Cloning
Cloning has resulted in suffering and early death for many animals, has put uncertain foods into our supply, and leaves open the possibility of human cloning leading to similiar suffering and additional unknown consequences and risks to humanity. I support an "Animal and Human Rights Anti-Cloning Act", which would provide both animals and humans with no uncertain rights, that are preserved in our government. It would save animals from the torments of clonings failures, it save future human beings from the same, and it would remove our already poisoned food supply from even further harm.
This is a more crucial issue then many realize, as every day that passes technology opens up more possibilities, and on a given day the meat you buy may have been toyed with in a lab, with unpredictable consequences. And we cannot rely on the FDA to move on it, as they have proven their lack of action and even their misaction constantly sinse their creation.
Death Penalty
There are certain basic principles as to why murder is wrong. Amongst them:
- it steals the freedom to live, from the deceased
- it causes harm to the living loved ones by stealing someone from their world
Considering these principles, it is impossible to justify the death penalty. If nothing else, because it causes unjust harm to the family/loved ones of the executed. They are an innocent party in the manner, and should not be brought maximum suffering. It may be hard enough for them to deal with the guilty living in chains, but that is something the State cannot resolve. I therefore, do not support the Death Penalty because it acts as excess punishment on this principle alone. Denying additional innocent parties the right to the Pursuit Of Happiness is not a solution to the unjust loss of life.
Additionally, several percent of people who are executed, turn out to be innocent later. Had these individuals not been executed, while they couldn't get back the years they lost in jail, they could have the rest of their lives. An execution in a way, amounts to sentencing someone to life, and then if it turns out the evidence was fraudulent, they still have to serve the sentence regardless. That does not sound like it is even remotely in line with the principles of our justice system.
I support a federal ban of the Death Penalty, to protect both the rights of the innocent and preserve the principles of the justice system as entailed by our Constitution(or perhaps, "to help bring the principles of our justice system back to life", is a more appropriate phrase).
Abortion
It is my observation that womans equality to man has become almost entirely leaned upon the issue of Abortion. While women continue to own just a fraction of the nations property, and while women are recieving just 77 percent of the salary compared to what men recieve for the same jobs, candidates have us focusing on Abortion. Barack Obama in a speech did mention the pay discrepency between men and women, but interestingly enough: Women are paid 78 percent the pay of men in candidate Barack Obamas' campaign staff. Something, perhaps revealing, that media-contacted leaders of NOW and Code Pink have downplayed. McCain has paid
women equally, but doesn't see a need to tend to this nationwide serious issue. So again, we are offered two poor "choices". One who doesn't talk about it, and the other who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Most people don't know of Obamas mispay of women in his campaign, and two womens action groups have helped clean up the mess in the cases where women do find out, so this issue has continued to benefit Obama.
I see abortion as a distraction issue. Which is scary, considering it's importance: If you view it as a womans right, then it is very significant to you. If you view it as the unborns right to live, then it is very important to you. Distraction issues tend to create alot of hate, they are meant to divide, because nothing puts a cherry on top of distraction quite like division. Reality is, most people believe they are right on this issue, and have good intent. Most women who commit abortions do not even remotely consider themselves murderers, and most people who believe that a fetus has a right to birth don't hate women. If we ever hope to get anywhere on this issue, and if we hope to truly see equality between men and women, we need to attempt to have calm discussions on this matter, that are logical and unbaised. We need not to see those we debate with as enemies, but as concerned individuals trying to make the right choice. It may not be true in all cases, but i believe more often then not it is.
My view, based on discussions and research, is the following:
Once the fertilized egg attaches itself to the womans uterus, which takes about a week, the process of pregnancy has officially begun. Many times fertilized eggs are flushed from the womans system prior to attachment to her uterus, and that would hardly be considered abortion. Now, we have made many technological advances sinse Roe v Wade that have revealed that a fetus is capable of doing and feeling more, and at an earlier stage into pregnancy, then scientists ever imagined before. Because of this, i take a Pro-life stance from the moment of pregnancy because time stands to reveal more about the unborn child. What it has already revealed is even just weeks into the pregnancy, an abortion brings torment to the fetus up until it expires. Who knows what else we are set to discover in years to come.
Still, I believe an appropriate decision on this matter should currently be reached in the Supreme Court. I believe Roe v Wade is coming up for review at some point(?) in the future, and hopefully it will be expediated and all evidence will be presented from both sides of the argument. This will allow for a debate that hopefully, if the public pushes for detail, leads this nation a proper answer that is as timely as possible. But again, I would encourage us all to converse as individuals about this in a logical matter before then. Our method to this point has created division and uncertainty, which is not good for life nor choice.
-Wages-
Womens Salaries
Woman are equal to men. I personally need no time to understand that. But also this concept has been guarenteed sinse day one of our Constitution, yet ignored for much of our history. As a matter of fact, as previously mentioned, it is still ignored in parts till this day. Women have a right to equal pay, the have an equal right to persuit of their hopes and goals. This nation is not providing that, and as said, the issue is being skirted. How do we resolve this matter?
