Re: What I Would Do
- From: Dana Carpender <dcarpend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 05:10:45 GMT
Nick Cassaro wrote:
Dana, this is a magnum opus, but of *course* I disagree on a few points.
Sam demanded to know what I thought should be done, what I thought the Democrats should do. Sadly, I have only very, very modest influence in the party (in other words, I can send money, write letters, and make phone calls, like anyone else.) So my ideas aren't necessarily those of the party. But if it were up to me, the agenda would include:
* Working to pass a bill eliminating the legal fiction that a corporation is a political "person" with 1st amendment rights, and therefore eliminating *all* corporate contributions to candidates. You don't vote, you don't contribute.
* Repealing the Bush tax cuts, and putting all of that money to eliminating this god-awful debt. I'd like to point out that this would personally hurt me, since I'm in the bracket that actually got a break, but that's okay by me.
I can't agree, as the government notoriously misspends money. I know a year ago they were talking about trying to get NASA to go back to the moon. Honestly, it's expensive and nobody cares. The money is better off in my pocket.
Just because one program is a mistake doesn't make all of them a mistake, but the big point here is that we are deeply and dangerously in debt right now. It was insane to cut taxes and start a war at the same time.
I think the FCC needs fewer, and not more, regulations. I remember the controversy last year over Nicollette Sheridan on Monday Night Football, but I didn't see the controversial segment until months later. When I did, I couldn't see what was objectionable about it. A little dumb, but pretty tame.
Did I say a word about regulating content? I'm concerned about the concentration of the media in a very few hands. Breaking up media monopolies is what I'm after, not regulating dirty words or "costume malfunctions."
I cannot agree, as there is no way to draw an objective line. Peanut butter has hydrogenated oil, and it's a staple for kids. Mothers who have to resort to chocolate milk to get their kids to consume it would most likely also pay the price. In addition, this is supposed to be a free country. I belong to myself and you to yourself. If Big Brother starts making us pay for each other's doctor's bills, are we truly free?
We all *do* pay for each other's doctor bills -- do you really think the price of health insurance isn't built into the price of everything you buy? I'm suggesting that we relate it *directly* to people consuming the two most destructive food additives. That's making them pay for their *own* health insurance.
And there's natural peanut butter in the world, you know. I haven't bought anything but for a good 20 years. I'm tired of the whole "Of course we have to feed our kids junks, it's all they like!" pandering. For the vast majority of human history, kids ate what was put in front of them, or they went hungry, not because mom and dad were control freaks, but because that was what there was. If parents don't want to be parents and draw lines, that's fine, but I see no reason why they shouldn't pay directly for that.
* Reinstituting the draft, in the form of mandatory national service. Everyone, male and female, able-bodied or otherwise (exceptions made for those so mentally ill as to be institutionalized, and the severely mentally retarded) enters the service at age 18 or on graduation from high school. If you can document a long-time moral objection to violence, you won't be required to serve in the military, but you will still serve. Everyone goes through boot camp. After that, you serve in the military if we need military, and if there's no war on, you serve rebuilding NO and other disaster areas, maintaining national parks, rebuilding infrastructure, doing whatever needs to be done. You make minimum wage to start with, you live in a barracks, you get food and medical care, you're required to keep in shape.
It's a democracy, though. You cannot force everyone else into military service just because you think it's a good idea.
Clearly you're younger than I. I can remember when we did exactly that. We hated it at the time, but it was better than the system we have now.
That's why laws like
prohibition didn't work out, because the majority was being forced into something that a constitution-violating minority thought was a good idea.
I see no comparison.
It would also boost Canada's immigration.
Perhaps. But if every 18 year old were required to serve in some capacity, do you really think Canada would let them all in?
While we're playing, my improvements to the country would be the legalization of all narcotics (it would truly free up our prisons and thus save all Americans money, not to mention lifting the "taboo" and allure of drugs) and of course of gay marriage nationwide (because it's 2005 and it's way past time.)
I have no problem with either of those things.
- Re: What I Would Do
- From: Nick Cassaro
- Re: What I Would Do
- Prev by Date: Re: ATWT/ Lucinda
- Next by Date: Re: OT: DOOL (was Re: ALL/ Ratings for the week August 22-26, 2005 (Spoiler...for those who don't want to know)
- Previous by thread: Re: What I Would Do
- Next by thread: Re: What I Would Do