which is under my real name.  Anyway, hope you enjoyed the read.

Issue 723 Failure of our Democracy November 17, 2015

Welcome back.  So we looked at the failure of our market economy so why not our democracy.  Let's begin. (I take inspiration from the Economist and Foreign Affairs)

Issues with our Democracy:  The first issue is that elites have superior access to power and information which is used to protect wealth.  Remember the sugar grower’s example in yesterday's issue?  This is part of that.  Rules in general and access to politicians due to this political clout allow these individuals and businesses to get information first before everyone else.  So what to do here?  Simple, let everyone have access to that information by having government not get in the way.  By having less government involvement it means less chances for government to solidify unfair competition.

Issue two is that we, the ordinary voters do not get angry at our corrupt politicians as we generally do not know that money is being stolen in the first place.  As such we need to get the money out of politics.  No, this does not mean more rules to be enforced however.  It actually means less money being taken from us, the taxpayers.  It means no more pensions or even salaries for politicians, less government as this means less money and as such each level of government focusing on its own responsibilities only.  Smaller government means we can see it better, and even limiting when they can meet and vote helps with this too.

Our other two issues are our fault.  Firstly we have our cognitive rigidities and beliefs.  This can be religion, ideology or just being stubborn.  However, these things prevent social groups from mobilizing because we keep looking at what is different.  In other words we sabotage our ability to organize.  This leads to our other issue.  Different groups have different abilities with respect to actually being able to organize in the first place.  As such minority groups can misportray themselves as the majority in some cases and lead us further down the wrong path.  So what can we do?  Well, we have to start looking at what we all agree on. It is all about uniting behind things one at a time and talking it out to decide what needs to change and how.  Once that is done, then we all get up at once and say never again and perpetuate that.

Conclusion:  I personally always come to the conclusion that less government is best for those in power amplify these problems in our democracy.  We may not need to organize as much if there were less rules turning people who are completely innocent into criminals (victimless crimes).  But alas, this is what we created for ourselves.  So now we struggle to undo the harm we have done to ourselves.

Issue 722 Market Economy Failure November 16, 2015

So what is a market economy and when does it fail?  That is what I will answer today.  Let us begin.

Market Economy:  A market economy is a form of Capitalism.  It allows for the freedom to buy, sell, and produce more goods.  It also creates winners and losers.  However, there being losers is not a bad thing in the least.  The reason being is due to the fact that losers in a market economy are doing something wrong.  Their ideas are either outmoded, too soon, or their business model or how they treat their customers is bad.  As such, they fail and other businesses see this and learn from their mistakes.  Also, those same losers learn from their mistakes as well and may eventually become winners later on.  This is what it means to have innovation and growth in a market economy.  However it can only occur when everyone has equal access to the economic system.

When businesses do not have access to the economic system we lose as consumers and businesses lose as competition is reduced.  This occurs when winners in the economy seek to maintain their position by turning their wealth into political capital.  How does that work you ask?  Well it occurs in two ways.  The first form is when our elected representatives and even the bureaucrats are bribed.  Our other example is when they use their political influence to have the institutions that attempt to control the economy change the rules to favor those who have that political clout.  As such the market for a certain type of good, or favorable conditions will be offered while at the same time closing off any competition.  All this the while shifting the playing field in their favor more and more.  And this is what we call corruption.  Here is a real life example.  Sugar growers are in Florida and Iowa, and these two States in the United States are swing States which can determine the outcome of a Presidential election.  Do you know where this is going?  Well it means that they have a bigger say than sugar growers in other States.  They can use this power to have the rules shifted to favor them.  Just think of all the other industries that exist in politically important States or provide product that cannot be made anywhere else.  This includes defense firms, States with key ports for shipping and similar.  These people get to bribe and manipulate as much as they please even promising cushy jobs to politicians once they retire.  Get it. Good.

Conclusion:  So what can we do?  Simple, get rid of the rules.  Less rules means more freedom as the rules are setup to solidify unfair trade practices.  Then to ensure that we do not return to the status quo, we have to eliminate the people who are bribable.  This means less government. You may have saw where this was going, but government equals corruption.  In order to reduce that corruption you need less government and less rules.  But I will talk more about that in the coming days. In the meantime hope you enjoyed the read.

