I sometimes have difficulties with the word "united" in the name of our country. I am not just talking about our partisan difficulties in the government, but rather a deeper problem in the lack of centralization and efficiency in our government.

I'll give you a couple of examples that helped me come to this realization. The first revolves around a recent letter to the editor in The New York Times against a national ID card because it didn't make sense to him or her. The other reason comes from a police officer -- with whom I recently had an involuntary interaction -- who told me Montana is one of five renegade states, and the current lack of cohesion in our culturally diverse country. Let me explain.

My first question: What is the problem with a national ID? I would love one. Personally, I have only moved between states twice as an adult, but the inconveniences associated with it have been less than pleasant. Changing identification with an in-country move seems like a huge waste of time and resources. I understand the need to have a current address, but my state isn't so important that it requires me to have an entirely different ID. Of course, even with the national ID, I would have to pay taxes and registration fees in the state of my current address and work.

On top of that, think of the convenience. If we adopt a national ID (like the majority of our European counterparts), we might be able to move between Mexico and Canada again without a passport, which apparently are quite expensive now (yes, I know, we have a year until we need it for all travel). You also would not have to change IDs if you happen to move from say Montana to Pennsylvania. It would be far more convenient for the individual and any government authority -- such as the aforementioned police officer -- when the two interact.

I do, however, have difficulties with Big Brother watching and knowing everything about me. That is why my proposal is that the IDs should be required, yet the amount of information contained on them voluntary. Perhaps, like me, you only want the ID to work as a nationwide driver's license, or you could go for the whole she-bang and have your Social Security number, bank account numbers and your kindergarten grades in conduct (mine was unsatisfactory) on the card. That plan satisfies the need for government efficiency and the individual's own right to privacy.

I recently was caught for speeding on I-80. I am mature enough to accept responsibility for my actions, yet I didn't quite appreciate the harassment that followed. When I had a Montana driver's license, the question, "Why are you in PA?" is fine. However, treating me as hostile because I am not from the respective state is not.

Apparently, Montana is one of five states that are not in allegiance with other states over traffic violations (the officer's explanation was unclear, his feelings were not).

Because of this, he told me that problems could arise with me trying to get a Pennsylvania license. OK, but why is there such a big difference in the traffic laws in two states?

The individual is still driving a car in the same country, right? The only thing that I can imagine that should be different is the speed limit (obviously, we have to take local conditions into consideration).

Following that argument, why can't all the laws (not just traffic) be the same from state to state? The federal government already seems to bully the states around when it isn't happy (they really love to threaten to take highway money away), so why not just have all laws be the same so as to avoid confusion? It might just take away a little of the bureaucracy of our interacting local, state and federal governments, which could save us taxpayers money and time. If you are looking for a current example, look to the issue concerning legalization of medicinal marijuana in individual states, while the federal government prohibits it.

Now, what do all these little differences between states mean?

For some, it is the identity of the culture of the particular state. I like that, but I think during the past 200 years, maybe the states' collectively different ideologies have shifted so much that we lack a national character anymore.

Yes, our country was founded on the debate between federalism and anti-federalism (the dichotomy of power between nation and state), yet we are stable enough now that we should have no fear of disintegrating as a country. In current times, maybe the fear of turning into an absolute monarchy would scare us a bit. And, maybe this column shows the huge slippage of my knowledge of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

But perhaps all of these minute cultural differences have been become political over time.

And now, those political undertones of our differences have bred stagnation among groups and resentment for the other. What, in the beginning, was insignificantly innocent has turned us into a country separated by non-issues.

It allows the politicians to point out these tiny differences and set an Us versus Them dichotomy for elections -- where ideological differences rather than the state of the nation is more highly valued. My question: Is the issue of gay marriage or abortion more important than Iraq or the future of our nation?

I'm just saying that if we want to feel like a patriotic whole and fix things from the inside, perhaps it is time we made it U.S. versus them rather than red versus blue.