Are you informed enough to vote? Take the quiz at DontVote.org.
I got the following:
"You scored 328 out of 350 possible points, or 93.71%"
A
You should definitely vote.
Are You Informed Enough To Vote?
This has to be a joke right? Unfortunately ... they really did this.
When I first saw this I couldn't believe it!!!! Are they serious?? Is there anyone so devoid of intellect that this billboard would actually change their vote??
Now add to the equation that the billboard was strategically placed among a geriatric population that is known more for a slow, sheltered lifestyle than intellectual prowess ... you guessed it - America's Rest Home - Florida.
Universal Healthcare (not Socialized Medicine)
Healthcare is a fundamental human right that must be provided if our American guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is to have any meaning.
Health care and health insurance costs have risen MANY times faster than the rate of inflation. More than 50 million Americans either do not have health insurance or have policies that fail to adequately cover them or their families. Moreover, our current private system incentivizes the denial of care in favor of reducing costs. In my opinion its a travesty that America, the most dominant nation on the face of the planet, has a healthcare system that lags far behind that of every other large developed nation in terms of both quality and efficiency.
Healthcare is a fundamental human right that must be provided if our American guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is to have any meaning.
To be clear, I want to point out that there is a vast difference between Single-Payer Universal Health Care (which I advocate) and socialized medicine (which I am firmly against). Please help me combat our right wing friends who are trying to "scare" people into believing they are the same.
Single-Payer Universal Health Care is nothing more than private, for profit healthcare businesses, just like we have now, providing services to everyone who is an American citizen and being guaranteed payment for such services from tax revenues collected each year. People will still choose their own doctors and health care will be managed and coordinated solely by doctors and patients (which is actually better than we have now). This is nothing more than a giant group insurance pool where risk and costs are spread among our entire population, services are paid for out of tax revenues, and exceptions to coverage and denials of benefits will become a barbaric thing of the past. Socialized medicine on the other hand is a fundamentally different system wherein the government owns the means of providing services both in terms of facilities and employees and controls and coordinates treatment.
Free Trade / Offshoring
I am not an advocate of Laissez Faire capitalism; neither am I a proponent of free trade. I believe government intervention in the marketplace is necessary to protect our jobs and people especially since our markets are increasingly global.
American jobs and pay have allowed us to enjoy a much higher standard of living than most of the rest of the world for a long time. If we open our product markets to unfettered global competition, companies will be forced to cut labor costs severely. This will continue to happen until our product prices and thus pay rates reach an equilibrium in the new global market. Company profits will definitely go up and owners will make out. But because "trickle down" is nothing more than a pretext for justifying (selling) this to the masses the result will be irreversible lowering of the standard of living for the working classes (until it also reaches a global equilibrium) and the gap between the rich and the rest will substantially widen.
Offshoring produces the same result. If we allow our companies to shop for labor in the global market and move operations offshore to capitalize on lower pay rates we will see a drastic reduction in the standard of living the of middle and lower classes (the working classes). The standard of living of the upper class (those that own the companies) will rise however as profits go up. Republicans / conservatives will claim that if profits go up, then its good for the economy, the working classes and everyone. They justify this with the farce that the wealth will trickle down to the lower and middle classes (i.e., in terms of more jobs). Even if we assume they don't offshore those jobs (which is a complete stretch), the "competitive" rates of pay that are now offered will be lower and lower. Result: just as I said above - irreversible lowering of the standard of living for the working classes. Another negative side effect is that in addition to the lower pay rates, American employees will be subjected to progressively worse working conditions for blue collar workers and ever deteriorating corporate cultures for low and mid-range white collar workers. We're already seeing this at my company.
Now that more people are beginning to understand this, how will the Republicans / conservatives try to repackage it in order to deceive the working class into unwittingly voting against their interest again? Mitt Romney's advice is that the lower and middle classes should buy up as much stock as they can while prices are low. This is the golden secret. WTF!?!
Unfortunately, when the Republicans wrap this BS in patriotism and nationalistic pride there are lots of people who buy in. Add to this a few sound bytes from some conservative charlatan talking about his faith in God while standing in front of the Ronald Reagan diary and half the working class can be persuaded to vote completely against their interest. They'll even try to convince others that the Republican agenda is actually God's agenda and everyone else is bereft of morals. It's really scary to me how this fascism can be so overt but go unrecognized by the masses.
Iraq
Bring the troops home immediately.