Pray for Paris

Paris was ruthlessly struck by a coordinated terror attack from what looks to be ISIS.  They have killed over 150 people and some may still be at large.  So I ask for everyone to stand in solidarity with France and to say never again.  It is time to first mourn and then to fight.  Stand with France in the fight against the evil that is ISIS.  May God protect us on this perilous path.

Issue 721 How to make Aid Churches work November 13, 2015

So, we need to get money together to get this aid church idea up and working.    This means salaries if and where needed, money for training and also equipment when and where required.  Now where will all that come from?

Money for the idea:  Well most of the money will be from donations.  It is a church and it is already set up to receive donations in the first place.  Therefore telling parishioners what the money will be going for, they may be more inclined to donate more to help get this running.  Most of that money will initially go toward training for fields in both mental and physical health that require the least amount of education time and logistical support.  So anti-bullying and physical health instructors would be a few of the earliest ones to be set up and working first.  In the meantime the Church can play host to AA and yoga instructors and similar to fill in the gap until the priests themselves can perform such duties.  Additionally, the churches should embrace growing their own food for themselves and parishioners which even may include natural cures.  These can be sold to help support priest training and also stay in theme with providing for the health of the churches proverbial flock.  Other easy things to sell are honey which can be made into wine and even ointments and teas to help fight bacterial infections.   Even providing fishing bait in the form of worms and small fish farms can help as the worms aerate the soil of the gardens (if they are growing any food) and the fish if they die can be used as fertilizer (live ones obviously sold as bait so that people can feed themselves by fishing if need be).  Donations in the form of exercise and medical equipment will also help greatly.  Crutches and wheelchairs alone can help as the church can use such hand me downs to be a medical supply store of sorts to those who are struggling to buy such equipment for their loved ones.   

Ultimately however is for the church to set up its own schools or programs to train priests and parishioners in these fields.  In this instance, the church will remove all the fluff from the courses that you would expect at a college such as liberal arts requirements or credits and focus on the skills exclusively needed to be a professional in the fields of physical and mental health.  The money generated here of course will be further used to support the programs or this can be provided free depending on what the church decides.  Practical training will ensue once the knowledge is obtained in the form of apprenticeships for students and priests.  Basically we usurp the entire college system to train the next generation of Doctors (basic practitioners), nurse practitioners, nutritionists and psychologists.  It may even be able to teach these classes in the churches themselves as seminars so as to eliminate the issue with large scale universities or they can post seminars on-line to also provide the information.  Again, all these specialties and even classes will be broken up between each church so that you get people using multiple churches depending on that churches specialty(s) is.  This avoids overcrowding and backlogs of parishioners coming into the church for these services with the churches being overwhelmed and at the same time prevents one church attempting to steal another church's parishioners away (a major obstacle that keeps some churches from working together).  Ultimately the church's end up as a network to provide free health services and potentially free practical education as well.

Conclusion:  So what do you think?  Will this work?  Well for certain, it will not work if the priests try to convert people to the faith while performing their services with respect to health care.  So no trying to convert people at all.  Besides that, the church needs political will to implement such a change and it of course will take time.  But time is what they seem to have plenty of.  As such we got nothing to lose for trying to give the church (or mosque or temple) another tool to help their parishioners.

Issue 720 Aid Church: Physical November 12, 2015

So we talked about the mental health portion of this concept yesterday. However, I hinted that the physical portion of the idea was not just doctors.  So to satisfy your curiosity, let us begin.

