Issue 471 Do we need a vice President? November 27, 2014

As far as politicians go, the Vice President is probably the most useless person in America's political system today.  So do we need that position anymore?

What does the Vice President do?:  Traditionally, the Vice President was to preside over the Senate in the Congress.  They would organize discussion, votes and then finally in the event of a tie cast the deciding vote. However, today the Vice President hardly ever embraces this part of his/her position as President of the Senate as they are typically at the beck and call of the president with respect to acting as a political tool for the current administration.  Also, members of the Senate typically fill the position themselves when the Vice President is absent, while party leadership prevents ties in the first place (if there is a tie, then I do not think it is a bad thing as it promotes more discussion). 

The other role of Vice President is to take over the office of the President in the event the President is incapacitated, leaves office, or dies.  In this role the Vice President has carried out their duties successfully on multiple occasions.  However, this can easily be done by other members in Congress, or even by the Presidents Chief of staff.  As such, the Vice President has become redundant.

What should they do?:  We have options.  For one, we should have the Vice President perform their actual duties with respect to presiding over the Senate. It allows for the Vice President to act as a liaison between the Congress and the President so that there is a line of communication at all times.  This should also allow for the Vice President to relay directly what parts of a bill a president will sign into law and what parts they do not like.  Potentially, the Vice President can also aid in writing the bills that may become law.   

Another option which may combine with the first is eliminate running mates during elections.  Instead have the runner ups become the Vice President.  The goal of this is so that a devil’s advocate, if you will, will be in the white house so as to allay concerns about laws, and act as a dissenter in front of the public if they feel the President is going too far in their actions.  Essentially another check on the President's power from within.  If combined with the first option, then the laws being crafted will be more moderate and thus more acceptable to both political parties.  In short, it allows for greater compromise.

One other possibility short of eliminating the post is to have the Vice President act as head of the diplomatic corps.  They will be in charge of early negotiations between countries with respect to trade deals and treaties.  So they can help build and maintain relations with other countries.  From there once an initial dialogue takes place the President can then step in to finish up the deals to add legitimacy, and then wait for the Senate to vote on it with the Vice President presenting it before them.  So here, the ambassadors, and diplomatic staff would all answer to the Vice President.

Conclusion:  All three options are good ideas (because I thought of them).  However, this would need a President who is willing to place much more power into the hands of a Vice President let alone a former rival.  So many will just opt to probably constitutionally eliminate the post over these changes which do not require constitutional acceptance.  Let us face it, such changes to make the Vice President more powerful and thus detract from the President can be scary to those in power and even the American people and thus needs to become acceptable to everyone before such an idea was to ever be carried out.

Issue 470 Do we really have the freedom of speech? November 26, 2014

So do we have the right to speak our minds?  Or are we limited in some way, shape or form?  Let us discuss.

We have limited speech:  According to the Supreme Court we can make a threat upon a person/place so long as there is a condition attached (person being threatened must perform an act/not do something).  If there's no conditions attached, then you are in for prosecution, even if you did not mean anything by what you said.  Priests can talk outside of official capacity, but not from the pulpit.  You cannot display Christmas trees on your desk if you work in a government building.  People need permits to hold demonstrations which can be rejected.  Government can censor former government employee’s books if they do not like the information/content written in them.  If a reporter refuses to reveal sources to the government, they can be arrested, or their homes raided.  The list keeps going.  So we do not have true freedom to speak our minds whether it be displaying the flag, or burning the flag.  People’s values and emotions are written into every law and are in every action a government official takes.  So if what you say or do is not liked, then your freedoms are typically taken away, even if you did nothing wrong.

Conclusion:  I made this article short to demonstrate something without going overboard.  That we can say things, but depending on who's listening which determines if we are suppressed or not.  However, we will always have the freedom to think for ourselves.  There has yet to be thought police that can enter our minds and arrest us for thinking.  So you should actually think about what you are going to say before you say it so you can adjust it to avoid getting into trouble.  Our actions too must be thought out first so as to prevent offending people or making ourselves look bad.  While it is a shame that we cannot make ourselves look foolish for speaking off the cuff, it is our society that we all had a part in building.  So if we want change on this matter, we must act as individuals to change ourselves and lead by example.  So you can learn when and where to hold your tongue, but do not let it stop you from expressing yourself in a non-violent, well-mannered way.  

Issue 469 Are we really free to worship? November 25, 2014

Are we free to worship the religion we want?  This is an intriguing question as I believe it actually depends on who you ask.  Let us discuss.

