Issue 475 Smart ID's December 3, 2014

Well we have talked a little about a smart identification cards (ID) multiple times in passing.  However, we have not gone into great detail as to how one would work.  So here and now I will outline it for you my readers what a real smart ID would do.

How it works:

1) It would have a microchip to store important information.  This information would only be accessible when the card is placed by or in an electronic reading system.  Thus, it prevents hackers from altering its data and assuming someone else's identity.

2) It would act as your food stamps card and your government provided health care card in times of emergency.  Basically, if for whatever reason you need some sort of government assistance, this one card would have the data chip inside of it electronically changed to give you access to a government account specifically designed to aid people in financial trouble/difficulty.  As such, any expirations for when the money is to run out can be programed and how the money is spent can be monitored by government agents to insure there is no fraud or illegal actions.  Thus, it prevents abuses of the system.

3) It will act as both your driver’s license, your passport, your gun license (if you apply for one) and even your birth certificate.  As the information is upgradeable because it can be updated electronically, then there will no longer be a need to issue different paperwork such as passports, gun licenses and the like.  Instead the same cards data can simply be updated to accommodate the new licenses and other information. All this information will of course be available electronically to be accessed when needed, such as traveling, or applying for a job.

4) Any other licenses that you apply for and receive will also be able to be placed on the electronic chip in the card.  So your business license, your license to be a doctor, or other important certifications that require government authorization will all be simply downloaded to the card.

5) If you are ever stopped by a police officer, the data base on the card will instantly highlight your criminal history and if there are any outstanding warrants against you.  As such, it will be easier to identify criminals (especially if they are using some form of government assistance).

6) If issued to illegal citizens, then it can be used as a method to track them as well.  Bank accounts will only be able to be opened by showing this card, and as such, if an illegal citizen/guest wants to open an account in the United States, they will have to use this card as the sole method of accessing the money inside it.  This also allows us to monitor for any illegal transactions and activity as well.

7) The photo idea will be fully updateable.  In this case, using smart inks, we can alter the photo on the card without you having to get a new photo taken every ten or so years.  This saves money for both you, the person who owns the card, and the government as they do not have to issue you a new one.

Conclusion:  This is how a smart ID's work.  It does act like big brother watching, but it saves lots of money and time.  No more lost documents, as all you need to keep safe is this one card. So is it worth it?  I am not sure myself.  Only time will tell.

Issue 474 Voter ID (President Clinton's Idea). December 2, 2014

Ok, so a majority of the people in the United States support having voter identification so as to prevent election fraud.  One of these individuals happens to be former President William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton. And you know what?  His idea (though others were involved in his idea) will only cost ten cents per person.  Here is his idea.

President Clinton's Idea:  Well it is to simply put your photo on your social security card.  Yes, that is correct.  It will literally take ten extra cents per person to add a simple photo to your Social Security card.  These cards are given out free by the government which solves any issue of impoverished people having to possibly pay for an ID card.  It also has the byproduct of reducing issues of fraud with respect to acquiring your Social Security benefits.  You are probably thinking that there has to be more too this.  Well, this is really just it.  A simple picture for ten cents per person in the United States to place a picture of yourself on your Social Security card.  From there, all you have to do is show the card every time you go vote.

Conclusion:  This is the simplest and cheapest method to solving the voter ID issue.  I myself have had to reject peoples photo ID's when I worked on Election Day for it is illegal for me to check them here in New York.  As a result, these people get "kind" of annoyed.  However, I would trade that kind of confrontation for saying I need your ID card to vote any day of the week.  My reason is that back when Super storm Sandy hit New York and the rest of the upper North West of the United States, we were running an election.  That election was on the reelection of President Barack Obama.  And you know what?  I could have sworn I saw the same people voting sometimes twice or even four times.  However, I could not prove it, so I was forced to let it go.  However with a voter ID as proposed by President Clinton, we can even check the Social Security numbers to insure that the individual voted once and only once.  So I support President Clinton's idea, and I believe you my readers should probably think about supporting his idea too.

Issue 473 Why illegals should have driver's licenses December 1, 2014

Yes, I believe Illegal residents should be able to get drivers licenses.  And here are my reasons why.

My Reasoning:

1) This insures that they actually know how to drive.  As such, we can avoid unfortunate traffic accidents due to them not knowing the rules of the road.

2) Establishes a traceable form of identity.  It allows States to find out if a person came to the United States legally or not, and possibly their place of residence.  As such, if they need to be found later on, it increases the likelihood of them being found when the government comes calling.

3) Using that same driver’s license, it can be used as a smart card to act as a credit card/ debit card (they will not be allowed a regular bank account without government issued ID), their welfare card and their medical card if they require State assistance. By combining these, it limits confusion and makes it less likely for them to sell their ID's for cash as all financial information, government aid and their identity are all tied to one card. This again allows them to be tracked to see what their travel habits are and infer on their living situation.

4) We can with this also make them pay fines to get the licenses so that they are not getting a free ride.  This also enables taxation if using the ID cards smart cards so that their driver’s license number is their bank account number and their social security number.  As such, if they somehow become citizens later, all the necessary identification will already be there. Hence, they can and will pay into Social Security legally and pay taxes legally, even if they are not yet legal citizens.

Conclusion:  These all result from allowing States to issue drivers licenses to illegal citizens.  We can use their desire to get aid as incentive to get the license in the first place via tying it all their aid together.  As such we can monitor them and their activities and perhaps use it to pave the way for legal citizenship.  However, this only works with a "big brother" type driver’s license as opposed to a traditional license.  So with these ideas in mind, do you think it's worth the effort to get them to get a drivers license? I think it is.

Issue 472 Should the National Guard take over the CDC November 28, 2014

With the recent events over Ebola, it calls into question if the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is still up to the task of fighting potential outbreaks of deadly diseases.  As such, perhaps it is time to dissolve the CDC and give their duties over to a more trusted group of individuals who have the discipline and the wherewithal to act on what is right, The National Guard.  Time to discuss.

CDC to National Guard:  While the CDC has served us well in the past, they seem to have botched up due to politics.  They no longer, it appears, care for safety of people in the country if it means them looking bad politically (such as the suspending of flights from African Countries).  However, the National Guard has no such problem.  They are there to protect us and even have training to deal with threats like Ebola (whether they have specialized divisions I do not know).  However, they are tasked with defending the people and thus can make these kinds of decisions without political approval.  They can even suspend traffic going in and out of a particular State in the nation if they feel it is no longer safe and have the resources to pull it off on their own.  Together with the CDC's old resources they can actually give people a plan to protect themselves from things like Ebola and customize each State's response in the United States.  This ability to customize per State an action plan to stop the spread of infection is useful and if the CDC was around they would be doing this particular task regardless.  Thus it eliminates another level of bureaucracy that may inhibit a quick and needed response.  

Conclusion:  The CDC was once one of the most trusted institutions in America's political system.  Now they pretty much are deemed a political hack.  They traded trust for million dollar offices and other waste over protecting the nation from an outbreak that potentially could have killed thousands.  With the National Guard however, we have a ready rapid reaction force ready to stop the spread of the infection by shutting down air traffic, land traffic and river/ocean traffic before the disease spreads further.  They will also have the equipment, and capability to aid doctors in fighting the infection by setting up emergency hospitals at strategic points on a moment’s notice.  Essentially, we get the military precision and discipline to get the job done.   This is an option to fix a potentially growing problem within the federal government, not a cure. 

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.