The Issues, No. 43 - Defeat of the Financial Bailout Plan

I think the timing is perfect, particularly for the members of the House of Representatives who yesterday, in their infinite wisdom, voted against the plan to bail out our troubled financial institutions. Those individuals have, in my opinion, shown their ignorance and their contempt for the people they represent and thus have very clearly demonstrated their inability to serve effectively in the Congress just in time for their bids for reelection in the upcoming November elections.

The very sad part of it all is that those individuals who voted against the bailout are absolutely right in that the proposed legislation is, in a lot of different ways, a bad piece of legislation. Just for a start, it's socialistic and therefore legislation that, in a perfect world, should not ever be necessary or considered in our democracy. However, there is right, and then again, there is right. By being right in this particular instance, these Congresspeople have defeated a measure that would ultimately help the financial well being of their constituents, many of whom are currently having severe financial problems because of the financial crisis.

The true "right" in all of this should have been to pass the legislation and allow the financial institutions to recover with constraints on their future activities that would prevent future failures. Although it is highly distasteful in our society to bailout companies that have failed due to their own malfeasance, when it affects the financial well being of so many Americans, it is simply necessary that our government step in and make things right again. Isn't it implicit that our government protect us from all things harmful? Didn't FDR and the Congress enact what otherwise would be distasteful and socialistic legislation to bail us out from great depression that followed the stock market crash of 1929?

I believe those individuals who voted against the bailout plan yesterday are individuals who, by their own shortsightedness, don't deserve to be reelected to Congress and I would urge all of you to vote for their opponent, or simply not vote for them at all, in the November elections. I personally believe the bailout legislation to be very distasteful but nevertheless, I believe it to be necessary to get America, and a good part of the rest of the world, back on its feet. A Congressman who stands on his or her principles and insists on being what he thinks is right, regardless of the consequences, I don't believe deserves to be a Congressman.

The Issues, No. 42 - Terms of Office for Judges

Our federal district court and circuit court judges as well as our federal Supreme Court justices are appointed for life by the President. I am not sure about the terms of all of the state and local judges, but I believe the majority of them are either elected or appointed for specified terms. Whatever they are, I don't like the idea of life appointments.

I talked previously about the fact that I am not in favor of political appointments of judges but neither am I in favor of judges, particularly politically appointed judges, being appointed for life. I think, just as I believe with our Congressmen and Senators, that it is important to limit judges to a defined term. I think if they are in office too long they forget why they are there and what they are there for and, just as seems to happen with our people in Congress, they get caught up in partisan politics, power games, and ego trips and loose sight of the ideals of justice in America.

As I said in "The Issues, No. 41", I believe judges should be elected on their merits. In the case of our federal judges and our Supreme Court Justices and any other federal, state, or local judges who may be currently appointed for life, I believe they also should be elected on their merits and I believe they should serve terms of no longer than six years. I also believe they should be limited to one term only and not be allowed to succeed themselves in office. I don't believe being a judge, anymore than I believe being a Congressman or a Senator, should be a career. Those jobs should be a person's temporary voluntary opportunity and commitment to improve life in the United States and not a personal career choice. We need to constantly have new judges who have recently come to the bench from real life experiences and have not been tainted by politics or life too long away from mainstream America.

The Issues, No. 41 - Selection of Judges

Currently there are three basic methods of selecting judges in the United States; selection, election, and merit selection. In the selection method, usually a state Governor or, in the case of Federal Judges, the President, selects the judges and then have to have some approval by the state or federal legislature. In the election method, judges are nominated by a political party and run as a candidate of that party. The problem I have with these two methods are that they are both political. In the selection method the Governor or the President select judges who are from the political parties they represent. In the election method, the aspiring judges have to run and campaign for election as members of a political party and they have to raise money, make speeches, and make political campaign promises just as other politicians seeking election have to do. Both the selection and election methods are political and therefore compromise judge's independence and impartiality because he or she is not necessarily free of economic and political pressure.

