It has to be the economy - which ties into Iraq. However, realistically we won't leave Iraq for at least another five years. But we can make moves to cut back our presence in Iraq. Complete withdrawal is out of the question for many reasons. As a superpower, we're not going to give up a military presence in such a volatile area.
Patchwork Nation Forum » Campaign 2008: Patchwork Nation: Forum
What do you think is or should be the dominant issue of the 2008 campaign?
(34 posts)-
RidingtheFence
Member
-
Searcher
Member
I would have to agree. The war in Iraq touches many lives, but the economy touches all. Specifically, how can we maintain the free enterprise engine that has sustained this country for so long, yet protect the consumer from the volatility that has plaqued us for the past few years? How can more people reap the rewards of our economy without having to be subjected to devastating downsides?
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate
-1 -
pogo
MemberThe economy is important, but I think it is more important to establish a fair playing field for that.
We need to establish the US aa a fair and honest dealer on the international scene by holding to the treaties we have signed on to, including the Geneva convention. We need to make some comitments to others rather than doing only what benefits our companies. We need to take the high road on torture. We need to folow our own constitution and respect the rights of other countries. We need to respect and treat our military with honor and not use them as the first line of bullying the ret of the world. In this way we can help the spread of democracy, wealth, and peace.
to quote someone famous, "We have met the enemy and we are they."Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate -2 -
Line
MemberPogo, I agree. I would have to sum up the one single issue that I'll be looking at in the upcoming election as honesty. I'm looking for a candidate who will be willing to confront the hard truths of the world and be honest with the voters about the true costs of living in our society. The costs could be economic, social, diplomatic or martial but they are very real. What will it realistically cost to have a functioning health care system? To protect our security interests at home and abroad? To educate our children?
Politicians have been too eager to tell us what we're entitled to, instead of what our responsibilities are. We've been living on credit for too long now. The bill is coming due.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate -2 -
Spides
Member
The movement in this forum, with just five posts, is from specific issues like the economy and the war in Iraq towards broader ideas such as fairness and honesty--and I think that those are really the important qualities in an election such as this. We all know what we want our country to be in a general sense, so what leaders can take us there? Often we hear and read that candidates avoid specifics about their positions on issues, or that various news media don't probe and ask the right questions about specifics. But what alternative have candidates when taking a position may easily turn away many one issue voters who would probably agree with the candidate's broader positions? I guess I think the most important issue, then, is which candidate can we believe? Who seems most likely to stick with his or her broad principles, and who seems less likely to say whatever he or she thinks various voting blocks want to hear. I don't think it's impossible for candidates to have changes of heart from past positions that are sincere, but I think it's still instructional for voters to know the history of candidates' past positions to compare with what they say now.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate -3 -
shadowsprite
MemberI agree that it helps to look at a candidate's past positions. Seeing what their track record is in the implementation of those positions is extremely important to me. There is a great deal to be said in follow-through. The famous phrase "read my lips" comes to mind when I think of how many politicians promise way more than they can actually bring to fruition.
My view of what desperately needs improving in this country is never considered a dominant issue in any campaign. I feel that there will always be war in the world and the economy will forever go up and down benefiting some and hurting others. It is the future of the children in this country that I would like to see as a dominant issue. We should be concerned about what happens to a baby in the womb. How we care for pregnant mothers in this society and what we do (or don't do) to improve the lives of small children will make all the difference 20 years from now. Our future policy makers need all the nurturing care, love, and education that we can provide. In this great nation approximately 30% of households with children under 18 headed by a woman live in poverty. Those mothers aren't always getting the prenatal care and nutrition that is essential for a baby's healthy development and their children aren't getting the food, shelter, health care and education needed to become the productive members of this society that we hope for. This isn’t just a ‘women’s issue’. If children’s brains and bodies and spirit are damaged through our collective neglect it will affect our nation as a whole---each and every one of us.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate -1 -
I'd have to say the economy exactly because it covers most of the other issues that people have mentioned. When you see the economy disintegrating around us the way it is right now you can't get any better of a view of how national policy impacts every aspect of American people's lives.
