THE LEGAL SYSTEM

To be honest with you, I read and read article after article on the American Legal System, and the more articles that I read, the more confused I got.  I read about the different types of law, levels of law, sources of law, classifications of law, and the different jurisdictions of law.  And, you know what?  I came to the conclusion that the law was just too legalistic. 

I don’t see how real people, who have to obey these rules, can even understand them.  One must truly be an attorney to really grasp the full meaning and impact of them.  Even the definitions of the words in the dictionary were described with words I didn’t know.  I had to cross reference two dictionaries at the same time, one being open to the definition and the other being opened to a word in the definition.  I don’t believe that it was intended to be this difficult in the beginning.

I sat there wondering just why everything about the law is so complicated.  How could we start with ten simple commandments and end up with as many as we have today?  Law books are literally filled with them.  If God had the mindset of an American lawmaker, Moses would probably still be bringing tablets down from the mountain today. 

Therefore, I have decided to relay to you my perception of the law through the real experiences that I have had in dealing with and observing the law.  After all, shouldn’t the law by judged by the people who it is designed to protect?  And, just as I have spoken straight from my own conscience and opinions in each of the previous articles, thus shall I do in this one as well.  I express only my opinions and understanding of the law and make no claim of rendering an official legal interpretation of the law.  Furthermore, I do not intend for my interpretation of the law to be factual in any way.  In being a true natural born citizen of these United States, who further carries his identification with him at all times, I have a right to express my opinion and dissatisfaction of what I see going on in my own country.

It appears to me that our Legal System is a classic example of blatant overkill, and further reflects the deep embedding of Capitalism laced throughout its entire system as well.  Why is this surprising?  After all, aren’t we a Capitalistic nation?

Yes, we are.  However, in my way of thinking, money mixed with anything causes problems.  And, there are at least four major things that should never, ever, be mixed with money.  Three of them are Law, Politics, and Health.  I will not be so bold as to even mention the forth.  There are some things better left unsaid.  I will leave that to your own creative thinking and the possibilities therein.  For, that topic is for another day, another time.  So, let’s start with Law.

One would think that the entire purpose of the legal system would be to arrive at the truth and administer justice accordingly.  I get a lump in my throat whenever I see a statue of Lady Justice (not to be confused with the Statue of Liberty). 

Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold, signifying that justice should be blind to any and all forms of favoritism and partiality.  No level of power, weakness, wealth, poverty, status, or promise of gain or threat of loss should affect her judgment in any way.  She holds a set of scales in her left hand that she uses to measure the strengths and weaknesses of each case.  And, in her right hand is a double-edged sword representing her power of Reason and Justice over both sides.

The concepts behind Lady Liberty and Lady Justice are two overwhelming reasons why this country became a great nation in the first place.  However, in my way of thinking, somewhere along the way, our basic capitalistic instincts have infiltrated into and corrupted our Legal System.  Theoretically, our Legal System and Capitalism should be able to coexist together in this country, yet also be able to operate independently of each other.  But to me, that appears to have not been the case.

When I see the quality of legal representation that the average citizen of this country is able to get being directly dependent upon how much money he has to purchase it with, then I see a direct conflict between that, and the impartial justice that is reflected in the blindfold worn by Lady Justice.  What happened to “no level of wealth or poverty should affect her judgment in any way”?  Now, I grant you, these are my words, and are according to my understanding of arriving at the truth and administering justice accordingly.  However, the concept should be the same.  Can real justice be administered fairly and accordingly if the only attorney that you and I can afford has little to no experience, but the other party can hire a high level lawyer from one of the most prestigious Law Schools in America who may have twenty years or more of legal experience in the practice of law?  I would think that most people who have any experience with the law at all would agreed that the better your lawyer is, the better chances you have of winning the case.

 Not only do I feel that the wealthy have a decided advantage by being able to “hire” the best in the “business”, but it is extremely obvious to me that the apparent motivation of the lawyers is to win the case, as opposed to arriving at the truth.  I recently talked to some lawyers about this, and in their minds, winning the case was what actually determined the truth.  When I heard this, my mind went into overdrive. 

I guess that if we were in a perfect world, then that statement could possibly be true.  However, we don’t live in a perfect world and too many times I have seen personal friends suffer from the unfair rulings of our legal system.  My guess is that many of you have as well, to some degree.

Some lawyers are so persuasive that they can literally convince you that there is not a cloud in the sky, even though you may have just walked through the door with a dripping umbrella.  Lawyers can also structure their questions in such a manner that if you answered in their demanded yes or no format, then your honest answers might possibly give the opposite impression from what actually happened.  What I see them doing is trying to induce you to say something that supports their case by telling a form of the truth, but is not the entire truth.  (I really wanted to say that they are trying to force you to lie by telling the truth, but that may be stretching the truth as well.  Are you still with me?)  What I am really trying to say is if they wanted the real truth, wouldn’t they simply allow you explain it in your own words?  That is logical.  It is a mystery to me why intelligent judges allow that line of questioning at all.