Constitutionally speaking, government can not force a private business to pay one person or another a set salary. While our Constitution recognizes the equality of people, government cannot force a private business to adopt this belief into their own private lives, short of stopping them from bringing physical harm onto another.But there are two things that can be done. One by the people, and one by the government of the people under the approval of the people.
I'll touch first, on the latter. There has been talk of an Fair Pay bill, but as touched on, it would violate the Constitution and give more power of interpretation to the government. It would give the government the power to decide how valuable your work is. This is a dangerous concept. But the government can do something. The government has say over the payment of peoples whom work government jobs. Legislation should quickly be put forth that guarentees women and men recieve equal pay for the same workload in the government workplace. The Equal Pay In Government Act. Additionally, this legislation should also provide that any charitable organization that recieves federal funding must pay equally, men and women. No charity that works around a personal belief should be recieving federal funding, anyhow. But that is different matter. By taking this step, we'd be ensuring that a sizable portion of jobs in the United States give women an equal oppurtunity, and it would set a strong example for one of the most basic principles off our society, equality.
Another action that can be taken, as mentioned, is that taken by the people. Women and all men who support womens equality can put pressure on businesses to just the pay with the power of theirspending, or lack there of. Again, this is where the historical success of the boycott succeeds. By standing for ourselves and eachother, we can make ground while our government is still putting up the red tape. Whether a business be local, or national, or international, if we find it's policies in this and/or other matters to be aggregious, we have a choice: We can lend support or take it away. In the economic world, our dollar is our ballot. If someone makes money off of inequality, then buying their products or services is helping them succeed in that manner. By refusing to purchase from them and making it known to said businesses why, giving them an altimatum, a growing movement can either change their ways or knock them out of business. You can be pretty sure they will choose changing their ways over losing business and profit.
Women and Men alike, Human Beings, have much power as individuals, and so much power when working in masses. We can make most of the alterations in society that we need to see just by our own actions together. Gladly be next to anyone in line..the boycott line.
A 2 Point Minimum Wage System
Minimum wage comes from a basic human right principle, that people should not be forced to work in slave-like conditions, that people should be able to live off their hard work. Our Minimum wage has lagged well behind inflation for some time, and has rarely been boosted nationally in recent memory. But there is more to the problem then this. When ever the minimum wage is increased, the cost of food magically increases too. So the better pay day doesn't amount to much new, and this can particularly harmful to single parents and poor working families. That's why i propose a just bill in line with human rights that will help children of poverty, who cannot defend themselves.
The Minimum wage should be immediately risen, and risen in a 2 point system. Minimum wage would also increase yearly with inflation, to ensure that working conditions do not slip below the set standard.
The two point system works this way:
-A increase of the minimum wage to 8.50/hr
-For parents, the minimum wage would be 10.00/hr
This graduated system provides that the salary for those who most need it will move towards a more justified level, not be instantly erased by increased prices.
Those applying for said job would not be required to reveal in their job interview whether or not they are a parent. It would be illegal for a business to ask that question of an applicant, or levy job availability based on whether one is or isn't a parent. Firing someone after finding out they were a parent would also be a criminal act. This would fall in a similiar line with the previously established sexual harrasment laws.
Congressional And Presidential Salaries
In recent years, our Congress has passed measures with such gifts as giving members golden toilet seats, and of course the White House has historically been a mansion with enough rooms to house a quite of a few of the homeless people who line the streets of D.C. Again, the behaviors you would expect from Royalty.
Congressional members recieve over $150,000 in pay(upwards of over $200,000), and the President recieves $400,000. The vice president recieves $221,000. One problem with this concept is that it turns these positions into positions that one can even more easily be pursued for the sake of money, rather then to provide service to the population. Another is that our Congressional members and our President recieve these enormous salaries no matter whether they hear us out, as is evident most particularly by these last couple years. We need to return these positions to public service first, and salary second.
I propose that all Congressional salaries be cut to 1/3 of their size: $50,000. That the salary of the President be cut to 1/5 their size: $80,000. That the Vice President be to 1/4 its size: $55,000. These tax dollars could go to more valueable uses, and certainly men and women working in mansions such as the White House and the Capitol Building are not in need of any more lavishment to distract or lure them from their true purpose, to serve the American people.
Additionally, those who argue that these salaries would not suffice, and would chase away potential worthy figures are ignoring the fact that only those who value the oppurtunity of public service entirely, over salary, could possibly be worthy of such positions.
We must restruction the salaries of the officers of the people to help bring them back down to earth. We must to make our tax dollars more truely serve their purpose.
-Education-
Education
Obviously our public school system, our education structure, is failing us. But when we allow the government to run education, we open up a door that allows the government to engineer knowledge with an agenda based bias. So we end up with fictional stories about the exploits of Columbus, Cowboy and Indian Wild West tales, paragraphs exhalting Presidents like gods, and so on. Blind patriotism and one of the worst educations in the world is what we have gotten. Which makes it very easy for a government to opress. Children sing songs about how great America is, in the first grade. But how about we show them so they don't have to lean on songs to neutralize their fustrations as they grow, and the nightmares we have to deal with today.