When we allowed our government (primarily under Reagan but continuing under both Bush's and to a lesser degree Clinton) to finance the positioning of the USA as world power by building up massive debt that our children will have to pay, we signed over the future of the US to outside forces.
Shadowspite says "It is the future of the children in this country that I would like to see as a dominant issue. We should be concerned about what happens to a baby in the womb. How we care for pregnant mothers in this society and what we do (or don't do) to improve the lives of small children will make all the difference 20 years from now."
These issues are at their core, economic issues. When people are not under the ax they can afford to pay more attention to the issues that we all care about.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate -1 -
Searcher
MemberIt's an interesting point about honesty in a candidate. Not just honesty about their actions in the past, but frankness about what this nation needs.
I was raised with the understanding that my rights carried with them a burden of responsibility. We can complain about access to health care, the mortgage crisis, the war in Iraq and the Bill of Rights--these are all hot topics in this election. But there is so much self-imposed angst in this country that what we really need right now is someone to stand up and say, "Follow me. This isn't going to be easy. We're all responsible for this mess. Let's clean it up together."
Most of our problems weren't caused by natural disasters or foreign influences. The U.S. Government isn't the only runaway spender. The financial crisis is greed-based--banks who had no business giving loans to people who had no business taking them out. Iraq is a war most Americans agreed was to be fought, now most agree it should never have been fought. Our Congressmen aren't the only ones who changed their minds. The President wants to give most Americans a tax rebate. Any instructions with that? No? Well, hello big screen and down payment on a car I can't afford!
Kennedy and Reagan told us we had responsibilities. They were the exceptions. There are no Clif Notes to being a good citizen. I want to hear from those who would inspire us to assume the mantle of a contributing member of society, not what we deserve, but what we need to do. We run the country, the President runs the government. Country broken? We fix it. Government broken? President fixes it.
How about a little less "Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!" and a little more "This is going to hurt a bit"? The latter is more honest that the former.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate -1 -
Searcher: I agree. So much of what I am reading and seeing is along the lines of "Everything is gonna be alright" and that is not a viable response to the problems we currently face. As of last Friday the US economy is no longer the largest in the world. (http://blog.techfun.org/second-place-economy) This hasn't made the kinds of headlines it would have if the situation were reversed I am sure.
People are not being asked to make the sacrifices needed to address these issues. We were not asked to make normal wartime sacrifices five years ago, and we won't be asked to make sacrifices before November 2008.
We are in for a world of pain, economically, militarily, and socially before the situation improves in the US. One of my biggest fears in this election is the way people seem to be pinning impossible hopes on the candidates. As a Democrat I am especially worried because I don't think the Republican party, at the national level, wants to win this election. For them, a Democratic party winner in 2008 is a win-win situation. Whoever takes office is going to inherit a lot of problems and if they fail to address them well that party's social credit will drop, and if they do a good job, people will have forgotten the current problems by 2012 or 2016.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
shadowsprite
MemberTechfun and Searcher indicate that we,as a nation, are going to have to make sacrifices. Suffering will be an inevidable part of that sacrifice. They may be right. Things don't appear to be going up hill from my perspective either.
Not too long ago we had a balanced budget. What happened to that? Both the government and individuals are making choices without looking at the price tag. They have no idea of where the money is going to come from. What do you think would happen if Americans ripped up their credit cards and started paying for only what they could afford using cash?
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Well, the first thing that would happen is the current proto-recession would deepen. Our economy is built on debt and the servicing of that debt and then the servicing of the debt created by servicing THAT debt. This is an unsustainable cycle that we've been in for decades.
Not talking about anyone here, but it astounds me sometimes how little most people really understand or care about the economy or the ramifications of tax and spending policies. I'm not taking dry esoteric economic policy, I mean really basic stuff like how Social Security works or the basic mechanics of how central banks in Asia and the middle east are financing our deficit spending.