The merit selection method, according to the American Judicature Society, "is a way of choosing judges that uses a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three) to the appointing authority (usually the governor), who must make a final selection from the list. For subsequent terms of office, judges are evaluated for retention either by a commission or by the voters in an uncontested election". About two thirds of the states select, at least some of their judges using the merit selection method. Although I believe this to be the better of the three selection methods it still has an element of politics in that the appointing authority, who is a politician in most cases, will select the candidate that most closely represents his and his political party's philosophy.

I personally think the best way to select judges is to combine the merit selection and election methods. Why not use "a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships" and then place the names "of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three)" on the ballot so that the voters can elect them. The judges resumes can be provided by the media, the commission, or the League of Women Voters to the voting public well before election day and/or a commission representative can hand out the resumes on election day at each polling facility. This method takes politics entirely out of the selection process and the resulting judges will not owe allegiance to anyone or any group.

The Issues, No. 40 - Judicial Sentences and Plea Bargaining

I think that the sentences that I read about in the newspaper oftentimes seem to make little sense. It seems to me that a person convicted of murder can sometimes get less of a sentence than a convicted burglar or a convicted rapist can get less of a sentence than a person convicted of possession of drugs. It all leads me to believe that the goal of the courts is not to administer justice but to clear the docket for the judges and reduce the population in our prisons.

From my limited experience visiting a courtroom, all of which has been in either traffic court or small claims court, there is a whole lot of deal making going on. I read also that there is a lot of deal making going on in the more serious cases as well. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

I don't like the idea of plea bargaining. If someone is suspected of committing a crime, they should, if found guilty in a court of law, be subject to the most severe penalty possible. In my mind the determination of their sentence should not involve a deal they have made to lessen the sentence. I don't think, for instance, a deal that is made to lessen a sentence if the accused agrees to provide additional evidence, lessens the severity of the crime the individual committed.

As I said in an earlier posting, the United States needs to get serious about dealing with convicted criminals. If judges dockets are overbooked we should hire more judges and maybe have trials around the clock in our courtrooms. If prisons are overcrowded, for the time being, we should build more prisons or expand the ones we have. Maybe we could take the gyms, the libraries, and the recreation lounges and convert them into cells. But the main thing we need to do is discourage crime by making sentences severe enough and making our prisons places that no one wants to go to by making them truly penal institutions where prisoners are punished and not pampered. If we get serious, maybe there will be less crime thus freeing up dockets and reducing the prison population. And, I don't believe plea bargaining will do anything to help in these endeavors.

The Issues - No. 39 - Frivolous Lawsuits

I upsets me that a woman can buy a take out cup of coffee at McDonald's, get in the passenger seat of a car driven by a relative, spill it on her lap and burn her legs while the car is pulled over and she's trying to add sugar, sue McDonald's because the coffee was too hot, and get over a $1,000,000 settlement in a court of law. Give me a break! Doesn't she have responsibility for her actions and the resulting injury she caused to herself? Because of her, McDonald's lowered the temperature of its coffee everywhere there's a McDonald's in the entire world just so someone else couldn't sue them because the coffee was too hot. And that, together with the $1,000,000 plus they had to pay to that poor woman, probably contributed to a rise in McDonald's prices. So, because of this totally frivolous lawsuit, now you can only get a cup of warm coffee at McDonald's and it costs you more than a hot one did previously. Ridiculous! How about the magistrate judge in Washington, DC who tried and continues try to sue a dry cleaning establishment for millions of dollars over a lost pair of pants. At least so far that one hasn't gotten very far.

I think there is something wrong with our system of justice when people are allowed to sue for something that they caused themselves. I think judges, in these situations should have the leeway to throw that kind of stuff out and, in cases where a jury is involved, judges should be allowed to throw out or temper what a jury decides. It seems that what often happens in these kind of cases is that a person, who was injured due to his/her own mistake, will sue a company whose product is involved. Their lawyer will convince them to have a jury trial and then appeal to the jury that the company is far better able to pay for the medical, emotional, and economic costs (such as loss of income) than the injured person. Juries have a tendency to side with the poor individual over the big rich company and thus award atrocious amounts of money to the poor injured person. So, the jury awards $1,000,000 and who do you suppose gets a great big chunk of that money? If you guessed the lawyers, you're absolutely right.