Worship and the State:  If you ask the government, then they will say you are free to worship.  In fact the government makes special dispensation toward certain religions or subsets of religions for them to practice the way they want.  This includes ritual sacrifice of animals (regulated), use of drugs (not the kill yourself by trying it kind), and even the use of public property.  However, polygamy (having more than one wife/husband) is not allowed even though it is a variation of the religious practice of marriage.  We cannot pray in schools because it is seen as church and State mixing even if that is not the case.  So in truth, we have limited freedom of worship based on what the government regulates what they deem dangerous with respect to values and practices.

Worship and each other:  While the government generally lets people do what they want with their faith (with certain exceptions), it is the general public that are most intolerant to religious worship.  Some atheists, agnostics, or even people that have religion try to deter and suppress those who have a faith or a practice within a faith.  Reason being is because they feel that the mere display of say a Christmas tree is infringing upon their own rights.  How do they say this?  Simple, they think it is shoving a religion down other people’s throats.  However, despite these feelings being misplaced, the government, or a local community responds to those feelings so as to either avoid lawsuits, or just because they sympathize with the person claiming foul.  So even amongst each other, we do not have true freedom of worship.

Conclusion:  Which one of these counts more?  The being blocked by government, or by our fellow members of our community?  Truth is it is our government as they are the ones that are forbidden from stopping us from worshiping via our faith.  With respect to the community, while those claiming foul are the ones actually in the wrong, we must still live together.  As such, if a display is on public property, then fine, let it be removed for something else.  But, if it is on private property, then the person claiming foul should never have a say.  Reason being is that it is our own property, or a rented one from a private company to advertise religion, the person crying foul has but avert their eyes and thus religion is no longer being "forced down" their throats.  So, it is simple, government has to butt out a little more save for upholding the basic laws, and people have to learn to mind their own business.  

Issue 468 Can priests speak on politics? November 24, 2014

There is disagreement amongst modernists with respect to the current idea on whether priests may speak about anything related to politics.  But in the past, this was not the case.  So let us try to get to the true answer on if or if not a priest may speak about politics.

History:  Today, priests are not allowed to speak about politics.  They are actually under threat by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if they do.  In this case despite it being unconstitutional via the 1st Amendment, the IRS would tax the churches if they even attempt to openly discuss politics in the churches themselves.  Mind you that if a priest is not in the church, but is talking outside of their official capacity it is ok, but it is seen in poor taste.  In the past however, it was the opposite.  A church was the official gathering place for the general public outside of the town square or a tavern.  So as a group, a priest was allowed as far back or even farther before the American revolution to speak on political issues at the time.  In fact, the British burned many churches when they came to crush the American Revolution because it was the priests who spread word of the idea of freedom, and separation from the British crown.  So why did this change?  Well I am not really sure.  It seems to me that we grew intolerant to religion and the power the priests have over their congregations.  Perhaps it is our dislike of hierarchies, or organized religion that caused this to change.  Or perhaps just the change in respecting authority figures.  I cannot say.  But the fact is, priests can say what they will at the pulpit, but people either don't want to hear it, or the government does not want it heard.

They have the right:  Historically speaking they have the right to speak about politics.  We got that down already.  It is unconstitutional to shut a priest up because the IRS has no right to tax a religious institution due to the first Amendment.  If the IRS did attempt to tax a church it would be seen as an attempt to suppress a religion or a religious congregation as taxation is an economic weapon.  So as I said it violates the freedom to worship clause.  So a priest can say what they want wherever they want.

Conclusion:  I personally think priests and other members of religious leadership are afraid to speak.  They know they may suffer for speaking out in some way shape or form.  They will be targeted by the government and thus harassed.  A priest also risks isolating him/herself from their congregation which means the church itself may suffer.  Priests are already under pressure and scrutiny every time they speak and act, but they lack the courage to speak their minds in our current society.  So there you have it, they have the right to speak, but not the courage to do so.

Issue 467 Ebola and Superstition November 21, 2014

Well we are still on the topic of Ebola.  Yes, it is still something to be concerned about even if the media is shifting its attention away from the situation.  In this case I will be talking about the role of superstition with respect to the spread of this disease.  (Thank the world health organization for actually looking into this aspect of this crises).  Let us begin.

Superstition:  In Africa, some of the native peoples do not believe that Ebola is a disease, but instead either demons, or a curse.  As such, they will not go see any doctors to get treated.  Instead they go to witch doctors, and similar spiritualists to try and exercise the curse or demons from them (which obviously does not work).  In addition, some of the African peoples look at the doctors with disdain as some feel that the doctors are either quacks, that they will never return from their clinics, or are just afraid.  As such, doctors over there are having a rough time just trying to get the more superstitious population who is ill into their treatment facilities for Ebola and other diseases.