It is my understanding that defense attorneys have also been known to misrepresent their clients by having them appear in court dressed entirely different from their normal character in order to give a false, but favorable impression to the jury.  An alleged multiple murderer, who may have never shaved or wore a coat and tie in his life, can be cleaned up and dressed to look like the finest law abiding citizen you could ever want to meet.  He can further request not to testify in his own behalf and have a smooth tongued lawyer speak for him, thus shading the entire trial in such a way as to totally misrepresent reality and the truth, and win the case.  I realize that laws very from State to State, and that may not be true everywhere.  Now, I ask you, are they really after the truth when they do that, or are they out to win the case?  If they win their case based on illusion as opposed to facts, then has the real truth been arrived at by the court?  I think not.  And, I don’t think that Lady Justice would smile on such a system.

People have also been known to tell lies in court when there is no proof otherwise, in order to prevent the truth from coming out, thus avoiding the possibility of being found at fault.  The penalty for perjury is rendered meaningless if you cannot prove the lie.

Witnesses can misinterpret what they think they saw, and testify falsely in a court of law as well.  Some of you may remember the example I used in the October 10, 2009 article entitled “Creative Thinking And Issues” regarding the use of instant replay in football.

In that article, I related that “we look for explanations based on what we have experienced and learned through our previous observations.  And, many times we make conclusions based on similar patterns stored in our brains before actually seeing the final product.  This phenomenon can best be demonstrated by the use of instant replay in football, using three different camera angles.  Have you ever watched the playback of a football play as it was shown from two different angles, and been totally convinced that the play happened a certain way.  Yet, when a third view was introduced, it was conclusive that the play didn't really happen that way at all.  The "blind view" told everything and revealed a total different result.  If our conclusions are based on previous experiences and those previous experiences were slightly skewed, or not totally true, then much of what we have learned in the past may not be true at all.  It may have been based on what appeared to be true, or what we were told to be true.”  So, seeing is not necessarily accurate and conclusive.

Lawyers can possibly be motivated by money, reputation, fear, greed, and/or power.  Witnesses can lie.  And, witnesses can testify to something they think to be true, that is not really true.  When such things are possible, then true justice can and sometimes will be compromised from time to time.  And, to make it worse, people’s entire lives are sometimes held in the balance by that decision.

Emotions have also been known to sway the courts.  Leniency has been known to be granted when strong emotional testimonies were given on behalf of the defense.  Maybe a mother will weep and sob for her children, saying they will never be able to survive without the help of their convicted father, or something along those lines, and leniency may be granted.  Yet, did the criminal show compassion toward the immediate family of the victim when he did his terrible act?  Did he take in consideration the impact that his actions would have on the immediate family of his victim?  Some may feel that clemency should be granted anyway.  However, the wife and sons and daughters of the family whose father was taken away by the crime may disagree.

Justice is not always fair.  That’s why we need to get it right the first time, if at all possible.  And, if we are to get it right, then we must take the incentive to win the case out of the equation.  We must replace it with incentive to arrive at the truth.

What I suggest will be far from the system that we use, and it is probably even further away from the system that our forefathers used when they lived in England.  Just as the State is responsible for making the laws and enforcing them, I feel that the State should also be responsible for financing the entire process as well.  Take the possible incentive for income and/or profit away from the attorneys.  Why put the burden of financing on a possibly innocent party?  Why put the burden of financing on a responsible person who is trying to report a crime?  Why immediately give the advantage to the one who has more wealth. 

If it were me, in severe cases, I would first select people known to have integrity and honesty of character, and put them on a team.  This team would be responsible for collecting all of the evidence given from both sides, sharing it, putting it together into a logical format, and presenting it point by point to the jury as pure evidence in a totally non-biased way.  Then let the jury decide for themselves.  Take emotion out of the picture.  Take the silver smoothed attorneys out of the picture.  Take incentive for profit or fame out of the picture.  There is just one thing that we want; "Just the facts, ma'am."

Remember, I said in the very first paragraph that “the Legal System will tell you exactly where their focus is and who they protect.”  So, I ask you, where is the focus and who does it protect?  Does it protect “We the People”?  Does it protect the ditch digger on the same level that it does the rich and powerful?  Is the focus on the truth or on winning the case?  Is the focus on illusion or fact?  Is the focus on who presents the best case, or on whether the truth has been arrived at and justice administered fairly? 

And furthermore, does the penalty really fit the crime?  What has happened to using intelligent judgment and common sense in passing judgment?

Why is it that a minor that is one day from being of legal age, can commit a crime and have it considered a misdemeanor, and another boy can commit the same crime on the birthday that makes him of legal age, and be given a sentence for many years in jail as penalty?  How much intelligence, experience, and maturity can one acquire in one day, or in one minute?  Is this a fair system?

If some judges are going directly by “the book”, or by the results of a similar case, and not by using intelligent and logical judgment in making their decisions, then in my opinion, they do not deserve to bear the title of judge.  Just have somebody read the law and pass sentence.  Who needs a judge?  In such cases, in my opinion the honor should be stricken from the phrase “your honor” because that judge has no honor.  Simply saying that the law is the law does not hold water when one realizes that the law was designed to protect us, not entrap us.  And there are many different subtleties to every case.  Going by the book is nothing more than a cop-out because no two cases are exactly 100% the same in every conceivable way.  Remember, that is why a judge is called a judge. 