Regarding Iraq (and even Afghanistan), I originally believed that if we were going to do this thing, it should be with such devastating, broadly applied force that there would be no reason to send ground troops in anywhere except to pick up the pieces. After this, the question of a continuing problem in this region would be moot. Since we opted instead to pursue this in an inefficient, half-assed fashion, and continue to do so, I advocate the immediate withdrawal of our troops. Now for those of you who are ready to hit me with the "lets see how you feel after we're attacked again" rebuttal, here's my response: Reread sentence one again. That would be the position I would advocate. In the meantime, I don't plan to live in fear.
For a long time now, we've been spending $50 Billion per month that would have been much better spent right here in the USA - on our infrastructure, our homeland security, our healthcare, our education system, etc. Once our troops are home, the $50 Billion per month "savings" will go a long ways; nevertheless, I still am a firm advocate of extracting, dollar for dollar, out of oil or otherwise, the amount of money that we've pumped into that middle-eastern pit since this war began. But for this lame war we've waged, our economy would not be in the shambles we currently find it - our dollar would be worth much more and inflation would be markedly less. Why have we done this? Because of a flawed assumption that if we bring capitalism and a democratic form of government to these poor, disadvantaged Muslims our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" ideals will provide them with newfound hope for their futures causing them to accept Jesus, abandon their terrorist agendas, and start pursuing capitalistic profits like good God fearing Americans. This is yet another example of how little the Bush administration and the pious religious right understand about middle eastern culture.
Let's assume for a moment, hypothetically, that Bush and his Missionaries of Democracy succeed beyond their wildest dreams - we now have a stable westernized Iraq with a democratic government, suburban shopping malls and a WalMart on every corner. Would that mean that there would no longer be terrorists planning to attack us? Would anyone even claim there would be less terrorists as a result? Seriously? If you say yes to either of these, let me know; I want to add you to my list of evils. :) (Hmmmm ... A Wal-Mart on every corner would be a special brand of hell that I'm not sure I would inflict on anyone - that might even create more terrorists and worsen our security.)
Economy / Taxation / Spending / Budget
Capitalism, left to its own, leaves a lot of people behind.
While working toward my undergrad degree in finance, I took a lot of courses in economic theory. During this time in school, I bought into the all the "Laissez Faire" / "Invisible Hand" / "Pure Capitalism" arguments aimed at curbing government intervention in the economy. As theories go these were very neat and tidy - that was their appeal. In the nearly 18 years since however, real life has taught me that in practice, capitalism, left to its own, leaves a lot of people behind. Consequently, I believe a balanced approach mitigating the harsh effects of free markets with regard to the lower socioeconomic classes through balanced government intervention is the best and most compassionate policy. The alternative is nothing more than giving the lower classes the "invisible bird". -|--
Regarding taxation, I am very much a "fair tax" (national sales tax) advocate. I strongly advocate abolishing the IRS and taxing "use" / "consumption" as opposed to income. I do believe, however, that items deemed "necessities" must be exempted from this method of taxation. A key benefit of this approach is that it provides an incentive toward savings as opposed to spending.
Regarding spending and the budget (and the corollary issue regarding the size of government), I believe that government has gotten too large (both federally and at the state level). I believe we could cut the size by approximately 20% just by eliminating wasteful, bureaucratic practices and programs. Finally, I believe in having legislative mandates for a balanced budget, but not a constitutional amendment.
Energy Policy
Nuclear energy is the key to our future. Period.
This is an issue where I part company with a number of Democrats. The solution is very simple though. Nuclear energy is clean, it's environmentally friendly, and it's cheap. It's also a proven technology and it's safe. This is especially true for Generation IV technologies such as Liquid Fluoride (Molten Salt) Reactors. We need to invest heavily in nuclear power capacity and infrastructure right now. Currently the US generates only 19% of its electricity from nuclear plants (as compared to 80% in France). This needs to double over the next 5 years and double again within 8. The government needs to intervene in any way necessary to insure this happens and make it the primary goal of our national energy policy.
Meanwhile, we must continue continue to also ramp up our efforts and research into alternatives such as cellulose derived ethanol, solar power, and wind power. Lets require that by 2011 every new vehicle sold in the US be flex-fuel capable and / or electric. Lets also heavily incentivize the installation of residential wind generators and solar panel units.
Stem Cell Research
Full federal funding of all stem cell research (adult or embryonic) needs to occur immediately!
Type rest of the post here
This is a very important issue and we've wasted lots of time and opportunity. Government should not be in the business of inhibiting and repressing scientific research that can improve or even save the lives of millions. History will not be kind to Bush or cronies, but this issue will stand out among many of his blunders, as one of the most backwards and regressive decisions ever made by a sitting U.S. President.
Social Security
I support partial privatization.