As long as people are willing to ignore issues they consider "complicated" we are in trouble. I hope our next president has the ability to explain issues to large numbers of people in a way that makes those people willing to think about serious issues and discuss solutions.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberActually, you are all about right. Except about the economy. To a large degree, our present fix was created by the media. Economics is all about psychology, and with the media going ape to drum up stories, they caused folks to panic. Panic is never good. And, absolutely, there should have been better bank oversight. Isn't that something Congress deals with? Same goes for the media. The SEC and the FCC need to be resuscitated. With regard to the FCC, I'm talking about the consolidation of media ownership. Not good.
But everywhere you look, overconsumption is glorified. Lots of folks who are now losing their houses had to realize that they were buying more than they could afford. But houses have become status symbols, like sneakers. Lack of status symbols is seen as a serious problem. People brag about their shopping excesses. And, simultaneously, we are told we don't save enough and we don't spend enough.
True, there is no Cliff's Notes for citizenship, but there used to be required classes in it in high school. Of course, it was a senior-level course, and too many of us don't bother with the last few years of school.
As a collective, I guess we are adolescent.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberSo, actually, what we've said here is that the president we need is the president that can't be elected. The guy who says, "This is going to hurt a bit," has no chance. And really, I don't even know which of the three that would be.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
ralphbart
MemberWhy is it always about money?? Sure - the economy needs attention, but meanwhile, thousands of people are dying in Iraq. The money being thrown down a hole there would go a long way toward helping us here at home. Until this war is ended and our priorities as a country are shifted from empire building and domination, I don't see much hope for improvement in our economy, our social issues, or our place in the global community. Also,it seems to me that any solutions of economic issues need to be grounded in the reality of dealing with the thing that is threatening the entire world - global warming.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Ralphbart: I wish I could agree with you about money and the economy not being critical but I can't. The money being spent in Iraq is money borrowed for that purpose. Thats why its all being funded via emergency appropriation bills (5 years into the "emergency") since the president and congress have not been able to make it part of the budgetary process where the spending would have to be offset by higher taxes or reduced spending elsewhere.
Economics also plays a big role in WHICH Americans are dying in Iraq and which Americans feel enlisting is their only chance at job training or higher education. Getting Iraq's economy back on track and reducing unemployment there will be a key part of any eventual solution that reduces violence.
As far as Global Warming, in the US it will only be addressed when the economics make sense for businesses. This voluntary regulation crap just won't work. If we make businesses that contribute to the problems pay a higher share of their income in taxes to fund solutions then you will see companies doing what they can to reduce their pollution and carbon footprints.
As sad as it may seem, economics and economic incentives drive vast majority of issues and policies in the United States today. I can wish it was otherwise, but until that happens, economic policy can be a tool for good.
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
shadowsprite
MemberDoes anyone have an idea how much has been spent so far by all the candidates in this race as well as the cost to states of running elections?
I'm sure 'we' could have spent that money in a way that would have eased some problem in the US.
What I hate to see in addition to the campaign expenses getting out of control is the hoopla after the election--the parade etc. Wouldn't it be something if the candidate who wins decides to skip all that? The first "budget cut".
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberThe candidates spend all they've got as I don't think there is any incentive for them to spend less. And, you know, money is circular. The money the candidates spend goes to businesses such as TV stations, print shops, etc. Also, there is money to hotels and eateries. All those companies then use their extra income to pay overtime or to hire extra workers. The workers then have more money for their families. The money is not burned.
The campaign is like football (almost, sigh, exactly like football) or other big sporting event. Sure, it dirties up the streets, but it also lines a lot of pockets. Don't despair about the money for the campaigns. Despair because they are so boring and take soooo loooong.Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Dchinni
MemberSturdybox makes a good point about the money being spent. The ad coffers of the local TV stations often overflow during election time, especially in competitive states. And since the primary season is going on so long one could argue that local TV is the big winner in 2008. Think about the money stations in Pennsylvania are seeing during this election cycle they normally wouldn't see (usually the state's primary comes so late there are not many ads).