And that's another problem. Lawyers make huge amounts of money from these lawsuits and so it's in their best interest to take these kind of cases on. They get some poor injured idiot to file a suit against a big rich company, get some ignorant jury that will side with the poor injured idiot against the big rich company, and get rich from it all. It's just not right and judges ought to be allowed or required to throw these cases out or limit the awards made by juries. I would like to see something done to change the law or the legal procedures to prevent anyone from suing in cases where they caused the damage to themselves or their property. In our society people need to take responsibility for their own actions, not rewarded when they do something stupid.

The Issues, No. 38 - Prison

I think our country's prison/penitentiary/penal system has strayed a long way from what it should be. There no longer seems to be much penal in it and about all it seems to do is to temprorarily remove criminals from the rest of society.

For many criminals, prison life is the best life they have ever had. They get three meals a day, they are warm in the winter and cool in the summer, they have a bed to sleep on, they have free medical care, they can play ball and work out, they can go to the library and study or take classes, they can watch TV and play pool, and they can do any number of other things they couldn't do before prison.

It seems to me that convicted criminals, particularly convicted felons, by the nature of the crimes they have committed, have lost their rights and should be punished first and foremost and then, if possible, rehabilitated too. I don't think prison should be a nice place for them and I think prison should be so bad that prisoners will not want to return when their sentences are completed or they are paroled.

Prisoners should have to get up early and go to work all day doing something difficult and unpleasant; something that might even benefit the rest of society like operating a recycling facility, a landfill, or a dairy farm. I'm sure the powers that be could come up with lots of things they could do. I don't think prisoners should have TVs, basketball courts, pool tables or libraries, and I don't think they should have much time to interact with one another. Life in prison should be hard and unpleasant; it should be punishment. And prison rules should be strictly enforced and violators dealt with swiftly and severely.

Rehabilitation should be some part of prison life also and should be mandatory. Classes could be offered at night to teach basic reading, writing, and math skills and classes could be offered in auto mechanics, carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, and any other trade. Mentally and emotionally unstable prisoners could attend individual or group therapy sessions. When the rehabilitation period is over, prisoners need to go back to their cells for lights out and bed with no TVs, cell phones, radios, or stereos. Prisoners don't need to be given any free time.

If you believe as I do that we need to reform our prison system and bring punishment back to prisons, you need to let your representatives know. Our prison system today is a joke and a mockery of justice as well as a complete waste of tax dollars. I believe the system can be changed to make prisons work for us rather than just a temporary dumping ground for our criminal element.

The Issues, No. 37 - Execution

Today I'm going to make a foray into the world of our criminal justice system and I want to begin with the death penalty and specifically execution of criminals sentenced to death. There has been a whole lot of controversy in the last few years about executions, particularly lethal injections, and how they might be painful for the person being executed and therefore inhumane. My response to that is who cares how painful it is and why not make it as painful as possible?

For some nut case criminal who has murdered, raped, tortured, or otherwise maimed someone else and been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a jury of his/her peers, I am very happy if they have to suffer a little pain when they are being executed. What I really don't like is the fact that they have lived in a prison, probably for a few years after their conviction, and been given three square meals a day; free medical care; been able to play basketball and work out in a fully equipped gym; been able to watch TV, play pool, and have visits from their friends and relatives; and get a law degree and maybe even write a book while their lawyers are trying to get their sentence reduced.

So when the time for execution comes, I hope it hurts. I hope that animal feels something similar to what their victim(s) felt. And I hope there is a little extra pain there for the victim's family and maybe even some for the American taxpayers who have been supporting this jerk in prison. I really don't care about humane for these people and I don't understand anyone who does.

The Issues, No. 36 - United States Foreign Policy

The United States is the world’s leading country and it’s also the only country in the world that is composed of people from every other country in the world. As such, I think we have a responsibility to the rest of the world. We also are dependent on other countries in the world for resources that we don’t have and so we have a responsibility to those countries in that regard as well. But I think our responsibilities should only go so far.