Aid Church:  So like mental health, Priests specialized in different forms of physical health will be divided up between churches, with some specializing in one kind or another.  Yes, doctors in the form of nurse practitioners will be in some to provide basic diagnosis for common problems like bumps and bruises to the cold and the flu.  It will focus primarily on physical exams and inoculations as it takes a lot of infrastructure and expensive equipment for more complex medical care.  As such, that will be only a small portion of aid churches providing that form of care due to expenses (we have to teach a priest to be a doctor so of course just making it free will be difficult).  Therefore the other parts of physical health will be people who specialize in things like nutrition or even yoga and Tai-chi.  Yes, simple things we take for granted health wise.  Real physical health.  Nutritionists will need simple blood testing machines that are becoming cheaper so as to help their patients develop an eating plan for their dietary needs.  Weight loss specialists for those patients that are obese or are suffering from weight related problems will team up with nutritionists and therapists.  Yoga, tai-chi and other soft martial arts and meditative practices will aid in helping people keep their body in shape without mutilating themselves through over exercise.  There may even be room for exercise equipment and physical (recover from injuries) and occupational (develop ways to overcome physical disabilities in work and at home) therapy equipment for physical and occupational therapists to have a role in the physical health portion in these aid churches.  Helping people recover from accidents and for dealing with disabilities is something that can be expensive, but if a priest does it for free, then more people will have access.  The physical health field is wide and even includes studying the movement of the body to aid people in knowing how to prevent injuries to themselves.  Disease prevention and learning how to use medication properly will also be something that is key.  These priests, once they obtain the knowledge and gain the experience needed will be able to pass that knowledge on to their patients and parishioners in the form of free education. As such, the church can become a pseudo college or licensing course for people interested in these fields like yoga instructor, fitness instructor or nutritionist.  Seminars for learning first aid and CPR can also be provided.  All of it dealing with people's physical health and teaching and working with them to maintain that health.

Conclusion:  Like with the previous mental health portion, the biggest issue primarily is educating these priests or rabbi/imam as the case may be.  However it is still free health care by people who give of themselves more than they take.  Priests and their counterparts in other faiths are meant to be teachers, and expanding that to being healers only makes logical sense.  Churches are seeing less and less people because they do not stand for anything, they do not take on the issues, but at least they can still do some good by helping to become a network of people who help people both mentally and physically while they work out what they stand for.  See you tomorrow for part three of this concept, the actual funding for this idea to get it off the ground and how we can work to make health care truly free.

Issue 719 Aid Churches: Mental Health November 11, 2015

I feel health care will just keep getting more and more expensive and everything government does will simply compound the problem.  However, the Churches, and other religious institutions can potentially offer some forms of healthcare for free.  Let us discuss.

Aid Church:  The concept is that Churches or other religious institutions can act as home bases for priests trained as various forms of doctors.  The easiest to get working, with respect to equipment needs, is the psychological field (you need a private room or a common area and maybe a couch, and chairs).  Issues with people trying to overcome mental trauma, or conditions are many and is a field that needs to be expanded (especially with the recent issue of people with violent mental conditions acquiring guns).  So these priests can be trained by the church in mental health.  So we could have PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) specialists, substance abuse specialists, couple counselling and even anti-bullying and child psychology specialists.  If the church's' train the priests, the churches can be set up where each church will specialize in one or two of the different psychological issues so as to bring people into the church themselves primarily for treatment without the church being overwhelmed and looking like a hospital.  Churches can circumnavigate some of the laws and restrictions of even getting these "aid" churches up and running.  Mainly, the churches can bypass the issue of America's health care system with people with mental conditions needing to be a danger to themselves and others to get treatment of some form.  Of course this will not work if the church seeks to indoctrinate people.  As such, at all times the priests turned psychologists will seek to empower individuals to fix themselves.

Conclusion:  This is the mental aspect of aid churches.  The idea to create cheap (preferably free) and effective health care for people who need a psychologist and or therapist.  Kids need people to talk to, and PTSD victims need support.  These aid churches can be that support and even advice people how to help their family members who are suffering in some way.  Latter if it expands it can even set up retreats and other activities for people who suffer mentally.  Remember this is the mental portion which just requires priests or rabbis and Imams if you will to be trained in these specialized areas of psychology or even sociology. Training that can be done partly online and partly in classrooms potentially set up by the church itself.  Tomorrow we will add in the physical component to this concept, and I do not just mean doctors.

Issue 718 Pissed off Killers November 10, 2015

So we talked about preventing gun violence yesterday, but there's one group that really cannot be stopped.  Let us discuss.