The down side for a lot of viewers is watching political ads ad nauseum.
But the whole thing raises this question: can we campaign ourselves out of a recession?
Posted 5 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberFor me, national security is the main topic. Economies cycle. That's what they do. National security, defense, does not have a natural cycle. We have to have the will to take care of ourselves in this way.
And it's hard for several reasons.
First is the fact that many, if not most, Americans have been taught to hate and have disdain for anything remotely "military." So, we'd rather fund anything and everything (even things that have proven to be useless or even counterproductive) than security.
Many, if not most, of us would rather have fun and make money than serve our country--indeed, many don't even think of this as their country.
And, we're not training ourselves to defend ourselves.Right now, China owns us and can shut us down whenever it pleases. That's a radical statement, I know. But consider our trade balances, our indebtedness, and the fact that the Chinese can and have hacked into our most important and seemingly most secure computer systems. We've also got quite a few Chinese-born scientists and engineers placed into our most sensitive industries, and we're finding out the hard way how dangerous that can be. And, they shoot down working satellites, don't forget. All they have to do is shut down our electric grid, which is a computer hack, and suddenly we are without light, heat, refrigeration, transportation, sanitation, ESPN, the whole works. So, I'm not so worried about the economy. That will work itself out. National Security is something we have to put our minds and our backs into. We need to toughen up.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox, where are you from, if you don't mind me asking.
I've heard that sentiment: "First is the fact that many, if not most, Americans have been taught to hate and have disdain for anything remotely "military." So, we'd rather fund anything and everything (even things that have proven to be useless or even counterproductive) than security." From talk radio hosts and from news pundits but I have yet to meet a single American who feels that way. I live in a liberal east coast city that is full of people who support the military and national defense in any way they can.
I personally am very liberal politically and I am amazed how often people assume that makes me anti-military and anti-national security. Those are two dimensional stereotypes that the news media and opinion "journalists" have propped up but they don't seem to have any basis in reality among the liberal Democrats I associate with on a daily basis.
If you know people like that yourself, PLEASE encourage them to come on here because it would be interesting seeing that view since it doesn't show its head here in Democratic party controlled Philadelphia.
Now, as far as National Security, one can radically disagree with whats been done since 9/11 in the name of national security without being opposed to a strong USA. Being opposed to the massive military endeavors initiated in the name of security without wanting to ignore the problem. We are not the first country to be attacked by terrorists and other countries with far more experience in the matter warned us about invading Iraq. The current administration was given a free pass to try what he wanted for the last 6 years. Since it is not working, we need to explore other options that have shown success for Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UK, and South Korea.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberHello, techfun. I'm here in north Texas, after living 18 years in Los Angeles. I don't listen to talk radio or watch television. At all. My statement is based on the people I know, admittedly mostly artists of various sorts. They're people I like but with whom I strongly disagree, though I dare not say it to them for fear of losing my business and social circles. LOL, as they say. The ones my age say they can't think of military without thinking of Kent State, and they figure that all Vietnam vets came home and murdered people. They can't imagine why anyone would volunteer to serve, picture soldiers as bloodthirsty imbeciles, etc, etc, etc. The younger ones are even worse. They seem to get all their ideas from movies.
Iraq. It's not what I would have done, going in there, but I did not have the same info that Bush did, so I can't be as judgmental as most are. I think our real problem at that time was the UN, which is worse than useless as far as I can tell. It said to Iraq: no WMD for you, wink, wink, nod, nod, leave the money with my assistant. So, in we went. Oh, and Saddam never tried to murder my father, so my attitude might not have come up to invasion level angst. Now they say there are no WMD, but I'm not convinced. How do you search all that sand? How can you ever be sure? Saddam sure as heck gave the impression he had WMD, and even the latest news on that front is that he had the will to use WMD.