I looked up several definitions of judge and not one of them said to base your decision on someone else’s decision.  Not one of them indicated the usage of the outcome of another case to determine your own.  In my opinion, a judge should use intelligent and logical judgment based on the law and the circumstances of his own unique case, which means that he could possibly render an exception to the law if the circumstances warrant it.  The written law is not always perfect.

And, where is the accountability for these judges?  Who judges the judges?  Does anyone review the judge’s decisions to see if justice is really being served, or possibly abused?  And if so, is there a pattern of abuse?  Furthermore, if abuse is found, then has a retrial been given?  And, have they thrown the book at the judge for abusing the system that he swears to uphold in his oath of office?  It might not be a bad idea to require judges to periodically attend a session reminding them of what those words in the oath of office really mean.

I believe that some laws should be stricken from the books entirely, in favor of the use of intelligent and logical judgment on the part of the judges.  Why does somebody always have to be at fault?  There are times when it is not fair to find anyone guilty, and the case should be dismissed.  However, if a law is already on the books that declares somebody guilty regardless of the circumstances, then a judge may be more inclined to rule a party guilty instead of overturning a law or choosing to disregard it in this case. 

For example, somebody instantly pulled directly across the front of my car, while I was driving on the interstate one day.  The only way to avoid a collision on this heavily traveled highway was to instantly swing my car to the left.  However, in doing so, I lost control of the car and it swerved into a concrete wall under the bridge at 55 mph.  The driver that caused the accident kept going, and I had no time to get the license plate number, as I was desperate to regain control of my car.  When the policeman arrived, he gave me two tickets, one for not maintaining my lane and another for running into a fixed object.  O.K.  I did both of those things.  However, there was no damage at all to the concrete wall, and my car was totaled.  It was obviously not my fault, so I asked the policeman what I should have done.  He said that I should have maintained my lane at all times.  Hmmmm.  So, the best that our enforcement officer could come up with was to allow an accident to happen on an interstate highway that was heavily crowed. 

I wondered to myself just how many people’s lives would have been at risk had I done what the officer said.  Then I thought what if this happened on a side street and a woman carrying a baby stepped out in front of me from between two parked cars?  If I use intelligent judgment, I swerve away from her if there is no time to stop, because she and the baby are much more vulnerable than anyone in another car beside me would be.  If I go by the law, I maintain my lane and possibly kill two people.  Laws are not infallible.  In my opinion, going by the book can be as criminal as an act of crime by the defendant.

Another example might be backing out of a parking space at a crowded grocery store or mall.  Most of us have a rear view mirror and two side mirrors.  However, there is no way to see all sides at the same time.  There is always an element of risk involved. 

What if a small child who is too small to see over the rear of your car wonders out into your path?  What if somebody steps out of nowhere into your path, or somebody runs behind your car as you are backing out?  Just try to prove that they ran behind your car if there are no witnesses.  And, don’t forget many elder citizens have trouble turning their heads that far back, and many of them can’t.  So, as some point, they have to risk it. 

The point that I am trying to make is that it is much easier for an alert pedestrian to see or hear a car coming than it is for an alert driver to see or hear a silent pedestrian coming, especially at night.  I do not think that the driver should always be the one held accountable.  In my opinion, it’s one of those things that is better left to the decision of a judge rather than have a standing law to protect the pedestrian only.

Some of the laws that are the most interesting are the ones that declare something legal one day, but not the next.  You have got to be kidding me!  It seems to me that something is either legal or it is not legal.  Examples of that are the Blue Laws.  In some places a store can sell alcohol on Saturday but not Sunday.  These laws have been overturned in most States, but not all. 

Can you image the judge who goes by the book trying to hear one of these cases?  He may blow a fuse.  Let’s see.  A clerk rings up a six pack of beer at 11:59 P.M. on Saturday night, but the charge does not go through until 12:01 A.M., which the clerk has no control of.  How does the judge rule?  Sometimes you have to use intelligent judgment rather than the book.

There are obviously religious implications here, or why would they pick Sunday?  But, don’t forget, Jewish people consider the Sabbath to be Saturday.  Where is the law for them?  So, you can see when you mix religion with law, all sorts of problems develop because the Constitution was designed to protect everyone, even the atheist.  Such a law may interfere with the rights of some who does not worship or observe the Sabbath at all.  If he wants to have his business open on Sunday, then the State may be violating his rights by requiring him to observe theirs.  It really gets complicated. 

That’s another reason why I feel that many laws should not really be laws at all.  I believe that you should not be able to take the rights away from one person in order to preserve the rights of another.  One must sometimes use common sense and good judgment.  If you don’t, then you are defeating the very purpose of the Legal System.

I could continue listing scenarios where there is injustice in the law, but I think that you understand where I am going with this.  We have got to change the system.  We have got to make it less complicated.  We have got to make it fairer.  We have got to make it more consistent.  We have got to make it logical.  We need to throw out many of our laws and replace them with good judgment on the part of the legal representatives. We have got to change the language of the law to make it easy for the simplest Americans to read and understand.  We have got to find a way to hold judges accountable for their decisions.  And, we have got to take profit and payment out of the legal system altogether.