Lone Gunmen:  Lone Gunmen, spontaneous killers, those who plot out murder over the course of time. All these individuals cannot really be stopped unless for whatever reason they provide some warning sign that people pay attention to.  And this is not just them obtaining a gun or leaving a note either.  These spontaneous killers, or in some cases premeditated killers will use any weapon they deem fit to do the job (or any object in reach) for any motivation they deem acceptable.  Which means sharp objects like garden tools, and kitchen knives are far game.  Heavy objects like pipes, rocks, and even frying pans also play well.  Heck even frozen meat on the bone will suit their murderous intent (yes, it has happened).  Even an unloaded gun works as a weapon to bludgeon someone to death.   If you want a gun?  Why buy one from anyone, all the parts are at the local hardware store which allows you to make a submachine gun in the privacy of your own home.  From there you just need to buy the bullets.  Bombs?   Again the local hardware store or even the local supermarket will have the items you need and the internet the design plans to follow.  No matter what, these individuals who want to kill someone will find ways to do so for as tiny a reason as their victim bumping into them.  They are spontaneous or they are patient looking for an opportunity.  They are predators looking for a victim and they are nearly impossible to stop.

Conclusion:  So is there any way to stop these people?  Can we stop spontaneous or premeditated murder when it comes in the form of the lone gunman?  Truth is, we cannot unless people are in the right place and time.  And even then, they need the power to be able to stop the act and the police can only be in so many places at once.  Yesterday's solutions will help to maybe stave off those who would otherwise give into anger, but that is not enough.  Basically, we need the right to defend ourselves by means we deem fit.  And as such, the gun, or other self-defense capability will always be needed.

Issue 717 Preventing Gun Violence November 9, 2015

We all want to prevent gun violence.  That is something everyone can agree on.  But how?  Here are some ways to do so.

Gun Violence prevention:  These are some methods to prevent gun violence:

1) Counselors in schools: Some kids and young adults are angry.  They experience bad home lives or have to deal with issues relating to other kids in school.  As such, giving a place for these kids to talk and for councilors to empower these kids will help resolve the anger as much as possible.  Perhaps using some techniques for patients who experience post-traumatic stress and/or anger management techniques can help these kids overcome their anger issues and thus not resort to violence.  (In all cases the kids will have the privacy of Doctor patient privilege save if they pose a danger to themselves or others if it comes to that.  This insures that the kids know that they can speak freely and thus approach the councilors in confidence).  It can even be mandatory or as part of a class on dealing with stresses in everyday life.

2) Team up with Churches:  Religion can help a lot.  By getting Churches and other religious institutions involved to aid in reinforcing morality and faith, this can help guide young kids and young adults into finding ways to deal with issues without resorting to violence.

3) Reforming Mental Health:  One of the biggest issues with gun control is mental health.  There is a lack of reporting on people who have mental health issues to the people who perform the background checks.  This must be fixed as soon as possible.  Additionally, people with mental illness in the United States cannot get help unless they are deemed a danger to themselves or others.  This too must change so that these individuals can receive help sooner before the danger becomes all too real.  The last few mass murders with a gun all happened (as far as I know) due to a mentally ill person who managed to get their hands on a gun (both legally and illegally as the case may be).  As such, a network on which people seeing counselors/therapists can be created so as to aid in tracking these individuals treatment which will include a grading system for the therapists to judge if their patients pose a threat to anyone.  This grading system can then be used by background checkers to see if the person can get a license for a firearm.  Also, an ask for help clause should be made so that if a person who has a mental illness is not being treated, they or a personal representative can request help for them to receive some sort of treatment.

4) End some forms of Victimless Crimes:  Drug gangs seek to protect themselves because they cannot call the police.  These gangs infringe on each other's territory and this results in shootings.  Gangs also use guns for intimidation, and of course out right murder.  This can end via legalizing drugs.  The gangs will cease needing to exist as there will be now legitimate ways to get these drugs which will force these gangs to break up, go legitimate, or resort to other forms of crimes.  Basically have a special pharmacy or clinic dispense the now legal drugs with a prescription insuring the safety and security of the addict.  Same can be said for prostitution and them trying to protect themselves.  By legalizing these amongst similar victimless crimes we can reduce gun violence and our prison populations while we are at it.

