JOEBIALEK

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution. Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census). Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. The debate has started again as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. For example, in Alabama, President Bush won 63% of the popular vote and therefore would be awarded 5.67 electoral points as compared to Senator Kerry with 37% of the popular vote and 3.33 electoral points. In the event of a tie, the national popular vote results would decide the outcome. If one tabulated the final totals from Election 2004, they would find Bush with 274.92 electoral points versus Kerry with 257.71. The existing electoral college votes shows Bush 286 to Kerry 252. I believe this compromise would reflect a truer intent of the will of the people as exercised through their states. This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.

Bush will lose.......

fair enough.....

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate. A. Foreign Policy 1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq. 2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations. B. Domestic Policy 1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years. 2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley. Conclusion The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

thanks and I hope this dispels the unfounded myth.......unfound myth...unfou myt......does not compute........

Permit me to introduce myself. My name is Joe Bialek and I was born on September 12, 1963 just 40 days before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. My family was originally from Cleveland, Ohio. It is the city of my current residence. I attended Padua High School in Parma, Ohio and went on to complete a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and a Masters of Public Administration at the University of Akron. In 1993, I moved back to Cleveland and resided in my grandfather's house located in the neighborhood known as Slavic Village. This is where my grandfather immigrated from Poland and the house where my father was born. I then ran for city council against the incumbent who was elected in 1985. After work each day I would walk to each of the 9,000 registered households from April to August and seemed to make a positive impression among the voters. However two other candidates entered the race and I finished last. The strange thing about the results, however, was the disparity between the absentee ballots and the card-punched ballots. According to the absentee ballots, I lost by a 2-to-1 margin to the incumbent but won by a 16-to-1 margin over the other two candidates. But according to the card-punched ballots, I finished last by just 4 votes. I was so exhausted by the campaign that a recount was the furthest from my mind. In the general election, the incumbent retained his seat. Shortly after the election, I was elected President of South East Clevelanders Together. The purpose of this non-profit group was to organize each of the twelve sub-neighborhoods located within Slavic Village (Ward 12) to address quality of life issues in an aggressive and systematic manner. Needless to say, it did not take long for our group to clash with the Councilman's housing group. Their primary objective was to build and rehabilitate housing without any real regard for the other issues affecting the residents and business owners. The councilman's father owns a large real estate company so I'll let you draw your own conclusion. Our funding was cut off from the City of Cleveland and efforts to raise money through foundations were sabotaged. Inevitably I was forced to use my own money to sustain the efforts of the organization. In spite of all the resistance, however, we were very successfull in organizing block clubs and civic associations as well as bringing pressure to provide solutions to the problems plaguing the community. All during this time, the councilman attempted to spin my intentions as simply an effort to prepare for a second council run. I did not run again in 1997 because I felt it would be more beneficial for the community if SECT continued to push for action rather than allow the entrenched councilman to ignore issues while his housing group pushed rehabilitations and new construction. In 1999, I moved to the Old Brooklyn neighborhood of the city of Cleveland. I decided to withdraw from public life and shift my focus to reading philosophy, economics, sociology, religion, psychology and political theory. I also committed to writing a editorial piece once per month hence the reason for my monthly email and message board postings. I do this out of altruism and receive no compensation what so ever. My sole objective is to offer suggestions on how we may fine tune America and stear the United States in a positive direction. I know I've been guilty of posting to message boards and not returning to join in the discussion. But I have read most responses. Accordingly, I hereby commit to returning no sooner or later than 24 hours after my post to answer counter arguments. I'll only respond to intellectual contributions not insults or statements from those who treat message boards like their little fiefdoms. For those of you who would like to contact me, you may reach me at the email address listed below. Thanks and let us continue to "fine tune America". Joe Bialek Cleveland, Ohio jgbialek@adelphia.net