I suggest having legal centers, whereby common citizens of the United States can go to get free legal advice.  I also suggest that these centers be staffed with State Attorneys, and judges who can make quick decisions and handle simple disputes without ever having to take it to trial.  If the States used a little more common sense and started making simple legal matters easier to address and solve, then our courts would not be full all of the time.  I further believe that frivolous law suits should be quickly identified and dismissed.  We live in a suit happy society.  This has got to stop and be replaced with reason and common sense.  Here is a real magical trick for you.  Do you want to see frivolous laws suits disappear altogether?  Make the State pay all the fees and attorney fees for both sides in every case.

ENDING CORPORATE MONOPOLIES

Now, let’s take this to a higher level.  I believe that our courts should protect small businesses more from corporate profiteers.  Incentives given to major corporations should be extended to small businesses as well, at the same level, but affordable to small businesses.  If we are ever going to keep small businesses from being run out of business by the major corporations, then we must first remove the profit discrepancies in the purchasing process.  We have got to even the playing field for major corporations and small businesses.

Hard work and small businesses are what made this country great.  Now, many of them have been replaced by major corporations, some of which have done unethical things in the name of profit.  Instead of small businesses going out of their way to render us good customer service and satisfaction by selling us quality products that they are proud to put their name on, many corporations now relegate their customer service to voice machines and operators half way around the country, or world, who may not even speak our language well.  Instead of making our products to last, our products are now made with cheaper materials that will break down quicker, thus causing us to purchase the same product several times instead of just once.

Others businesses have gotten so big that our government leaders feel like they are too important to let fail.  So, they confiscate our money to bail them out, thus rewarding them for doing poor jobs and putting many of our American citizens out of their homes.

If we are the richest country in the world, then why do so many people have to work so hard just to make ends meet each month, while others live comfortably in their “ivory towers”? Why are many of us relegated to near poverty level conditions after retirement?  Why are dental and medical expenses so high that they are literally devastating our lifestyles?  Why do so many people have to forgo treatment because they can’t afford insurance, which sometimes doesn’t even cover half of the expenses?

It all goes back to where the focus of our legal system is, and who they protect.  They are obviously focusing on and protecting big business.  But, where is the focus on small businesses.  It’s easy to focus on the welfare of a corporation that has hundreds or thousands of employees working for them.  But how about the many small businesses who, when added together, also have hundreds and thousands of people working for them.  Where is the focus on them?  And, where is the focus on the people actually doing the work for these businesses, whether big or small?  Without these workers, every single major corporation and small business would have to fold.  Without jobs, people couldn’t purchase things.  Without people purchasing things, our economy would fold altogether.  Don’t you think that focusing on us would be the prime directive of our Legal System?

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

But, the clincher is the focus on the Political System.  Do you remember earlier in this article when I said that there are at least four major things that should never, ever, be mixed with money?  I went on to say that three of them are Law, Politics, and Health.  Well, from my viewpoint, in reality, the Legal System has literally forced the average citizen out of the mainstream political process by making unreasonable demands for qualifying to run for a major office?  What this effectively means is that the only ones making decisions for our country are either wealthy or bound to the Political Party that feeds them.  So, use a little Creative Thinking and make a guess as to who is going to benefit the most from the decisions they make.  If your representatives in Washington, D.C. are very comfortable in their living conditions, then how can they ever identify with the everyday struggles and fears that the rest of us have to deal with?  They may know of them, but it is not real until it actually happens to them personally.  If they could, then how could they ever think that the decisions that they make for our major corporations are really best for us as well?  Once again, the major corporations have gotten richer and richer over the last 65 years, while the rest of us continue to struggle to make ends meet.  I don’t see our quality of life improving at the same rate that the major corporations are getting richer.

But, lets’ get back to the Political System itself.  In order to run for President, only the very wealthy citizens can afford to pay the expenses to campaign enough to obtain the staff necessary to solicit and secure enough names to get on the ballot in all fifty States.  And that’s just to start.  For the most part, one would have to almost be independently wealthy in order to afford the expenses for publicity, air time, travel, etc. , required to make a serious run for the Presidency.  That is, unless you align yourself with one of the two major Political Parties, that will finance it for you if you promote their platform.  Thus, more fuel to the fire.

And that’s my point.  In my opinion, it is the two rich Political Parties that have gotten us into this mess from the start.  They are the ones who passed the laws that put us into the mess we are in today.  And, they are also the ones who have passed the laws governing the election qualifications.  I may be a simple man.  And, I may not have been born in a big city.  But even I can see that if the only people who are qualified to run our country are not poor enough to empathize with what the rest of us feel, then there will be no significant change for us in the Middle Class as long as these two Parties are in power.  That’s why I am not surprised when I read articles like the one I did today that said that the Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S.  Now I don’t know and I don’t care how accurate that is.  However, I do believe that it is in the ballpark of the truth because I have seen similar figures in other articles as well.  And if we don’t wake up to the fact that we are feeding this system every day by putting politicians into office that endorse what we are doing and what we have been doing for 65 years, then we will continue getting the same results that we have been getting.  Is this what we want?

So, if our young politicians don’t align themselves with the powers that be, then the legislation that these powers have passed will all but eliminate them from competition.  And, the same goes for running for a Congressional seat, but to a somewhat smaller degree.  That’s one of the reasons why we need a new system, or at least a new Party that represents the Middle Class, as I suggested in my April, 2010 article entitled “The New Party”.