5) Bullies:  School bullies are one of the major reasons why kids turn to violence as many students feel like they cannot do anything to save themselves.  They see school staff as incapable of protecting them.  As such two things need to happen.  One, victims need to be empowered and kids seeing other kids being bullied need to go to the aid of those kids to surround the bully so the bully knows they are alone in their stupidity.  The Second thing is real punishments for bullies.  This means being scared strait, in school punishments so they don't play video games all day, extra school work for their actions, embarrass them, or appeal to their ego and charge them with a code of honor so that they will defend kids from being bullied instead (make them see that they can become a hero of justice to a degree).  Basically ways to deter them from actually performing the act of bullying.  This can even mean showing them the horror of what their actions can result in like footage/pictures of kids cutting themselves due to stress, committing suicide or committing murder out of revenge.  Make them realize that their actions have really horrible consequences.

Conclusion:  While these ideas will not solve all gun violence, it will at least help reduce it.  And that should be the goal.  To reduce the need for a gun outside of something for recreational shooting sports and personal defense. Anything is better than arguing about faulty gun control measures and not getting to the heart of the issue, the human heart.

Issue 716 Gun laws that work November 6, 2015

We are going to go over some current gun laws that are already in effect that we know actually do something to prevent crime, while also pointing out some limitations.  Let us begin.

Gun Laws that prevent crime:  First and foremost, most gun violence is perpetuated by people with criminal records.  As such, background checks that aid in making it impossible for these people to buy a gun legally do work for the most part.  But why are these criminals still able to get guns despite the fact that background checks prevent them from doing so?  Simple.  In some cases the statute of limitations has passed.  Depending on the State's laws, some minor offenses are overlooked past a certain point.  This is reasonable, for you have served time.  More severe crimes however prohibit you from owning a gun for life.  Instances of people getting guns illegally is a person who is legal buying guns and then selling them to people who legally cannot own a firearm.  This is highly illegal for obvious reasons.  Even giving a person who has been forbidden to carry a gun for free is also in violation of the law.  These laws here do deter law abiding citizens, but criminals do not follow the law.  Also, if you have been institutionalized or are "not of sound mind" you cannot own a gun as per the background checks red flags (red flags being instances you would not be able to purchase a firearm).  This clause prevents people with psychiatric disorders from buying guns.  The weakness however is that our mental health system does not treat people with mental issues if they do not show signs of being a danger to themselves or others.  As such, there is no early detection of people with mental disorders who can potentially go on a rampage.  And even those who are registered as mentally troubled may still be able to get a gun because the psychiatrist and those institutionalized by the State may not have provided the information on those mental cases to the people who perform the background checks.  Obviously a serious flaw in the system.

Other gun laws that work well are bans on automatic weapons and certain types of explosives, and waiting periods.  The automatic weapon ban is good for most regular people do not need an automatic, rapid firing, weapon that shoots all the ammunition in its ammo clip in less than 30 seconds.  The only people who need such things are people legally authorized to have such weapons as part of the police, military, government officials or licensed individuals who sell guns and/or provide some sort of other service that the government allows.  In short, getting your hands on a fully automatic weapon or other weapon like cannons or explosives is neigh impossible.  Except there is one loophole.  You can modify your existing gun that you own to make it fully automatic.  People doing this for someone else is illegal (though doing it yourself is not).  The only other effective law is the waiting period.  The waiting period basically says you cannot get your gun till a specified time later on.  Usually the wait is two weeks to a month after purchase, and that is if you clear a State background check.  Waiting periods are designed to make sure a person who is heated with rage, revenge, or similar emotion cannot act upon said emotion immediately. As such, less people going out to get a gun cause they lost a bar fight or to kill their cheating wife or husband (at least they are not going to kill them with a gun that night).  But if the attempted murder is premeditated, with the waiting period factored in, then there really is no hope. 

Conclusion:  Things like the assault weapon ban and similar do nothing to prevent gun violence.  In fact the FBI did studies and their numbers will tell you that most gun laws do nothing to stop violent crime.  The gun laws and their weaknesses above are the only ones that actually do anything to prevent gun violence (from what I have read), though they are unable to stop all of it.  The reason being is that criminals do not follow the law and they never will.  If they did, then the laws preventing murder by saying you cannot murder anyone would be enough.   But criminals do not care about anyone but themselves.  So more gun laws is not the answer.  Strengthening the ones above would however have an effect, but are not the sole solution.  More outside of simply saying who can and can't own a firearm must be done.  And some of those things I will discuss with you on Monday.  Have a good weekend and see you then.