I don’t think we have the responsibility to force other countries to be like us or to adopt our beliefs. And I don’t believe we need to have a war with a country that hasn’t done anything to hurt us or one of our allies, regardless of how we feel about them or what they believe. I do think we have the responsibility to speak up to countries that are repressing their citizens or threatening their neighbors and I think we can try and influence them through foreign aid, trade agreements, military support agreements, and peer pressure from our allies and organizations like the United Nations.

Whatever we do we need to be careful that we do not punish the people of a country by, for instance, withholding foreign aid that may provide food or medicine when we are attempting to influence the country’s leaders to treat their people better. What we want to avoid at all costs is military intervention, or war, and I think our country’s military and political leaders have been too quick to go to war ever since World War II.

I don’t think we ever needed to have a war in Korea. I don’t think we needed to have a war in Viet Nam. And I don’t know why we are having wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. I suspect that the military wants to have wars because that is what they train and prepare for and that is how they demonstrate how good they are. I think some Presidents think a war is something they need to have on their resumes and I think our Congress, because it has the authority to approve a war, needs to do a far better job of curtailing the perceived career enhancing desires of the military and the President when it comes to approving anything that is going to cost American lives.

The Issues, No. 35 - Cell Phones and Driving

I can't imagine why our local, state, and federal governments don't do something to outlaw using cell phones while driving a car. It's bad enough that some people eat, drink, do their hair and makeup, and even read while driving, all of which also should be outlawed, but the use of cell phones has gotten out of hand. Law enforcement people know their use is dangerous, government leaders know it's dangerous, politicians know it's dangerous, and yet no one does anything about it.

We've got 16 year olds, who have no experience driving, who think they're indestructible, out there driving around the way teenagers do making calls and texting in addition to all the other non driving things they do while driving. But we've also got a whole lot of adults who think they know how to do it safely making calls and texting also. And I guarantee that none of them will understand the consequences of what they are doing until they kill, maim, or otherwise seriously injure other people.

It's just plain common sense that when you are driving a car you need to pay attention to your driving. Anything else you do is a distraction and the slightest distraction when you are going at high speeds, or any speed for that matter, may cause you not to be able to react when you need to in order to slow down, stop, or otherwise avoid a collision. When people in our country are doing things that endanger the lives of others, it should be the responsibility of government to make those things illegal. And whose rights are violated anyway when a person on their cell phone causes an accident in which someone else is killed? I think it's time for our governments and politicians to take their heads out of the sand and do something about this very dangerous practice.

The Issues, No. 34 - The Economy

I think in the beginning of our country, our economy was basically to be one in which anyone could participate and that competition and the economic forces of supply and demand would be its regulators. Government's role was to be one of minimal interference and to assist the economy to grow and prosper by ensuring these basic principles were not violated.

Over time government has increased its involvement in our economy through more and more regulation to the point where government today is pretty much the controlling influence. A great deal of this regulation is/was necessary to avoid another stock market crash and depression. The problems in the mortgage and credit industries are bad enough. But recent government takeovers/bailouts of Fannie May, Freddie Mac and AIG are scary. The government shouldn't have to take this kind of action in a responsible economy. It did, this time, particularly because of the far reaching effects on all Americans the failure of these institutions would have. Hopefully it works and hopefully the stock market won't crash and we won't have another depression.

What all of this demonstrates is that the economy, if left to its own devices, does not act responsibly, and greed and unreasonable, irresponsible risk takes over until the economy crumbles. What this means to me is that the government needs to learn again from these recent events and regulate the economy to prevent this type of failure in the future. I don't like it but I believe human nature is at play here and that even in our democracy, irresponsible human nature needs to be tempered by government regulation.

The Issues, No. 33 - Guns

The right to bear arms guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution is a very controversial issue in our country today. In 1791 when the Second Amendment was drafted, conditions in America were considerably different than they are today. People required weapons to hunt and kill animals for food and people who didn't live as closely as we do today were more susceptible to being robbed and/or raped or murdered by outlaws. Also law enforcement wasn't as good or as prevalent as it is today, communication was more difficult (there was no telephone and no 911), the police didn't have automobiles, and the Revolutionary War had only been over for 8 years. So, in 1791, it made very good sense for people to have weapons. Today it doesn't.