Today, the FBI and mortgage industry professionals believe 10-15% of all loan applications contain material misrepresentations, i.e. fraud. Many times these fraudulent loans end up in foreclosure resulting in financial losses to mortgage lenders. Unfortunately, many lenders recoup these financial losses from the public by increasing the cost of loans. Fraud hurts everyone. Fraudulent loans only exacerbated the lenders problems. Many times fraudulent foreclosed loans resulted in substantial losses. An example could have been a loan officer who fabricated pay stubs to help a borrower qualify for the loan -- insuring the loan officer collected his commission. Another example could have involved a borrower who submitted falsified tax returns. GAPS investigators researched files for misrepresentation and provided lenders the evidence needed to proceed with civil and/or criminal filings against the perpetrators. So the next time you or a friend applies for a loan, be forewarned: misrepresenting information on a mortgage loan application is illegal. Your information may well be reviewed by AEGIS . If a lender detects misrepresentation, federal law provides for those convicted of loan fraud to receive a possible 30-year sentence and up to $1 million in fines! SOURCE: Robert J. Sadler, GAPS/AEGIS . Last time, I wrote about the false sexual harassment allegations made against my friend "John". Well, it turns out there is a lot more to the story. John works as an underwriter for a lender in the non-conforming loan business. This lender receives its loan applications (via company sales personnel) from licensed brokers across the country. His job is to review all credit, income and collateral documents that are used to qualify a borrower for a mortgage loan. In the first few months of his new job, John was given extensive training by his supervisor much like an apprentice gets feedback as he hones his knowledge, skills and abilities. Ocassionally, John would discover fraudulent income documents and immediately report this to his supervisor. Surprisingly, the supervisor would handle it in a somewhat cavalier manner. He would simply instruct John to hand the file back to the salesperson. John never saw the file again. At the time, this did not appear odd to John as he was new at the company and was not educated yet about the company culture. All that changed the day John received the sexual harassment email from his supervisor. After recovering from the sting of such a false allegation, John began to wonder why and who would make such a libelous and slanderous charge. What was their modus operandi? Well, it didn't take long for John to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together". A few weeks after receiving the email, John was informed by a trusted contact that his accuser had accidently blabbed over drinks of what she had done. His accuser was not the woman his supervisor had hinted at but rather someone who had much to gain by seeing John removed. After all, it was mostly her loans that contained fraud. This woman contributes well over a quarter of the entire sales team's loans each month bringing her very large commissions The supervisor for her and John receives a very large commission each month as well. John earns a straight salary. Who has the competitive political advantage? Or better yet, who has the most to lose? What are John's options? Should he continue to work for this company? Should he report any further fraud from his accuser? Can John trust his supervisor? How far up the corporate ladder does the corruption go? Should John contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Homeland Security? If John does nothing, can he be considered an accessory after the fact? What should John do?

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html For the first time in his 25 years of employment, a female employee has made a verbal allegation of sexual harassment against a male friend of mine. "John" was notified of this by his immediate supervisor via an email. The email did not indicate an incident or complaint but rather was framed in the context of "feedback" advising John to be carefull when it comes to dealing with female employees. It went on to say that comments, compliments, innuendos, flirting, wandering eyes, etc. can be misperceived and possibly jeapordize his job. Needless to say, John was absolutely astounded. He immediately approached his supervisor and demanded clarification. The supervisor indicated that a female employee had verbalized the allegation. He then clarified his position on the matter by stating that he has never witnessed any such behavior by John nor believes any incident occurred. What bothers John however, is why was the email sent in the first place? Does it constitute some form of written warning? The employee handbook states that standard operating procedure requires a verbal warning first and then written warning followed by a final written warning and then termination. Were John's civil rights violated? The work environment today in the United States is becoming more and more polarized. Women are flagrantly disregarding company dress codes in order to flaunt there sexuality. It was interesting to discover how narrowly defined sexual harassment has become. A clause in the code mentions "visual harassment"; defined as any display that promotes the sexuality of what is depicted, or draws attention to the private parts of the body, even if there is partial clothing. Consequently, men are flagrantly disregarding verbal and visual inhibitions as they react to the sexual stimulus. The question that remains however, is which side constitutes criminality? Is it the sexual provocation or is it the sexual reaction? Do wandering male eyes encourage women to dress more provocatively or does female attire encourage wandering male eyes? Does a loose verbal atmosphere in the work place exacerbate the problem? Would clamping down constitute a violation of freedom of speech? What about the constant bombardment of sexual messages facilitated through various media? The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution. Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution.