But, that’s not all.  The way our Political System is set up, major corporations can now contribute massive sums of money to the political campaigns of their favorite candidate.  According to a New York Times article on 1/21/10, the following occurred.  “Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.”   It was a 5-4 decision.  You see how important the nominations are for who gets a seat on the Supreme Court?  This is another one of those areas of the Constitution that I really feel needs amending.  I do not believe that our President should be able to nominate a Justice for the Supreme Court.  I further do not believe that their terms should be for life.  In my opinion, they should be elected just like the politicians and serve for a set number of years, after which they should be required to run again if they want to maintain their seat.  With partisan politics having such a dominate impact on today’s political decisions, we must not allow for the “stacking” up of the Supreme Court by either Party.

  Now, I am not accusing anyone here, but in my opinion, this recent Supreme Court decision gives corporations permission to literally “buy” a political vote for their cause.  After all, why would a major corporation, or anyone else, donate vast sums of money to a political candidate unless they wanted something in return?  Do you think that a major corporation would donate vast sums of money to a candidate running for office just because they like the guy?  I think their stock holders might have something to say about that, unless it was somehow guaranteed to increase their bottom line profit by a significant amount of money.  Back home at the barber shop where I came from, they’d call something like that glorified bribery, since it is now legal.

It’s all about the focus of our Legal System and who it protects.  Without it, the major corporations, lobbyists, special interest groups, Congress, and the President of the United States could not do some of the things that they are allowed to do today.  These things will continue until and unless we do something about it.  And, in my opinion, we must vote most all of them out of power and replace them with new people who are “Of The People”, instead of “Of The System”.

ENVIRONMENT

Let’s look at another thing that I feel our Legal System has done a poor job of protecting, our environment.  Laws may be in effect to protect it, but wouldn’t you think there would be much less pollution if the penalties fit the crime?  Everybody knows that any amount of toxic waste in our atmosphere is not good for us because we have to breathe it.  I have read that our bodies use oxygen at the cellular level.  If the oxygen is polluted, then we are not getting the maximum benefit from the oxygen that we breathe.  I don’t care what the government says the accepted level is.  It might be acceptable to them, after they weigh it against the loss of profit of our major industrial leaders, but it is not acceptable to me as a citizen who has to breathe it.  I would like to hear some of the retired Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) engineers testify to what they actually found, and compare it with what the Administrations in power at the time actually published.  I would be really surprised if the results would be as the same.  Maybe they would.  But, I’d like to see them anyway.

All one has to do is look across the horizon of some of our major cities and you can actually see the smog.  We even have smog alerts telling us how bad it really is, and to stay indoors if all possible.  Somehow, I would think that Common Sense would tell us that actually seeing it in the air hanging there is a clue that the accepted level isn’t what it should be.  But, of course, it’s just like the silver smoothed attorneys saying it’s not really rain running off of your umbrella.  It’s simply an illusion.  Cough.

And, incidentally, the rain running off your umbrella may have certain levels of toxicity in it as well.  Scientists call it acid rain.  That wonderful rain that we used to look up into the air and catch with our tongues is now mixed with certain levels of compounds of ammonium, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur.  This rain also soaks into the fields that our crops are grown in.  And, don’t forget the wonderful pesticides that they spray on the crops as well to kill the bugs.  By the way, did you wash that leaf of lettuce or that shiny red apple before you chowed down on it?  I certainly hope so.

What happened to protecting our environment?  It seems to me that protecting the profits of corporate America has a higher priority than protecting the environment, and the health of its citizens.  That’s just my opinion, of course.  However, if the environment and the people were a higher priority than corporate America, then why do these problems still exist?  After all, pollution has been a known problem since World War II, when they identified radiation from the atomic bomb.  However, it wasn’t until 1955 that Congress actually passed the Air Pollution Control Act.  The problem was that they didn’t do anything to regulate it.  That led to the Clean Air Act, and eventually to the E.P.A.  However, even though the Clean Air Act required oversight to protect the public, you can see by looking out the window that it’s just one of the many significant problems that neither Political Party in the last 65 years, has effectively resolved.

I also see them allowing fast foods that are filled with things that are known to have a negative influence on our bodies, to be so sold to the public.  I also see them allowing beverages, many of which compromise our health as well, to be sold.  So, why should I trust them to determine what level of toxicity in the air is too toxic for me to breathe?  I think that should be left to independent, non-profit organizations that have nothing to gain or lose by their decisions.

Penalties for breaking the law by dumping corporate waste into our streams, lakes, and rivers, or allowing waste seepage to enter into the grounds surrounding these industries should be so high that no corporation would dare risk ever doing it, no matter how big or important that business is to the community.  Penalties should be assessed that would have a definite impact on the profit of that business.  And, in addition to that, the business that is breaking the law should be shut down altogether until the waste has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of the proper inspectors over that industry.  It is unfortunate if you happen to be one of their employees.  However, you may bring home a pay check today, but later find out that one of your family members has contracted cancer from ingesting the toxic waste in some fashion.  Which is more important?  I say fix it now, and give it top priority.  Do it today, before today becomes tomorrow.