Issue 715 Narc Pharmacy November 5, 2015

In order to facilitate legalized narcotics like Crack and other illegal substances, a special dispensary will be needed.  These pharmacies for our purposes, in describing what they would need to do, will be called Narc Pharmacies.  Let us begin.

Narc Pharmacy:  This type of pharmacy will be the sole distributer of all illegal highly addictive drugs that are made legal.  This mean opium, cocaine, heroin and their variants and counterparts.  These will all be taxed by States with respect to sales taxes and will not need a prescription.  This will ensure that addicts will have access to the drugs they need at any given time (so behavior can be monitored unobstructed) and that States will be able to collect the revenue and taxes to keep these pharmacies running.  However, you must be over the age of 18 with a legal State authorized identification to buy.  Those under age 18 will be required to have a special note from a doctor that authorizes them to buy as it will show they are addicted (we do not need new addicts being created for obvious reasons, especially children).  While allowing the State to garner revenue from these drugs sales, it will remove the money going to drug dealers entirely for addicts will now have access to clean needles and none tainted/contaminated drugs.  Most importantly however, this will allow people to accurately study addiction by bringing it out of the shadows.  This works only if the individual addicts are restricted in where they can use the drugs, in this case the Narc Pharmacy.  In this case there will be a lounge area, or similar where these individuals may relax and use their drugs of choice and an emergency room or two to treat anyone who overdoses.  As such, doctors and nurses will be on staff that specialize in treating addicts.  

A Narc pharmacy is designed to be a safe place for these individuals to use drugs and prevent young children from seeing adults taking the drugs or being compelled to try the drugs by an adult.  Also, the exact amounts distributed to each patient, and the quality of the drugs can be monitored to ensure that addicts have a reduced risk of overdose, do not get bad batches or take drugs that negatively impact one another.  In other words, it makes taking addictive drugs as safe as humanly possible.  We literally can identify the most popular drugs, identify which sex, age, gender and so on prefer which drug, all to better understand addiction.  Once this is done, we can then determine the actual number of addicted people in an area, and then provide treatments for those who want them.  Remember, we are not operating on the assumption that we people around addicts can force an addict to go clean.  The assumption we are operating on (based on interviews I have seen that featured alcoholics and addicts in general) is that these people have to want to get clean, and that many will need to hit their "bottom" in order for that to be achieved.  So these narc pharmacies can also provide such services for becoming addiction free as well by helping patients wean themselves off the drugs, or switch from one drug to the next slowly till they are finally clean.  The narc pharmacy can even provide services if needed for those who want to try quitting cold turkey.  Other drugs that are legal or partially legal like marijuana, oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine and sleeping pills may also be able to be dispensed as well as they are addictive as well.  Psychologists that specialize in grief and other reasons for people taking up drugs can also be added for we can operate under the assumption that these people take up these drugs to cover up some sort of emotional pain, or are seeking a pleasure that they at the moment can only achieve through drug use.

Conclusion:  This idea is based on what is already being done in Canada and some European countries, with those drugs being almost 100% legal.  By providing this structure we can even reduce gang related crimes as gangs that sold these drugs will lose almost all their revenue and thus their reasons for existing.  Why have a gang that sells drugs when you can just go to the narc pharmacy and not risk getting shot, raped or robbed.  This means less crime and people who are addicted will not see jail time anymore and finally receive real treatments for their addiction in a stress free environment.  So let us bring drug use into the light so we can see how to really help these people.

Issue 714 Medicare B,C,D: Not a right! November 4, 2015

Did you know that the Supreme Court case Fleming Vs Nestor says that you do not have a right to the benefits of Medicare if the government denies you or changes the law?  This is because the ruling stated that if the Congress can change the law, then you have no right to it.  Now this dealt primarily with Social Security, but unfortunately, Medicare is an add on to the Social Security legislation.  So how do we make it a right, or at the very least discourage the government from restricting benefits further?