Partial privatization would allow a portion (e.g., 50%) of an individual's social security contributions to be invested in managed funds. The other 50% could continue to be handled as it is currently. This strikes a balance between the overriding policy objective of providing a baseline level of social insurance for retirement while still allowing a portion of the fund to potentially earn higher revenues. Moreover, with implementation of a Fair Tax system we would receive the additional benefit of an incentive toward savings which further reduces the social insurance risk associated with privatization. My position (50% partial privatization) would cut the short term privatization cost to the government in half while securing the solvency of our social security trust fund for many decades to come.
Environmental Policy / Kyoto / ANWR Drilling / Off Coast Drilling
Ratify Kyoto immediately. ANWR / Off Coast drilling provide neither a short or long term solution to our current energy crisis; they simply prolong reliance on a resource that is not sustainable. We absolutely must shift our focus away from oil to other renewable alternatives.
I support ratifying the Kyoto treaty immediately and implementing the carbon cap and trade system wherein buyers pay a charge for polluting, while sellers are rewarded for reducing emissions by more than was needed. The theory is that those who can most easily reduce their emissions cheaply will do so, thereby achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.
Regarding ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and Off Coast drilling I am absolutely against it - but not for the reason most liberals are against it. I'm a pragmatist so if this provided a solution I'd be taking a hard look at it. It doesn't though. We absolutely must shift our focus away from oil to other alternatives; ANWR / Off Coast drilling simply prolongs reliance on a resource that is not sustainable.
The right wing is spinning ANWR / Off Coast drilling as short term solutions for high gas prices. The most conservative estimates however indicate that it will be at least 5 years and more likely as much as 10 years before any gains from these drilling operations could begin to offset prices at the pump. It is a rock solid fact that neither ANWR nor Off Coast drilling can provide a short term solution for high oil and gas prices. Moreover, because oil is not a sustainable resource, they don't provide a long term solution either. We need to begin immediately to focus all of our efforts and research toward sustainable technologies such as nuclear, cellulose derived ethanol, solar, wind, and hydrogen fuel cells. This will ensure that we develop a long term solution that eliminates our dependence on oil.
The current hype with ANWR and Off Coast drilling is nothing more than an attempt by Big Oil (oil companies, oil lobby, and the current White House administration) to distract from the real issue and obtain additional drilling rights now while Bush is still in the White House under the pretext of it being a solution to our current energy crisis. At the very least, Bush and Cheney should both be indicted criminally under the RICO statute for their collusion with Big Oil in perpetrating this crime against the American people. Even better - lets try them as traitors and hang them.
Illegal Immigration
Lock down our southern borders by any means necessary. Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two completely different topics.
My position on this topic is three fold:
1) Abolish birthright citizenship immediately;
2) Set a date and close our southern borders down - if that requires a solid physical fence, so be it;
3) For illegal immigrants who are already here however, especially those with children who were born here, we have to take a compassionate position and allow a path to citizenship.
Just in case someone is tempted to send hate mail invoking the "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" quote and trying to confuse / complicate this issue by arguing that this country was founded by immigrants, let me remind you that we're talking about two completely different topics. No one is suggesting that we close our borders to legal immigration.
Abortion
Since studying the case in law school, I have been a firm supporter of the Supreme Court's holding in Roe v. Wade.
I agree with the trimester analysis as well as the "viability" distinction which they drew. I feel very strongly that within the framework set forth in Roe, the government has no right to interfere with a woman's decisions regarding her body and any such interference is a violation of the right to privacy that is protected under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
This has been made into a moral issue, but it is not. This is squarely about who has the power to decide - the government or the individual. I will go with the individual every time.
Censorship / Free Speech
The freedom of speech and a free independent press are the best tools we have for protecting our liberties and holding government accountable.
Currently the FCC has the power to grant or withhold broadcast licenses based on content. This constitutes censorship and is an arbitrary and capricious exercise of administrative power amounting to an abridgement of the right of free speech. Broadcasters should have the same rights accorded to publishers of books and magazines.
Gun Control
The 2nd Amendment prohibits any infringement on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I don't find anything ambiguous about this nor do I see how it can be susceptible to any other interpretation.
When studying this issue in law school, I tried to approach it with a completely open mind. I've never really been a "hunter / sportsman", so my only bias was probably that of my generally left political slant. Suffice it to say, after extensive study, I've been fully convinced that the Constitution conferred an individual right to the people to own guns. All the counter "militia" based arguments, in my opinion, were nothing more than legal rhetoric and obfuscation drummed up to support a predetermined result. About two weeks after I wrote this post, the Supreme Court gave their opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008). Needless to say, I believe they got this one right.