Security for me has more to do with the borders, the ports, the goods we import (lead-laced toys and killer pet food) our banking & industry (jobs, the ability to feed & supply ourselves), and protecting our computer networks. I absolutely do not favor putting cameras everywhere as they do in England. That's just creepy.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberAnd techfun, it's very hard to believe you've never met a single person who feels disdain for the military. Impossible, in fact, unless Philadelphia is on another planet from Los Angeles.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox: From what you mentioned, maybe its a generational thing. Me and my friends were all busy being born when Kent State and Vietnam were going on. I know plenty of people who would hope and pray that their children never signed up for military service, but I don't know anyone who doesn't recognize that soldiers and sailors do not set foreign policy. The idea that there are Americans who do not hope and wish and pray (if they are so inclined) that every single member of the U.S. military makes it home safely to their family just blows me away.
Security for me has more to do with the borders, the ports, the goods we import (lead-laced toys and killer pet food) our banking & industry (jobs, the ability to feed & supply ourselves), and protecting our computer networks.
I agree and I see all of those things as areas that can be best addressed via technology coupled with skilled policing efforts. I'm a big supporter of using the right tool for the job and wile our military is quite superb in areas they are designed to function, they are not the best tool for fighting a "War on Terror" except as personnel under the direction of experts in port security, border control, or other areas.
And techfun, it's very hard to believe you've never met a single person who feels disdain for the military. Impossible, in fact, unless Philadelphia is on another planet from Los Angeles.
I guess it is possible that I have, but if so, they kept that opinion to themselves.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberTechfun--technology and skilled policing efforts. Yes, quite. But first, there has to be the will to do it, and so far, I'm not seeing it. Selling the Long Beach Naval Base, among other properties, to the Chinese, strikes me as the craziest kind of self-destructive behavior. That facility could have done so much for the community! But no, the city fathers sold out for--I don't know, but sometimes you see folks in government do things that are so bizarre that you can't help suspect payoffs.
And, whenever someone suggests securing our borders, the cry of "racism" goes up, and it trumps everything. It's not necessary, of course, for a terrorist to breach our borders in order to do mischief. Oklahoma City and 9/11 taught us that many, many ordinary things can be turned to weapons of mass destruction. However, for a terrorist to use a dirty bomb, he'd have an easier job of it if he could just acquire the nuke material overseas and schlep it over a border. Otherwise, he'd have to steal the material from a facility here--which is not impossible.
In Los Angeles, you rarely see a cop. Even if there's a fender-bender, the cops won't come. Citizens are expected to politely exchange information and let the insurers figure it out. Provided there are insurers. Your kid goes missing, well, that's probably her choice. I mean, you say policing to me, and I think "inadequate." Here, it seems different. Not so much need for cops, but more evidence of their presence. Don't know if that's causal. How we find enough personnel and equipment to defend our borders without resorting to the military, I just don't know. And yes, one of the ways you can tell you're in America is that the military and the police are separate entities. Something's got to give.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
shadowsprite
MemberIt seems to me that there are plenty of important issues that aren't being discussed. Yesterday I was listening to a lecture by Rick Steves ('Europe through the Backdoor' author) speaking at the University of Washington about the decriminalization of marijuana on the radio. The US could deal with marijuana use by treating it as a controlled substance and decriminalizing its use by adults rather than legalizing it. (Other countries have done this successfully.) Our country could then empty its jails of thousands of inmates incarcerated for possession of marijuana so that they could live more productive lives. Our police officers could spend more time dealing with violent crimes rather than arresting pot smokers. No longer would we need to spend huge sums of money trying to control Columbia’s marijuana crop. Billions of dollars would be saved. Rick and all the others that support this view make many good points. These issues can be found on the NORML website. We do have substance abuse problems in this country and need to look at the ways that other countries are dealing with these challenges.