Fix it:  Well, the simple answer as I have stated in past issues on the subject is to merge parts B, C and D with part A.  The reason being is that if part A was to go back to the supreme court it is possible, depending on the arguments made, that that portion alone can be ruled a right.  This is because of the payroll tax we pay into to help that portion operate.  However, while A is funded by our contributions in the form of a tax parts B,C and D are all funded through the general revenue of the United States.  In other words, Congress says how much can go into each one of those components.  Now A deals with Hospitals and doctors’ offices.  This is safe, but over budget.  Part B deals with outpatient care, such as rehabilitation and similar services specific to when people leave the hospital but need some extended care.  Part C intends to combine some of A and B together to make up for any gaps in care via a system that pays doctors through regular health insurance.  Part D was inspired by part C, but does takes care of medications by supplementing the paid premiums Medicare recipients will have to make. Basically, the government pays a portion of the cost to pay for private drug insurance.  As such, part D is the only component that is under budget.  Due to A, B and C being over budget however, it incentives government to make adjustments on what treatments and drugs are to be covered so as to reduce and maintain costs.  It also has resulted in low reimbursement rates for doctors and thus some of them no longer accepting Medicare patients.  Hence why change is needed.  As such, Part D should be expanded to include all outpatient care of part B and also doctors care of part A to mimic part C in that respect.  Then we eliminate Parts A, B, and C in favor of Part D as it will take care of all aspects of senior citizens health care.  It however will be funded by the payroll tax that was funding part A (the part that is our contributions) so as to eliminate governments incentives to alter or change the care we receive.  The reason why using private insurance that is paid for almost entirely though our contributions is better is because private insurance has more expansive options for care.  They are better able to detect fraud, and we should be able to (if the capability is allowed) to jump from insurance to insurance, or use the one that provides us with the cheapest health insurance with the best coverage at any given time (with it switching automatically to accommodate needed treatments that suit our seniors the best).  All this can then be ruled on the basis that we are able to contract with private health insurers which is a right and get the government out of deciding for us what is to be covered and what is not to be covered.  Basically, the government can still call our contributions a tax, but they simply become a bank to aid us in paying for our health insurance in this way.  As such, we secure our rights to Medicare.

Conclusion:  Yes it is a little complex, but only part A is funded by our contributions, while part D works the best out of all the parts of Medicare with respect to budget and treatments.  So by combining everything to work like part D, and funding it like A, would solve the issue of cost overruns and denial of treatments.  Allowing people or having the system automatically switch Medicare patients from private insurance to private insurance so that no matter what, their costs will be covered for whatever treatments they need will also enhance the idea it is a right for it is a contract with private insurance companies.  The government simply helps us pay for it with our payroll tax contributions.  So we can do it, but as Medicare is so volatile with respect to changes, we may not see needed changes for a while.

Issue 713 Public Sexuality November 3, 2015

Public sexuality is an issue that is coming back to the forefront of discussion due to issues of Gay Marriage and similar.  So how far is too far when it comes to sexual expression?

Sexuality:  For our purposes, sexuality will be defined as any public display of affection and exposure of various forms of cleavage of the body.  So can a women bare her breasts?  Well the libertarian answer is yes.  It is her chest and not a sexual organ.  In fact, if she so wishes it, she may breastfeed her baby in public if the need arises.  None of these are sexual acts and women already show midriff and cleavage already (things that were previously banned in public and in some places still are).  In fact hugging and kissing in public was once banned as well.  But that has changed for the better with people being able to pretty much hug anyone in public and kissing, while still restricted (frowned on and discriminated) with respect to male same sex couples, is fine for everyone else.  But what about people's rear ends?  Their butt.  When I was in comic con this October, there were a lot of girls wearing some very "revealing" outfits with respect to their butt cheeks.  Of course the anal cavity was hidden, but in some cases that was the only part hidden.  Women openly wore underwear including thongs. However, this was ok.  Reason being that underwear is basically a bathing suit that cannot go in water.  At least that is the mentality today with my generation and younger.  So this is no longer too far and while also still against the law, it is generally accepted and ignored in some places.  But what about public nudity.  And I am not just talking about nude beaches.  Cultures around the world have public baths, and of course we have communal showers at gyms (suitably sex restricted).  In this instance, these nude spaces are in areas that have been designated as ok to go in the buff.  However, increasingly people are challenging this norm like in Oregon with their nude bike race.  So I would argue that if this trend continues, people will be able to dress in any way they wish including butt naked.  Remember, this sense of modesty and laws supporting it are based on people's sensibilities and societal trends focused through both religion and culture.  But what is too far if we are all going to be allowed to go nude in public and kiss and hug whomever we wish?  Simple, public defecation, and public sex.  No one wants to see someone piss or crap in public (unless you have some sort of fetish), and while it may be entertaining to some, oral, anal, and vaginal sex and its kinky variants are not meant for public display.  At least this is my view, as if it is in the privacy of one's home, I do not have a right to say anything, but in a public park, is well, iffy.