Consequences:  As a result of this, many more people in Africa die from disease.  Also, it makes it more likely that these infected people will infect others as well.  Now we also have people from Africa in the United States (legal visitors, citizens, and illegal) who never lost their beliefs in witchcraft/shamanism or whatever you want to call it.  So if they are sick, they will not see a doctor, but instead a shaman here in the United States which delays treatment and increases the risks that others will be infected.  So superstition is making it harder for doctors to fight Ebola and other serious diseases here at home and in Africa.

Conclusion:  Well, while we have to respect people's beliefs, there is no reason to cause health risks to someone else.  So to handle the truly superstitious, you can just replace the word disease with the word curse, and sickness with possession.  Saying they can possibly spread a "curse" in this case is more effective than saying spreading disease for those who reject medical science.  This may be lying, but it helps to work your way through a faith or belief than try to overturn it.  So doctors can be called shamans instead and propped up as superior shamans to tribal ones so as to get these people into the clinics to treat diseases and prevent infections.  Heck, it may even help to make the treatments seem more mystical to get these people coming to get help.   On the other hand, preventing the spread of the disease at home is easy by simply cutting off the travel between the infected countries and us.  Then you isolate the people who want to come over for 21 days and if they are not infected, then they may come over.  It really is simple, we just have to stop being arrogant about it.

Issue 466 Ebola and Illegal migrants November 20, 2014

Ok, so we know that Ebola is a dangerous disease, and that people coming into the United States can catch it from other people.  But does this not mean that people entering the United States illegally from Africa now pose a risk to every person in the United States?  Let's discuss.

Illegals and Diseases:  Back when Ellis Island was still open, they had a building specifically to handle people who were sick so as to prevent the spread of possibly dangerous and infectious pathogens.  Face forward to today and we have no such facilities to protect us from the masses of illegal migrants entering the United States each and every day.  As such, we are subject to the spread of diseases like Ebola from West Africans, or people infected in other countries as well.  Not to mention diseases that are just as dangerous as Ebola are out there which we have an obvious interest in preventing them from coming into the United States.  Apparently, the first victim of Ebola in the United States may have been an illegal immigrant from Africa.  In addition, polio (a disease the United States originally eradicated in our shores) has made a small comeback in the United States due to legal and illegal migrants alike entering the country.  So we now have yet another reason to encourage legal immigration exclusively.  But this is not where the potential problems end.

If we come up with a real cure:  There is a worst case scenario if we develop a cure in the United States which will of course be mass produced.  In this case it may cause a massive influx of people sick with Ebola or similar diseases to swarm the United States looking to be cured.  This will result in further infection of the United States populace if these people who are actually sick come in unchecked.  So in this case the cure must be brought to Africa and other continents/countries as fast as possible to prevent this nightmare scenario.

Conclusion:  I hate to jump on the secure our border band wagon, but between the evidence of terrorist infiltrators, rumors that Ebola is being weaponized by enemies of the United States, and illegals who only want to be cured storming in, we have a recipe for disaster.  So it is my hope that we fix the immigration system in this country and create new Ellis Islands which can handle all the immigrants coming here legally, and helping to cure the sick/prevent the spread of diseases.  I want good people to come to the United States, but it must be done the right way, and the legal/safe way.

Issue 465 Political campaigns: Presidents on the campaign trail November 19, 2014

We looked at why some candidates would want the president to come down and help them succeed, but we have not looked into what a president gets out of this deal.  So let's discuss.

What a President wants:  Basically, the President wants power and authority.  He goes on campaign trails to aid in winning seats in the legislative arm of government that will give him the bills he wants to pass as laws based on the same ideology.  A President does not like compromise, for they want instead a legacy of success.  So a President will as I said try to help candidates win who share the same ideology as him/herself.  

When do they go:  Typically, a President does not just go and help out party members on a whim especially if the candidate they want to win is already winning.  But instead they go for several reasons. 

1) One is to curry favor to get some politicians to owe the President something.  Basically, you scratch my back, then I'll scratch yours later.  

2) The next reason is too sure up victories so that they maintain party leadership (usually the same party as the President) in the legislative branch of government or else they become a lame duck President.  

3) Presidents also go on the campaign trail to boost their popularity as interacting with the public show that the president is paying attention to them.  

4) If the president's popularity is fading and they become toxic, the campaign trail acts as a distraction from regular decision making which serves to shield the President for a short period of time while a strategy is worked out.  (Though some candidates may reject the President's offer of help unless they are in desperate straits or in a district where the President is still popular despite national opinion).

And there you have it.  It is all about power and getting favors from one another.

Conclusion:  I personally think the President should not bother with the campaign trail unless they have too.  But this is real politic we are talking about.  Where gaining and maintaining power is all there is to life.  A President can only do so much on their own and needs the other branches of government on his/her side.  And thus you have the President waving their hands, making speeches and kissing babies.  It is not whether they care about us or not, but about them getting and keeping power an influence so that they can show they care whether that is for good or for worse.