The toxins from such industries that get into the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe can have a significant impact on our health and well being.  In my opinion, when someone knowingly allows waste, or actually physically puts pollutants into the environment, then that party is therefore directly responsible for any and all damages and harm resulting from those pollutants to both humans and property.  Not only should they pay maximum fines, but they should serve stiff jail sentences for their actions.  And furthermore, if someone dies from the ill effects of those pollutants, then the causing party should immediately be brought up on manslaughter charges.  If someone adds arsenic to your food, and you die, that person would most likely be charged for murder.  If someone adds toxic waste to your drinking water and you die several years later from cancer, then you are just as dead as if they had added arsenic to your food, you just had to suffer longer.  The penalty should fit the crime.

In my opinion, any energy acquired from the burning of fossil fuels on this planet, such as oil, coal, shale, etc. should be banned altogether.  We have known about this problem for about 35 years now and have done little to nothing about it.  That is one of the main reasons that we created the Department of Energy in 1977.  If we had legislated that all energy companies must gradually retool their factories for alternative energy sources back then, then we would most likely be completely independent of oil of any kind by now.  In all that time, the companies have been profiting from not having the expense of gradual retooling.  I would recommend passing legislation that would require immediate retooling at a rate of 10% per year with no exception for exemptions or extensions.  They didn’t pay the piper back then and it’s time they do now.  If they don’t now, then they most likely never will.  My guess is, they will squeeze every last drop of oil out, and then beg for a bailout to begin retooling after the price for energy has gotten so high that there are riots in the street.  And guess what, the American people will most likely be screaming for the bailouts by then as well because they can no longer afford to drive to work.  We must prevent this before it happens.

At the same time, I would also recommend giving huge tax incentives to new businesses willing to start up in areas of Alternative Energy, such as Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Nuclear Energy.  If the existing oil companies were somehow unable to make their retooling quotas timely, then the new companies might be able to pick up the slack, and failing oil companies would not have to be bailed out, which I feel is what our government leaders are planning to do anyway when the oil industry runs out of oil.  My opinion is solely based on their previous actions.

Another item that I do not want to fail to mention in the Environment Section is the cutting down of our trees and forests.  Not only have we effectively turned the sacred land of the American Indians from a country flowing with clean rivers, lakes, and streams, into nearly a polluted cesspool, where we are at risk to even let our children swim in them, but we have also changed a land that was covered with a huge abundance of trees into a concrete jungle.  In my opinion, there is a great health hazard in this and we will pay for our crime unless we take some major steps to replenish our trees and clean up our atmosphere now.

For those of you who have forgotten, people could not survive without trees.  Why is that?  Trees manufacture oxygen.  Trees also clean the air around us and the soil they are rooted in.  They absorb chemicals and pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and certain forms of sulfur and nitrogen.  Trees also help reduce soil erosion.  The more trees that we cut down and don’t replace, the less quality our air will become every year.  And, one day, in my opinion, if we don’t immediately change our ways, the poisons in our atmosphere will eventually neutralize that which is creating the imbalance in its ecosystem. 

We are threatening the very system that created life on this planet.  But, as that system yields to the abuses of modern man, it is merely bending in the breeze, like a Weeping Willow Tree.  For the carbon based units that are threatening it, also depend on it for life.  And, as the system fails, so will man.  Then, as Father Time allows Mother Nature to recycle once again, life will form again and the Earth will be covered once again with clean water and trees as far as the eyes of the new inhabitants can see.  And, hopefully they will do a better job than we did.  Perhaps they will learn to live together in peace and harmony with themselves and their Environment.

OVERSIGHT OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRY

Food and Beverage is another area where I feel that our Legal System has done a poor job of oversight.  I realize that the Legislative Branch must pass the laws in the first place.  However, when the Legal System interprets these laws, it seems that big business is most often the recipient of the favorable decisions of significance.  This focus on big business has got to stop.  The focus must be on the human beings that have to consume these foods and drinks. 

Health is the big problem here.  In my opinion, when our foods are saturated with harmful grease, sweeteners, salts, preservatives, etc., and then deep fried at very hot temperatures, then there is little nutritional value left in them.  And, I would think that the enzymes within these foods would also most likely be compromised.  I am not an expert in this field, but have done a lot of research on the subject. 

The greatest tragedy, in my opinion, is that many of us have grown so much of an addiction to these foods, that we will most likely fight to keep them, regardless of their harm to us.  Now remember, these foods may not actually meet the qualifications for addiction, but my personal experience is that I know what I shouldn’t eat, and I can’t stop eating them, despite what I know.  And, I don’t think that I’m the only one.  Just look around.  Obesity in this country is running rampant.  Do you honestly believe, for one minute, that people really prefer to be overweight?  Do you think that they haven’t, at some time, gone on a diet, or joined a health club to lose that weight? I go to the health club several times a week.  But, I still haven't been able to break my addiction to some foods.  And, by the way, my definition of addiction is to continually say that you can stop something, but never get around to stopping it.