In today's United States, I have a hard time understanding why anyone, other than a policemen or a person in the military, needs to have a gun. I know some people like to hunt and some like to shoot at targets but those are the only reasons I can think of to have a gun and those reasons don't represent needs. For the majority of Americans that own guns I think their rationalization is they have them for the protection of themselves and their families. But if no one other than the military and the police were allowed to have guns, there would be no reason for anyone to have a gun for protection. And, our American society could very easily get along without hunting and target shooting if it meant we would all be safer.

I think the Second Amendment is a good example of where the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect the current conditions in the country. We don't need to have guns. If we have them, people are going to continue to shoot other people when they are angry with them or when they are committing crimes. There just is no need for them. If you agree, let your representatives know. Otherwise they will continue to accept money from the National Rifle Association and back any legislative action that is favorable to its interests.

The Issues, No. 32 - Sarah Palin

So far I've been staying away from the current presidential race but I feel like I just have to comment on John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. Before I do comment however, I want to share with you that up until recently I have been pretty much a conservative when it comes to politics and that I have more often than not voted for Republicans. In recent times I have become more and more disillusioned by the Republican Party, mostly because of its alliance with the religious right and its anti-abortion, anti stem cell research, and pro gun stances. So, in the current presidential contest, I have been kind of in the middle but maybe leaning somewhat toward Barack Obama. I think, though, that the Sarah Palin selection may have clinched it for me and that I now will definitely vote for Mr. Obama. Here's why.

I think that John McCain selecting Sarah Palin has many negative connotations. First, I think it is a slap at women. It may appear to be a brilliant choice to select a moose hunting hockey mom Governor but in the end isn't it a slap at Hillary Clinton, the other women of Congress, and women everywhere to select a woman with so little worldly political experience? Second, I think it says that McCain and the Republicans think the Vice President is a do nothing job that just about anyone could do so it can be used solely to provide bling and glitz to garner votes. So, they selected a former beauty queen, who just happens to have a little political experience, to provide the window dressing that McCain sorely needs.

There are other negatives but the final one I want to mention here is that I believe Palin's selection, amounts to disrespect for our founding fathers, the Constitution of the United States, and the American people. Sarah Palin's selection, to me, is one that does not reflect the seriousness of the job for which she has been selected and makes a mockery of politics and the offices of the President and the Vice President. And, I think her selection is also disrespectful to Ms. Palin herself because she is being used, not for her knowledge and experience, but only as a piece of advertisement to draw attention to John McCain.

I have always looked at Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates as people that should be looked up to, who are above the muck and the mundane of life, who can calmly make the decisions required to lead our country based on their knowledge and experience, and whose very presence commands respect and admiration. I'm not sure that, with the selection of Sarah Palin, I have any confidence in John McCain and the Republican Party. They have lost my vote. I'll be interested to see what happens on election day.

The Issues, No.31 - Natural Disasters and Personal and Government Responsibility

The United States seems to have its fair share of disasters. We have mud slides, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other disasters. In many of these events, some people lose their lives and others lose their property. In most instances where there is loss of life and/or property, government and charities step in to provide some form of relief to help survivors sustain themselves until they can get back on their feet and, in many instances, to help them rebuild their homes and businesses. In most instances also, people from all over the country pitch in to provide assistance to the affected people in many different ways. It is truly a beautiful thing that our entire country seems to rally together whenever disaster strikes.

Of course there is another side to the story of natural disasters that involves personal and government responsibility. Of course we can't precisely predict when a natural disaster is going to occur but there are some things that we can predict and do something about as individuals and government(s) to mitigate the costs of recovery. A good example is Hurricane Katrina and the City of New Orleans. The portions of New Orleans that were flooded were areas that were twenty or so feet below sea level and flooded because the man-made levees that were built to keep the water out failed. Among the relief that is still being provided is a rebuilding and strengthening of the levees and a rebuilding of the homes that were destroyed. It seems to me that by doing this, we are just asking for it to happen all over again, and it probably will. I would think that the people who lived in the flooded areas should take some personal responsibility, at least for the future, and move to higher ground. It seemes to me also that the government(s) involved are wasting money by restoring those areas and that their money and efforts would be better spent in relocating the affected folks and helping them rebuild in a safer place. The same thing goes for people that live along rivers that flood frequently, or people that live where there are fires or mud slides every year, or people that live on the coast of Florida, or in the areas where there are frequent tornadoes, or even people that live on the ocean side of the San Andreas fault.