Why is this discussion important? Because it leads to another even more important discussion. Our country is overly enthusiastic about incarcerating its citizens. Why is it that so many young black men are in jail? Is it because they are all drug dealers, pimps, and murderers? Surely not! We need to examine whether or not putting people in prison for nonviolent crimes is truly a benefit to society. How many young men are reformed by spending time in jail? How many more come out to continue a life of crime since they have no job skills except those taught to them by other inmates? Whether a person goes into prison is partly determined by how much money they have to hire a good lawyer. Is justice really done? Does it make any sense for a prisoner in California to get a 2 year sentence for a crime that might require only a 6 months sentence in another state? If a person only had to serve 1 month for a crime and then was put into a job training program, wouldn't we all be better off? On every college campus students that are under 21 are using alcohol. Do they go to jail if caught? If a white professor gets caught with a personal stash of marijuana does he go to jail? If a young black man gets pulled over for a traffic violation and a small stash of marijuana is found in his car does he go to jail? Does a woman running for mayor who gets arrested for drunk driving go to prison? Why should it make a difference where you live, what color your skin is, and how much money is in your bank account? Who gets to decide? We need leaders in this country that are ready to reform our laws and reconsider the validity of our prison system as it stands today.
Why isn’t this an issue in the presidential race? It’s an economic issue, it’s a race issue, it’s a women’s issue, it’s a civil liberties issue, it’s a security issue and it’s a social welfare issue. Incarcerating our citizenry for nonviolent crimes affects all of us. Let us look for alternatives. It is time for our prison system to be revamped.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
MemberFirst, I don't think the jail time in CA is longer than in other places. In fact, IIRC, we voted to opt for treatment rather than incarceration for low-level drug offenders. Statistically, it did not work. Jail is bad. That is one (maybe the least important one) reason not to follow a life of crime.
Your reference to marijuana and job training made me chuckle. Remember, I'm a child of the 60s. People doing pot are not interested in jobs, or training, or anything much beyond long naps and something to stare at. And, they're not good drivers, either, when they get into cars. They are easily amused, and I can't picture someone high on pot sticking up a liquor store. But as far as I know, there's no breathalyzer test for pot. I don't think we need even more hapless folks drifting around the streets. I lived in California in the 60s, too, and my apartment was something of a crash pad, which was not helpful to me, but I lacked the backbone to limit my largess. Backbone gets stronger when you've got kids to take care of. After I extricated my oldest from the LA gang scene, I asked, "with all the stupid things you did, why did you not do drugs?" Answer: "It was illegal. I might have gone to jail." So, de-criminalization (which I also voted for when it came up but would not vote for in the present day) is a bad, bad, bad idea.
Better parenting would be a good place to start, and I can't say that my generation (hippies, okay?) turned out to be good parents. Fortunately, I had my parents to fall back on for help and advice, and that did the trick. Also, much prayer, to be blunt about it.
In general, this is not very urgent to me right now. If people want to waste their lives, that's their decision, but they can't go driving around with their pupils dilated. Or fly planes, or perform surgery, or teach school. The list would be long.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
shadowsprite
MemberI have to admit I just picked California as an example. I have no idea which states have longer prison sentences.
The radio broadcast of Rick Steves lecture gave me a chance to consider what options are out there. Does society make criminals? Rick Steves uses the Netherlands as an example for better drug policies. The comparison is not a good one for reason that you have mentioned--driving, flying, etc. We don't get around by bicycle as much as their citizens do.
The other flaw of considering marijuana use a personal choice is that it floats in the air and effects all those in the vacinity. That wouldn't be such a big problem in states that don't allow smoking in any public building but in other states it might pose a health hazard.
On the otherhand, I don't believe making something illegal necessarily keeps people from doing it. We have a huge alcohol problem in this country. The percentage of college students under the age of 21 participating in the illegal activity of drinking alcohol is quite high.
Do you really think jail time for drinking alcohol or smoking pot keeps 18 year olds from doing it?