What I would like to see is extensive testing done on these foods and beverages to see just how harmful they really are to us.  These tests should be run without any interference from the companies that produce them.  The tests should also be run by experts in the field, and the results should be published in their original form, without editing by the powers that be in the Federal Government.  Test results should immediately be made available to the public and not subject to the possibility of any cover up by the Federal Government or anyone else.  It is the right of the general public to know everything that affects us when it comes to the foods we eat, the water and beverages we drink, and the air that we breathe.  And, if any of these are found to be hazardous to our health, then it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to pass laws making their production illegal and enforce these laws with the stiffest penalties.  I don’t care if it does cause major industries to fold.  These people are not idiots.  If they have been producing foods and beverages for consumption that are harmful to humans, and they insist on continuing to make profits on things that they know are harmful to our health, then I consider it a premeditated crime and should be dealt with accordingly and fairly.

With the brilliant minds that we have in this country today, I would think that somebody would be able to come up with a way of producing foods that are not harmful to us, taste great, are beneficial to our health, and are relatively inexpensive.   If someone could make foods that are good for us, taste just like foods that are bad for us, without compromising our health, my guess is that person would become extremely wealthy. 

OUR  MEDICAL  SYSTEM  NEEDS  MORE  THAN  A  DOCTOR

Many consider Hippocrates to be the father of medicine.  He once said, "Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food".  Of course, had he lived in modern times, it is quite possible that he would not be in good standing with today’s medical community. 

In today’s society, the legally accepted means of medical care is the physician.  However, there are other alternative means of healthcare available that are not considered to be main stream.  I would like to see Alternative Medicine considered on an equal basis with Modern Medicine.  After all they have used it quite well in Europe and Asia for thousands of years and some of them live to be well over a hundred years old.   Furthermore, some people who were declared to have incurable diseases in the United States, have been reported as getting cures through Alternative Healthcare overseas, and even in some countries as close as Mexico.  I would further like to see comparable insurance coverage for it and Dental procedures as well.

However, before that is done, I would like to see strict laws passed that required all business who manufacture drugs, machines, equipment, supplies, and anything used in the Health, Medical, and Dental fields to operate on a non-profit basis.  This would also include Pharmaceutical Companies, Hospitals, Diagnostic Centers, the professional that work therein, and the Insurance Companies that cover the Health, Medical, and Dental fields as well.  Doctors, surgeons, dentists, and other health providers would still be able to make substantial salaries.  However, the incentive for profit must be removed from these fields if focus is to be properly placed on the patient and his recovery is maximized.  If your continuing illness generates a steady stream of income for Modern Medicine, then that represents a possible conflict of interest.  And quite rightly, that conflict of interest should be removed before anyone decides to explore its possible opportunities.

Along those same lines, any industry that releases harmful substances into the air, waters, or ground should be subject to the strictest regulations, oversight, and penalties for non-compliance or partial compliance.  If we are to maintain our health, then strong measures must be taken in order to remove profit incentives from anything that affects our health.   

At this point, I would like to remind you once again that my entire series of articles is based on my opinions, beliefs, and understanding of things as I see them as an individual citizen of the United States.  I make no claim to being an authority on any subject, nor should what I present be considered as factual.  They are my perceptions of reality as I see them.  That does not mean they are true.  I am simply sharing my viewpoints with you.  And don't forget, one of the major objectives that I have is to challenge everyone to think outside of the box and do your own research in order to make intelligent and informed decisions.  In doing so, we must consider and explore all possibilities until we arrive at something that we feel justifies the truth.

And, here is another thing that I personally believe to be true, no matter what others may say.  Once again, this is simply my opinion.  The human body is a remarkable thing.  However, in order for it to work properly, it needs proper fuel.  You can go to a doctor as often as you want for an illness, but if your body is not getting the fuel it needs to support your immune system, then you will never get well.  You can take as many prescription drugs as you want, but in my opinion, without food, the body will die.  I am not presenting this as fact.  However, I would not recommend you trying it just to prove me wrong.

Imagine what would happen if suddenly our atmosphere became so poisonous that no crops would grow, no water would be safe to drink, and the air would not be breathable.  If we went underground, do you think that we could survive exclusively on drugs, even if we could afford them?  I don’t think so.  I also believe that our bodies would completely dehydrate without water.  Show me drugs that will simulate the volume of water required to keep blood and plasma flowing throw our bodies.  If you think that the number of degenerative diseases is high now, just think how bad it would be if the blood could not carry the daily waste out of our cells on a regular basis. 

In my opinion, we need the proper foods, proper volume of water daily and clean oxygen if we are to maintain our health.   The doctor may relieve the symptoms for a while, but you will find yourself right back in his office if your body does not heal itself.  So, it is important for us to eat the proper foods.  And if we don’t know what the proper foods are to eat, then a nutritionist is trained to help us find out which foods are good for you and which ones will harm you.  Many of the foods that we eat today are also compromised due to additives, preservatives, salts, sweeteners, cooking, and grease.  You can take a head of broccoli and turn it into a nightmare for your body if you add enough stuff to it, and cook it at high temperatures thoroughly in high fat grease.

Sometimes your body is not aware that something is wrong, so it does not activate its immune system.  How can that happen?  Well, your body has a nervous system that communicates every part of the body to the brain.  This series of nerves goes through the entire body.  However, I have read that if there is a problem in the spine, like a bone being out of alignment, then the message can possibly get distorted or it may not get through to the brain at all.  This can happen when a bone pinches or puts excessive pressure on a nerve.   