To spend a lot of government and charitible money and human effort to continually rebuild and restore areas that are destroyed in natural disasters where the chances are high of the disasters happening again, doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense either for individuals to insist on continuing to live in those areas. After the first time, I think the people who live in those places who insist on returning, should understand that they won't be bailed out a second time. And I think that the government(s) involved should spend their money, time, and effort in assisting people to move to safer places rather than restoring places and peoples' homes and business that will surely be destroyed again.

The Issues, No. 30 - Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research is another moral/religious issue that is closely related to abortion. Stem cell research requires the extraction of cells from a human embryo. As a result, the embryo will die. The pro lifers believe the embryos should be protected because they are human lives.

According to WikipediA, "A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos. This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research." For much more information, search the internet for "stem cell controversy".

I think it is a shame that there are those who would oppose stem cell research. It has such great potential for improving the lives of individuals who suffer with terrible afflictions. It seems a wonderful thing that if an embryo that is to be destroyed anyway or stored past its viable storage life can be used for such good, we should embrace the practice rather than condemn it for misguided moral/religious reasons.

Therefore, I suggest, if you are not sure about the issue, that you do some research. Look at all of the good that can come from it and how those embryos can be used for such great purposes rather than simply being destroyed. If you come away convinced that it is the right thing to do, let your representatives in Congress know that you support it and that you want them to do whatever they can to ensure that stem cell research continues including providing the necessary funds.

The Issues, No. 29 - Change the Drinking and Driving Ages

There have been a couple of items in the local newspaper lately related to changing the legal ages for drinking alcohol and driving. One was an article that described an effort by a group of about 100 college and university presidents, called the Amethyst Initiative, to encourage debate about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. The idea is that if drinking is legal for 18 year olds, the binge drinking they do, because it's now illegal for them and harder to obtain, will decline as will the resulting accidents, crime, and destruction caused by their drunkeness. I personally agree that it is worth having that debate.

The other item that I was particularly taken with was a letter to the editor that expressed the notion that the driving age should be raised while the drinking age should be lowered. A search of the internet indicated that this is not a new idea, but I think it makes a whole lot of sense. If the drinking age were lowered sufficiently, our kids would learn to drink responsibly and in moderation, maybe even at home with supervision from Mom and Dad. And, particularly because it would no longer be illegal for them, the thrill of getting drunk because it's illegal, would disappear. At the same time, if the driving age were raised, there might just be far fewer automobile accidents involving drunk kids. So, the notion of not allowing kids to drive until they have become accustomed to drinking responsibly and in moderation makes a great deal of sense.

Most proposals I've seen have suggested lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 and raising the driving age from 16 to 18. This would let them drink and drive at the same age which I think is dangerous. I like raising the driving age from 16 to 18 but I think I might prefer lowering the drinking age to at least 16 to give kids a couple of years experience with legal drinking before they get behind the wheel of a car. At any rate, I think we in America need to face the fact that kids are going to drink whether it's legal for them or not and that our best defense against them maiming and killing themselves and others in alcohol related automobile accidents is to not allow them to drive until they know how to handle alcohol responsibly.

The Issues, No. 28 - Sex Education

Except for the fact that many parents seem to have a very hard time of providing their children with accurate information about sex, I believe that in a perfect world, sex education should be provided by parents rather than the schools. However, because a whole lot of parents do a lousy job of it, I believe the schools need to provide it only because there are serious health as well as unwanted pregnancy issues involved that affect our society as a whole.

Parents who demonstrate love, affection, and respect for one another in their day to day living can do a great deal to educate their children about healthy and caring relationships. Those same parents can probably be more effective than a non-family teacher in providing education on sex and intimacy just because they are parents who love and care about their children. So, even though I believe the schools should provide sex education, I also believe that parents who are capable should provide it also as reinforcement so their children know they are concerned that their kids are getting the right message.