With all the debate recently for amending the United States Constitution in favor of recognizing marriage as a union between a man and woman, perhaps a more appropriate amendment should guarantee each citizen of the United States the right to food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Poverty is defined as the condition of being poor or lacking the necessary means of support to live or meet needs. Today we read of enormous corporate tax breaks, outsourcing of jobs overseas and outrageous salaries "earned" by athletes/entertainers. More recently came the revelation of the $200 billion dollars spent by the U.S. on the war in Iraq. In the meantime, the number of those in poverty continues to increase. The Old Testament of the Bible often makes references to the promised land flowing with milk and honey. All one has to do in this country is take a trip to the grocery story or department store and bear witness to the fact that if anywhere was close to exhibiting the characteristics of "the promised land", this country is it. Yet somehow we are still unable to meet the four basic needs every citizen has. Some would argue that this proposal is an extension of Socialism/Communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism/Communism is a political or economic theory in which community members own all property, resources, and the means of production, and control the distribution of goods. No one is suggesting the replacement of Capitalism; an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned, and prices are chiefly determined by open competition in a free market. What is being suggested is that in this land of surplus "milk and honey", there is absolutely no reason why the four basic needs of every U.S. citizen cannot be met. Some would argue that food stamps, thrift stores, public housing and medicaid already meet these needs but in the words of President John F. Kennedy, "this country is divided between those who have never had it so good and those who know we can do better". I think we can do better. Resolved, it shall be the right of every United States citizen (in order to further guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to receive food, clothing, shelter and medical care that is adequate to meet their basic needs.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do? The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism. Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?

According to the Social Security Act, "the purpose of Social Security is to provide insured persons with payments by way of a retirement benefit, survivors benefit, sickness benefit, and to substitute for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, a system of insurance against injury or death caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment." In order to finance social security, a Social Security Fund was established, financed by contributions made by the workers and their employers. All benefits, administrative expenses, and capital expenditures are paid out from the Fund. But according to government figures, "while Social Security takes in more than it spends right now, the situation reverses when the baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) begins to retire in 2010. Unless the system is overhauled, Social Security by 2013 will be spending more than it collects in taxes and will be broke by 2032." I will be 69 years old in 2032. I will have paid a very large percentage of my income into a government plan and will have nothing to show for it. Accordingly, Social Security payroll deductions should end for anyone born in 1965 or later and be shifted to a 401(K) plan so they will reap the rewards of their investment when they retire. Those born in 1964 and before should continue some Social Security payroll deduction along with some government subsidy to cover the difference. With all this talk of tax refunds fueled by a government surplus coupled with the enormous corporate tax breaks given out by our government, I am sure we could find enough money to subsidize a transition plan to save our retirement money.

A political primary is a preliminary election in which the registered voters of a political party nominate candidates for office. The key word here is preliminary. The current system allows small states such as Iowa and New Hampshire {assisted by the media} to award front-runner status to the victorious candidate. From there the candidates travel a path determined by which states wants to "leap frog" the other by moving up their primary dates. Candidates are whisked across the country without any real ability to distinguish regional issues from national issues. Consequently, party platforms are determined by a make-it-up-as-you-go approach. If the primary process were organized on a regional basis, candidates would be able to study the regional issues, campaign to confirm those issues and then receive votes based on the solutions they propose. A regional approach would also prevent a premature selection of a front runner because success in one region certainly would not guarantee success in the next region. This would also further validate the process because each state would still have a say all the way down to the end. Finally, the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate. Accordingly, the political primaries should occur between January and June of each presidential election year. Each of the six regions would be assigned a particular month. A lottery held in June of the previous year would determine which month each region holds its primaries. An example illustrates the format: January Middle West (9): Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin February Southern (8): Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia March Atlantic (8): Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, April New England (8): Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, May Northwestern (9): Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming June Southwestern (9): Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah

Referred to as the world's oldest "profession," prostitution is defined as the act or practice of selling oneself for sexual purposes. It is also defined as an unworthy use of a talent, quality, or the like, especially for personal gain. What's interesting is that the former is illegal in all states except Nevada while the latter has been morally and culturally accepted since the beginning of time. This begs the question: is there any difference between a street walker/escort and a person who uses their physical beauty to attain a lifestyle that others labor very hard to attain? Too often in our society we see evidence of the "trophy spouse"; a reward received by those who achieve success in business or entertainment. The marriage consists of a person who sees a beautiful spouse as something to obtain and a person who deliberately shops lifestyle by any sexual means necessary. Some would argue that prostitution should be made legal so that (just as with drugs) it can be regulated by the state and become a source of revenue enhancement. Furthermore, sex between strangers would be safer since the government (as in Nevada) would require regular medical examinations to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The problem facing this country is that we haven't reconciled these two definitions thus creating the existence of a double standard. We are quick to arrest and condemn the street walker/escort but would never think to shun a sexual opportunist. In many ways, prostitution already is legal in our society. People pay to watch two people have sex with each other but yet cannot pay each other for sex. I recall two people comparing their lifestyles while waiting in line at the airport. One person told the other "the difference between you and me is that you pay for your sex with cash and I pay for it with dinners, clothing and jewelry". The problem with this country today is not that we are a nation of laws but rather a nation that continually contradicts itself when it comes to morality.

On this 50th anniversary of Playboy Magazine, perhaps a discussion of pornography is appropriate. Pornography is defined as sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Those who promote it believe they are exercising their right from the first amendment of the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The delicate question before us goes beyond the legal justification for allowing anyone to speak or write about anything they choose to. It speaks to the moral and ethical ramifications of such an enterprise. Our society today is inundated with references to sexuality in any medium we experience. The often quoted justification is that "sex sells" and therefore if marketing outlets can somehow equate a material purchase with sexual gratification, then some hidden unmet need will be satisfied. This is Freudianomics at its worst. Sex is promoted today as a means to an end and not the expression of love between consenting adults. Pornography portrays sex as some lustful hedonism with little regard for the potential outcome of such an experience. Still, millions of people purchase it for their own sexual stimulation. They believe that since those being filmed are consenting adults there is no harm to anyone. Assuming there is mutual consent among the actors, what is the difference between paying them to have sex with each other and paying a prostitute to have sex with you? Whether you favor or oppose pornography, it is this country's obsession with sex that is the root of the problem and the unfortunate consequences it produces. Until we as a nation can collectively mature out of this sexual pre-occupation we will be trapped in our own national adolescence.

"Most people who are in the prison system will get out, they will be somebody’s neighbor and they will have gained nothing from their time in prison except the knowledge that “it’s you or me” because that’s the way it is in our prisons. They have removed most of the educational programs from our prisons because the tax payers don’t want to throw away good money on worthless criminals. They have no counseling, nothing to help them change whatever it was that got them where they are in the first place. Is this what we really want?" "Misconceptions About Prison Life" By Jeanette Doil The Eighth Amendment of The Bill of Rights for the Constitution of the United States: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The very way prisons are operated today is a clear violation of this amendment. Prison life today is the complete forfeiture of freedom for a certain period of time; sometimes the remaining days of one's life. Both violent and non-violent people are mixed together in the prison population which violates the Eighth Amendment because the potentiality for violence against non-violent offenders strongly exists. Furthermore, given the present conditions, those given life sentences without the possibility of parol would be better off if given the option of execution by the method of their choosing. But what about those with the chance of eventually leaving prison and returning to society? One of the things strongly lacking in prison today is personal discipline; self imposed discipline. This is the discipline that makes you try harder and work more intensely then you ever thought you could. Sadly, prisoners lack both the incentive and ability to develop this themselves. Consequently, discipline needs to come from outside themselves. The best source of external discipline comes from United States Marine Corps boot-camp seargants. Prisoners need to be treated the same as new recruits when they step off the bus into the prison yard for the first time. It needs to be made clear that until they are released, the "system" will not allow them to continue in their present state of disorder. Once the prisoner accepts their new found source of discipline, they may "graduate" to learning a trade or completing an education. Various forms of counselling must also be provided in order to keep them focused on their path to rehabilitation. The right of the prisoners to peaceably assemble must be forfeited in order to prevent the formation of groups detrimental to the process. This would also prevent the smuggling of drugs into the prison as the corrupt corrections officer would no longer have a "market". The problem with prisons today is that they only serve to foster a continuation of the human condition that leads to incarceration. With all this discussion and funding of homeland security, it would seem logical to start with America's prisons as a means of improving the safety and security of every United States citizen.