I'm hopeful that Heller will be a step toward getting the Brady Act repealed as I believe it is also unconstitutional. Similarly, any other restrictions imposed by other federal legislation or by the states are, in my opinion, unconstitutional based on the clear language of the Amendment.
Education - Vouchers / NCLB / Creationism / Intelligent Design
No Child Left Behind Act ... teach to the test ... Repeal It ASAP.
Vouchers - Just say no.
Evolution / Creation / Intelligent Design ... Here's an idea: At least in public schools lets teach hard science facts and leave the theories of supernatural intervention for Sunday School.
With regard to creationism and intelligent design, they are "not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own." (Nat'l Academy of Sciences)
This does not mean that Intelligent Design and Creationism do not have their place, I think they do, but this should be left to individual families and their churches.
Don't like my opinion? Fine. Let's talk about an objective concept such as "separation of church and state". Public schools are paid for and administered with public tax dollars. To acknowledge the existence of alternative explanations for the origin of life is one thing, but to legally require the teaching of religious theories in a public school is completely improper and in my opinion, fascist.
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is no longer about non-discrimination. It is overt racial preferencing that amounts to nothing more than government sanctioned reverse discrimination.
This not only discriminates against the majority but also has a negative impact on the minorities its supposed help because their acceptance (be it for college admissions or even a job)now carries with it the stigma that it was achieved by a preference. Affirmative action is an idea whose time has come and went. It is completely unneccessary today and for proof of this, just wait and see who is inaugurated as the next President of the United States. And yes, I'm voting for him because he's earned it.
Victimless Crimes / Marijuana / Drug Policy
This entire category of crimes should be thrown out.
We're wasting way too much money policing, prosecuting and incarcerating people for crimes that hurt no one but themselves. In many cases, the laws themselves are creating a vicious cycle from which there's no escape. This is yet another example of the precept that you cannot legislate morality. We should tax these activities heavily in order to provide a disincentive, but they should be legalized and the tax revenue used for worthwhile causes and pursuits.
Death Penalty / Capital Punishment
If we're going to continue to have capital punishment as an option in certain cases, then I completely disagree with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana (June 25, 2008).
In the recent case, when determining what punishment the Eighth Amendment proscribes as cruel and unusual, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" must be taken into account.
This brings to mind the oft quoted passage from Dostoevsky that the degree of civilization in a society can best be judged by how they treat their prisoners. If the Court planned to use this case as an opportunity to take the enlightened approach, they should have employed it to its full extension - banning capital punishment entirely. With this rationale, I could have agreed.
Instead however, the Court used a flimsy "non-homicide" distinction, to try and justify their holding. Do they seriously think that the collective opinion of America will be persuaded by the notion that child rapists are somewhat less culpable than a person who commits intentional murder?
I believe that if we're going to persist in allowing capital punishment as an option at all, we should do so not under the delusion that it operates as a deterrent, but rather with pure acknowledgement of it as retribution for the most egregious crimes. Let's at least call it what it is - unadulterated, visceral lex talionis. In this vein, I can't think of a more fitting application of this principle than to the crime at bar.
This Court had two ways to get this right but in my opinion got it doubly wrong. They should have either banned capital punishment entirely under the 8th Amendment paying homage to the "evolving standards of decency ... of a maturing society"; or they should have executed this defendant on the grounds that child rape is every bit as egregious and deserving of the ultimate retribution as intentional pre-meditated murder.
If our society truly is maturing and our standards of decency are truly evolving, I believe we must end capital punishment. If for no other reason than the number of people that our flawed system convicts only to find out later they were actually innocent.
Gay Marriage
Given what I said above, that the order in which I've arranged these posts is reflective of my level of concern with a particular issue, further explanation is probably unnecessary. I do find it cathartic though, so below are a couple quick points.
First, I want to state that even though I've listed this issue at the bottom of the page, it's still not far enough down in my opinion. This issue is on a completely different playing field from the issues above. Although I just can't make myself care much about it, curiously, every time I see (or hear) Rosie O'Donnel on TV, I find myself becoming more and more against it.
Personal biases notwithstanding though, I firmly believe that the government has no business regulating the activities of consenting adults. It's rudimentary that morality cannot be legislatively enacted, or executively proclaimed.
Its also legal precedent in this country that marriage is a fundamental right that is protected under the 14th Amendment. Given this, I don't see how we can treat two similarly situated groups of people differently based on their sexual preference without violating the equal protection clause.
The bottom line though for me is that there are far too many "big" issues right now to worry about this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)