Conclusion:  People have lost the modesty war.  The trends will continue where even men and women can bath together (Japanese hot spring anyone?) and share bathrooms and gym locker rooms.  So sexually speaking this means we are more tolerant and that the human body becomes less of a mystery to opposite sexes and genders.  It is possible that in this case, people will be less curious about things like sex at this point which could benefit people socially with respect to tolerances (though that remains to be seen).  However, the moment we allow public sex and defecation, we may be in for trouble.  My reasoning is that all modesty will be gone and it will be a sign that people do not care who is watching.  If people do not care who is watching then it is possible, in my opinion, that they will be prone to more criminality at the worst and acts stupidity at the best.  People fearing how society will judge them keeps people in line, so people need some sort of boundary or invisible law.  I could care less about public nudity, but public sex, and the slippery slope of resulting human behavior scars me.

Issue 712 Abortionist Revisited November 2, 2015

I had talked about this idea of having a specialized doctor doing abortions exclusively in a hospital, but I did not really flush the idea out. So here is my attempt to do so.

Abortionist:  The idea behind an abortionist is to create a special class of doctor (or medical practitioner as they violate the Hippocratic Oath).  In this case, these professionals will belong to hospitals only with hopefully all other abortion clinics shut down as a means to eliminate profit motives.  Basically, a hospital will be the only place to get an abortion (still cheap due to the number of hospitals).  This increases the revenue to cash strapped hospitals as well, while also providing a place for the dead children's bodies to be used for medical research or at the very least harvested as such.  But, I do not think that these abortionists should be limited to such a narrow profession.  Sure they will be trained to handle issues when things go wrong during an abortion and they will be able to perform late term abortions if the woman's life is in danger, but it may be too narrow.  As such, they could be trained to aid in assisted suicide.  This relieves regular doctors of the duty so that they do not violate their Hippocratic Oath (especially now as States like California are set to legalize such practices).  Therefore they will be charged with ending a person's life as painlessly as possible by whatever methods they deem appropriate.  It need not even be limited to those who are sick or infirm who wish to die, but can encompass people who simply wish to commit suicide and executions by the State.  Currently, States provide for how things like abortions can be conducted, and how executions should take place (which is sure to happen with assisted suicides as well), but if these abortionists were given authority to decide for themselves the most painless course of action it would be a little more humane.  Also, I will say again, these professionals can harvest the body parts of these dead babies, and now suicide victims for either medical research and even for organ donation.  So in a way, by taking a life, they are also making attempts at saving some too.

Conclusion:  If you have read my past works, then you know I am against abortion save in the case of rape or woman’s life being in danger.  However, abortion is not going away and is a topic of debate not just amongst the political parties, but libertarians as well (along with assisted suicide).  While assisted suicide is less controversial than abortion for it truly is your own body and you are deciding what to do with it, I wanted to eliminate the profit motives of abortion clinics while also professionalizing this service that deals in death.  Thus, by isolating abortions, assisted suicides and executioners to a single profession we can watch and understand the craft.  We will be able to see the select group that performs this sad profession.  Additionally, it will take abortion clinics out of minority areas where they seem to dominate, thus relegating the service to a centralized visible location that services everyone (done in part to eliminate the racial component of Planned Parenthood).  I do not want these people called doctors as they are not doctors due to their violation of the oath, but I cannot say get rid of abortion or doctors aiding people in committing suicide.  As such, this is my compromise.