Have you ever played the game where everyone in the room sits in a circle, and the first person whispers something into the ear of the person beside him, and this continues until the message goes all the way around the room?  Then, when the last person relays the message back to the first person, the message has totally changed.  This is an example of a message getting distorted somewhere along the way. 

I have experienced this often when going to my chiropractor.  I know my back is out, so I go to the chiropractor.  I then get an adjustment and go home.  Then, a couple of hours later, I contract a fever.  According to my chiropractor, the nerve impulses were not delivering the proper message to my brain to inform it of the problem.  But, when the bone was put back in place and the pressure was removed from the nerve, communication to the brain was restored and my body began fighting the illness with the fever.  I don’t know if this is true or not.  But it certainly makes sense to me in light of what I have read.

The point is that our Medical Profession does not have all of the answers.  Until it does, then I feel that the Medical Profession should realize the value of the other health professions and embrace them.  After all, isn’t the goal to restore and maintain health?  And, we are not going to do that by simply suppress the symptoms.  If somebody else has a promising solution, then let’s explore it in depth before rejecting it.  We have got to address the entire health problem as a team, using all the assets that we have, and work together.  I am very pleased with my Medical Doctors.  I see them frequently.  However, I use both Alternative Medicine and Medical Doctors. 

What I’d really like to see is not just a doctor’s office.  I ‘d like to see a complete medical community whereby you could drive in and have doctors, surgeons, naturopath physicians, dentists, nutritionists, chiropractors, acupuncture treatment, masseuses, and reflexology experts, all right there in one place to service your needs.  For example, the doctors and naturopath physicians could diagnose your problems and then send you into the next room for possible treatment, and into another room for nutritional guidance for your problem, and into another room for a possible chiropractor adjustment, reflexology treatment, a massage, or whatever was needed.  That way, you would have a choice to pick the one or ones that make up your entire network of health providers that you prefer.  And, the insurance would pay 100% for your entire package.

But, it all starts with the foods we eat.  And, Hippocrates knew that. He considered poor eating habits to be the real cause of illness and disease, and if one were to eat properly, the natural healing forces in the body would maintain balance in the body, and good health would result.

HEALTH CARE

I think that Health Care was much easier to afford when there were no health and dental insurance companies at all.  The doctors tell me that the prices that they charge for coverage have increased exponentially because of the cost of malpractice suits.  Once again, the Legal System has raised its ugly head again and changed a perfectly workable system into one that is no longer affordable.  We have seriously got to do something about our Legal System.

From my point of view, if a doctor is guilty of malpractice, then he or she should be punished, and the penalty should be comparable to the harm done.  Why should a doctor be able to make a terrible mistake and get bailed out by an insurance company?  It seems to me that this scenario would do more harm than good.  If a doctor is allowed to get away with something like malpractice, then what incentive does he have to mend his ways?  But, on the other hand, I also feel that if someone knowingly, but falsely accuses a doctor of malpractice for reasons of profit, then that person should receive a penalty comparable to the one that the doctor would have received if convicted. That would minimize malpractice law suits for profit.  If laws suits were entered into a national database, then the Legal System would be able to access that in every case to see if there is a pattern of potential abuse by its citizens, and which ones are trying to abuse it.

I am for Health Care, under our present system.  However, I do not think that the Federal Government should run it.  I see what they have done to the money they received in the Social Security Fund, and I am concerned about what they will do with the money in the Medicare and Medicaid System.  I don’t want the Federal Government to get its hands on the trillions of dollars from our Health Care money.  In my opinion, the Health Care System should be run either by the State Government or Private Industry.  The Federal Government should only serve in an oversight capacity and should ensure proper compliance with Federal Law by administering the stiffest penalties for violators of those laws.

As for insurance, my first preference would be for us to live in a world without it.  However, since we are stuck with it, I would like to see Dental Insurance Plans that pay 100%, with a small co-pay for each visit, just like many Medical Insurance HMO plans do. 

I would like to see it made illegal for Insurance Companies to refuse payment if you chose to file a claim with a second insurance company as well.  Many times, especially in Dental Insurance Plans, their plan will only pay around 40% of the cost.  I think this is very wrong.  First of all, the insurance should either pay the entire thing or none of it at all.  But, if you have something very expensive to get fixed, you should at least be able to get a second insurance company to cover the difference.  And some Dental Insurance companies refuse to pay anything on a major item to the same tooth, if that tooth had something major done on it in the last eight or nine years.  You then get stuck paying 100% of it.  Being able to use a backup insurance would be nice.  In reality, it should be none of the insurance company’s business if you file with two insurance companies or even more, for the same procedure.  If you paid for both, you should be able to use both.  Once again, where is the focus?

I know that we have only literally scratched the surface on most of these issues.  However, it is now time to look at what we can do to start over again and make things right after the citizens and States have regained control of our country.

The final article in this series is scheduled to publish sometime near the end of this month.  It is a Special Edition and will literally show you how we can turn everything around and begin preparation to blend into an entirely different society.  You do not want to miss reading it.  It will most definitely be the most powerful article that I have ever written.  The entire series of articles have led up to that one issue.  So, don’t miss it.

The FINAL article in this monthly series is due to be published on June 25, 2010.

  ------ Rocky Hanes

               Author: Common Sense Reborn