Beside the fact that many parents don't, can't, or won't do it, the major reason the schools need to provide sex education is to help kids to avoid sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unwanted pregnancies. It's a natural thing that no matter what parents or the schools teach them, most kids, when they reach puberty, and their hormones are raging, are going to experiment at some point and in some way with sex. If the schools and parents can, at least, educate kids about how to be safe and why they need to be safe, then we may see a decline in STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

The bottom line here is that I believe that sex education needs to remain in the schools. I believe also that "comprehensive" rather than "abstinence-only" sex education should be provided (search the internet for "sex education" and look at WikipediA for explanations). I also believe that those that teach it should be well trained in the subject, thorough in their presentation, able to communicate well with young people, and I believe they should avoid moral issues at all costs. I think if I were a parent of a school age child today, I would want to review what the schools are going to teach my children about sex and then augment and back it up with additional facts as well as my own beliefs and concerns. I think sex education is extremely important for the health of our nation and the well-being of our children.

The Issues, No. 27 - Homosexual Marriage

I just returned home from a week in Florida. Florida has a proposition on the ballot in November to amend the Florida Constitution to ban same sex marriages and further to prevent judges from overturning the law. To me, this is yet another example of attempts by misguided, uninformed, and just plain mean individuals to force their moral/religious beliefs on the rest of society through legislation.

What could it possibly matter to anyone else whether two men or two women marry each other. It's one of those things that a person might find objectionable for themselves, but if it is, they simply don't have to do it. If someone else wants to do it, who cares? It's no one else's business! Same sex marriages don't hurt anyone, they don't threaten anyone, and the people involved generally don't try and convince heterosexual individuals to become homosexuals.

Homosexuals are a part of life. They are simply individuals who are built the way they are for any variety of reasons. Most of them can't help what they are any more than you can help what you are. Most of them are not bad people and many of them are smart, caring, good people who are contributing to society. They are not bad because they are homosexual and they don't deserve to be punished. And, there is no reason why they should not have the same protections legally, financially, and every other way that married heterosexual people have.

The proposition in Florida is an issue that is not a legal issue and therefore should not be on the ballot. Similar propositions and laws in other states need to be eliminated also because they are not issues our legislatures should be involved in. I don't want my representatives making laws that hurt anyone. If you don't like homosexuality don't become one and don't associate with them.

The Issues, No. 26 - Abortion and Right to Life

Another sensitive and divisive issue in our country is abortion and the right to life. As I said yesterday, I believe that abortion is a matter of personal conscience and, therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why anyone can get so concerned about it that they want to march on Washington and lobby their representatives to legislate against it.

My personal belief is that as a practice of birth control, abortion is wrong but in situations where the mother's life is in jeopardy or a young teenager is not ready for a child, I think it's justified, if the teenager and her parents agree. The rest of us may not like that decision, but the rest of us don't have to live with that decision, and it's really none of our business.

I would be very upset if the right to lifers succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal. If that were to happen, the practice of abortion would still continue but return to the situation of non-medical people performing the procedure in unsanitary conditions causing serious illness or injury. So, no matter how I personally feel about abortion, I realize that the practice will continue whether it's legal or not, and I would much prefer that it remain legal so that whenever it is performed it is performed by medical professionals in sanitary conditions.

It seems to me that although this is a very sensitive issue, we must be reasonable about how we deal with it and I believe that the Roe v. Wade decision was a very reasonable legal decision. If you don't like abortion or your religion says you shouldn't have one, you don't have to have one. But just as we discussed yesterday, don't ask me or anyone else to believe what or how you believe. And, don't ask my representatives in Congress to force me to believe what you or he/she believes either.

The issues, No. 25 - Religion and Politics

Yesterday I talked about religion and how I believe it to be a destructive rather than a constructive force in society. Today I'm going a little further and talk about how I don't believe religion has any place in American politics or in our government.

WikipediA says, "Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other" and "The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of the British philosopher John Locke. According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution."