On the other hand you make a good point about parenting. Most of the parents I know who don't drink because of religious reasons, or health reason or because they have alcoholics in their families have young adult children that also don't drink. There are many groups of people in this country who don't drink alcohol: Moslems, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, some Babtists, and I'm sure other religions that I'm not familiar with. It is best to influence by example. Parents behavior and that of an extended religious community make some difference. The media could do a better job of improving the underaged drinking problem in this country. We need more pop stars and sports stars and politicians who are willing to stand up and say that they choose not to drink or smoke pot or whatever. And that their life is better for it. We only hear about movie stars who come out of rehab. When do you ever see a magazine that reports on the actors and actresses that never go into rehab in the first place because they have a spiritual reason for not drinking or doing drugs?
I have no idea whether decriminalizing personal use of marijuana for adults is a good thing or a bad thing. I do know that our jails are too crowded and jail time may be more harmful to an individual and our society than the punitive value of teaching someone a lesson. If someone smokes a joint in their own home or they have a beer it doesn't directly hurt anyone else. If they are carrying a baggy of pot in their pocket or a six pack of booze in their trunk it doesn't hurt anyone either. Driving under the influence is where the problem occurs. As a society we aren't doing a very good job of keeping drunk drivers off the road. It is hard to believe that jail time really changes the statistics. Does it?
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
shadowsprite
MemberI didn't mean that decriminalizing marijuana use was an important issue.
It was just the lead in to the fact that our prison system needs an over haul.
The fact that so many of our citizens are in jail is appalling (and expensive). What benefit is it to society?
Not all of them are hardened criminals. We have an unjust system when it comes to deciding who serves a prison term and who doesn't. Those that are convicted often reoffend after they get out it. As a nation I think we need to come up with a better plan.Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
abettermouse
MemberInteresting Forum. Thanks!
(from Brooklyn, NY, here ; )I have had 2 cousins and a friend stationed in Iraq; one still there, the other 2 returned safely. I have family members who were/are in Army, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, and Florida Hwy Patrol (big, mostly-Catholic Family ; ). These are people I know and love and respect. None of them are perfect and they have all made mistakes in their personal lives and they continue to learn to deal with their lives, just like the rest of us. I appreciate that many people prefer to 'talk in 2-dimensional terms' when discussing Large issues like war, politics, and society in general . I do not appreciate politicians or journalists who feel they must also 'talk in 2-dimensional terms' when discussing/reporting issues which could have an impact on millions of lives. That is just blatant professional irresponsibility. Or ego. Or greed.
Seems like The Economy, National Security, Prison/Legal reform, Personal Responsibility, and Candidate Integrity have made it onto this list of what "is or should be the dominant issue of the 2008 Campaign." Other points made along the way, above, are valid, I guess, but are either focused on local or "States' Rights" issues, so, not really appropriate for a Presidential Campaign (unless "States' Rights" is the issue), OR are not clearly expressed in a way that clarifies what the specific issues/goals should be: China, media conglomerate ownership, personal sacrifices, etc. Then again, as expressed in a posting above, what we are all looking for is a Candidate who can clearly express a convoluted issue. As Reagan knew and also did very well, communicating an issue is the same thing as defining an issue, when you are the President of the United States. Thankfully, this is why we have election campaigns. We each get to decide who most clearly communicates the issues that our Country faces. Being "bored" with this process is a personal problem...
#1 issue I have not seen enough of in this Campaign: Help for Struggling Families with Children. This includes Quality Educations for ALL Young people, Food and Shelter and Energy Assistance for Poor Working Parents, Paid "Parental" Leave (not just "Maternity" leave), Free Parenting Workshops for ANYONE who wants the advice of Professionals, affordable Family Health Care (preventative, emergency and chronic). I will gladly pay more taxes to support the funding of all of the above. I will also point out to all of our 'wealthy' citizens and Corporations that money spent in this fashion now will improve our ENTIRE society in the Long run. For too long "personal responsibility" as defined by the Republican Party has meant not spending money to help poor families try to improve their lives through social assistance programs. Please notice that all the ideas above are for families who WORK, or who are trying to work. We need to help people who want to help themselves. It is in all of our best interests to support Families with Children. It is also the 'Christian' thing to do.