Today we have a number of politicians and at least one political party that appears to be desparately attempting to inflict its religious beliefs on our society by its stances on abortion and "family values" which are religious/moral issues which I believe to be items of "individual conscience" and should be left entirely out of the political arena. It is a real turn off to me when a politician, who represents all kinds of Americans, spouts off about his/her own personal religious beliefs and attempts to convince others that they should believe in them also. I believe the "religious right" which is backed by religious leaders of various religions, works with and attempts to influence politicians to include thier spin on issues before Congress and this is a direct violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

I expect my politicians to be moral and conscientious individuals who care about America and who are interested in making America better. I don't expect them, however, to be influenced in their legislative decisions by religion or what any religion thinks. I also don't want them to put their own religious beliefs above the beliefs of their constituents. And, I don't ever want a politician or a piece of legislation to tell me what and how to think about anything.

The Issues, No. 24 - Religion

I may be stepping on a lot of toes today but I'm going to risk it. I have concluded over the years that religion is pretty scary and dangerous and totally irresponsible. Today's religions seem only to exist for the benefit of the religious leaders and offer very little, if anything, constructive to society and the world.

Religions are divisive and intolerant of others. Every religion believes it is the only true religion and that if you are not of that religion you are somehow a lesser being and/or you are going to go to hell, or even as some of the extreme Muslims believe, you should be killed. Religions scare their members into behaving and believing according to what the religion dictates. Some even require that their members give large percentages of their incomes to the church and that one is a bad person and unworthy if they don't.

Religions have historically caused more trouble in the world than any other kind of institution you can imagine. Just look at the crusades in the middle ages, the problem between the Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland, the situation between the Israelis and the surrounding Arabs, and the current religious based terrorism going on in the world today. None of it makes any sense, it's all because of blind faith and ignorance, and a whole lot of people have been and are being hurt for nothing.

Although I can't see any reason for keeping religion around in today's world, I would say that if the different religions wants to succeed, they must come out of the dark ages and support the world community by working to promote peace, tolerance and understanding through education of their members and their outward actions. They could be a positive force in the world, if they wanted to. I'm not convinced, however, that their leadership has the desire or the intelligence to do it.

The Issues, No. 23 - Medicare, Health Insurance Providers, and the Medical Profession

From a recent tragic family experience, I am convinced that the medical profession is bilking Medicare and health insurance providers for everything it can get. And Medicare and the health insurance providers seem to go along with it because they pretty much pay what they're billed, without question.

In the first place, I don't understand who establishes the amounts that can be billed for each procedure, doctor's visit, medical item, or prescription drug. Whoever it is doesn't appear to have a grasp on reality because these amounts are totally exhorbitant for practically everything. Secondly, the medical profession seems to think that a patient on Medicare with secondary insurance is ripe for the picking because they seem to oftentimes bill for things they don't even do. They'll bill $60.00 for a doctor's visit in the hospital when the doctor did little more than stick his head in the room and say, "How are you?" What's sad about this is there isn't anyone policing this activity. Most of the time, if the charges are within the guidelines, Medicare will pay what is billed. The medical profession knows exactly how much they can bill and how much they can get away with and, believe me, they are getting away with robbery. They also know that it is difficult for a patient to contest a charge and that 99.99% of the patients won't contest anyway because they aren't paying for it out of their own pockets.

It's no wonder Medicare is such a costly program and it's no wonder health insurance is so expensive. It's no wonder also that doctors make so much money. They are simply robbing America to satisfy their own greed. And even though Medicare covers the medical expenses of older Americans, it still is a huge mess that desparately needs to be fixed before the medical profession ruins it for everyone.

The medical profession has a responsibility in our Democracy too. I think we should be able to get good medical care at reasonable and realistic prices. And instead of a medical profession that seems to exist for the benefit of the medical profession we need to have a medical profession that exists for the benefit of the patient.

Labor Day and Gustav

Today is Labor Day and also the day Hurricane Gustav has invaded the Gulf Coast and is churning its way inland. So, all I'm going to do today is wish you a Happy Labor Day and, for those of you in the path of Gustav, I wish you the very best for your personal safety and the safety of your homes and property.