It is crazy to me that in NYC, I get a tax refund (school tax) because I have no children. I also don't have a car, so why should I pay for road repairs? Because we all need good roads to make the City work. Last time I checked, educated citizens with supportive families are also required to make the City work.
(I am not 'ignoring the elderly'. Social Security and 'elder care' are different issues than helping children to grow and learn ; )
My other 'wish' is for a serious re-examination of our tactics used in this "WAR ON TERROR". 'Candidate Integrity' would require the 3 remaining candidates to admit that we still do not have very well-defined "goals" as to 'what and how' we are going to "win" this "war". The divide between our Military Commanders and our Politicians on this topic is the root of most of the frustration felt by voters, citizens and the world at large. One of the duties of 'Commander In Chief' is to defend US interests at home and abroad. Whether the 'right tool for the job' is Military Action, or Diplomatic Effort is one of the most critical characteristics to be revealed during the Presidential Campaign process. W. Bush started the war in Iraq with little practical understanding of the culture we invaded and with no real plan to follow through once Saddam was deposed. This failure of vision and planning in a US President must never be allowed to repeat itself. All of this "Top secret. Can't talk about it. Can't reveal our tactics or the Enemy will know." can only be carried so far. At some point, someone must be able to say, "But really, Dubbya, you don't have any clothes on." Hello? Republican Congress? Where were you? The notion that the Republican national party "doesn't want to win" this election really misses the point: The Republicans led our country to this juncture. Only a fool would vote to keep their policies and leadership intact.
Aside from the obvious military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the War on Terror really a "war" at all? Or is this instead a failure of US diplomacy, International leadership and 'creative and unifying leadership at Home' on the part of the (Republican-led) Executive Branch of our government since 2000? No one wants to see another horror like what happened on 9/11, but 'spending all the money in the world' on guns and 'police' will not protect us from that kind of danger.
Sturdybox: You cannot honestly believe that 'securing our borders' is going to stop a committed individual or group (of any foreign or domestic origin) from using terror tactics to kill innocent people and make headlines to bolster their own fundraising campaigns and power plays. Aside from this one imperative, is there any other reason why the US should spend Millions or Billions on fences and personnel and equipment to 'secure our borders'? Any wonder why "racism" pops up at this point in the debate? What other reason is there? Really. Too many "illegals" in your town working below minimum wage? Too many "illegals" in your town paying wage taxes into bogus Social Security accounts that they will never be able to collect? Too many "illegals" in your town clogging your Schools and Hospitals and overburdening your (State and Local) budgets? Perhaps we could save those Millions or Billions you want to spend 'securing our borders' and instead take some time to look seriously at "Immigration Reform"? Or is this one issue really about Racism, State and Local Budgets, Crime and Punishment and the 'War on Drugs', and not really a National Security issue at all? Really.
Oh, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission will need to be reformed to protect you from your lead-painted toys and poison pet food scandals. (Or is this the 'China issue'?) 'Securing our borders' isn't going to help you there, either. We will have to 'pay' for these reforms, too, but not from the "National Security" budget. (Following your logic on what "Security" means to you, I would have to contact Homeland Security to deal with the toxic substances growing on the left-overs in the bottom of my refrigerator ; )
And one last thing Sturdybox:
When using the term "LOL" please understand that it denotes a sincere laugh attack.
Please do not use this term if you are not sincerely "laughing out loud". Pick a different term.
So, yes, "learn the language" is always good advice.Peace in the City. Peace in the Country. Peace in your Soul.
Posted 4 months ago #Flag this post as inappropriate 0 -
Sturdybox
Member
Reply »
You must log in to post.