In order to do that, a major step is to educate ourselves on the true history of our country and the world. So that we can turn the potential of our nation into a reality, rather then try to pretend it's already there. So how do we work on turning it completely around? It starts with educating ourselves, leaving behind any and all bias we have. Absorbing facts. Asking questions and getting answers. But we must also put our children through an education system that doesn't leave them digging out of a hole as adults.
Today, the government disperses 89 billion dollars to the direction of education. It's a dwindling number which also varies depending on a childs environment. In Ny alone, children in the city recieve far less then children in suburban and upstate Ny recieve. That's unacceptable and Unconstitutional. We must solve all of these matters at hand, and this is my proposal:
The Public Education system must be dissolved. In it's place, every single elementary, intermediate, and high school student will recieve a $7,000 education voucher, yearly. This can be used to attend a private school of their parents choice, or be home schooled. This brings back the balance of education amongst the entire nation, and puts much more power into every parents hands in deciding what is an appropriate education for their child Diversity, and an education system moving back towards the hands of the people: The Education Deregulation and Equality Act
How would this work?
-The act would cite the U.S. Constitution, which states that the government shall not regulate beliefs. Under this knowledge, no government run school, whether state or federal nor any combination there of, is in step with the 1st Amendment.
-Public schools could be sold by the States to private institutions, which would rush at the oppurtunity to enroll millions of new private school students. This would, as well, help local and State economies.
-Parents have the right to choose which ever school they like which best fits what they believe is a good education for their child, or can homeschool their child.
-Education facilities, to be voucher-eligable, must match a pair of requirements. Basic Mathematics is not a subject that is open to the interpretation of the government. Therefore the government can hold the gaining of knowledge in Mathematics to the minimal point of comprehension of addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, probability and logic as standards of eligibility. Additionally, working towards the comprehension of the language of the U.S. Constitution would be the second requirement. This would not require a set interpretation, but ability to read the document and to become aware of the definitions of words in said document. No additional subject matter requirements could be enacted, as they would open up the possibility of creating a government bias towards subject matter such as history and science, which would return us to our initial problem.
-The bill would not block States from providing additional monetary assistance for students, but would require it be equally dispersed per individual student in coordinance with the Constitution.
-To avoid misspending of Vouchers, the following would be put into place:
Vouchers would be recieved by the parent of each student in the form of an atm-like card. The money attached to the Voucher would be held in a U.S. treasury deposit specifically and only created for Education dollars.
The voucher cards would be presented to pay for daily schooling and daily school items. This would work much like a credit card, but without any loaning or interest.
A reciept would be required to be given to the parent following and purchase, to keep track of the balance. I want to quickly note that i believe as a nation, we need to move back towards cash and away from the dangers of a cashless system, but that this is one measure where a card makes alot of sense.
Stores selling school items would be responsible for ensuring their clerks and management don't allow the cards to be used for items that are not related to daily learning. For example: a new cd player, or food items, or hair coloring. Violations would produce fines for said store/s, and worker/s involved, and would bring criminal charges among those adults directly involved. Intial fine would be 10,000 dollars for the store, and 1,000 dollars for each worker involved. Adults, whether worker or parent, who were directly involved would be subject a federal offense for fraud. A guideline of products which clearly are not related to daily education would be made very available to every store and citizen, so there is no concern over possible grey-area entrapment. No reading materials, no matter the content, could be placed upon the list.
A separate, additional, 200 dollar voucher could be successfully applied for by parents of students who are training via the use of a musical instrument.
If we are going to have a free, educated, productive, ever-improving nation, we need to have a freedom-based education system. I believe our current system requires a bold, well thought out restructuring, and i also believe The Education Deregulation and Equality Act is said legislation.
-Health and Environment-
Healthcare & Pharmaseuticals
Currently hospitals and their pharmaseutical partners can withhold medical help from an individual by pricing them at more then a reasonable cost of service. How many people we know have avoided the hospital on this premise, alone. This is essentially hijacking someones wallet for their wellbeing, holding them hostage at the sake of their health. Many people only give in once they are in dire straits, and then they take an excessive hit to the wallet in addition to the costly hit they took to their health. It is clear that pharmaseutical prices and hospital bills move well above a reasonable price, and therein is the truly appropriate measure we need to take in ensuring Americans can afford medical health. We must move legislation that puts an end to theft practices such as 400+ dollar a night hospital beds, 1000+ dollar ambulance rides, or charging 50 dollars for a pair of Tylenol. We must create legislation that fines hospitals and pharmaseuticals for outrages prices that cripple peoples ability to ensure their health, and afford living.
lived in the old system.
In short, i propose a Non-Hostile Healthcare Act, which would create a Congressional committee in line with the Constitution to publically discuss, decide, and bi-annually review the measured cost standards of say, a trip to the hospital in an ambulance, or a stay there for a night, or a check up, and set a ceiling on the pricing. Those who go above this ceiling would be subject to fines exceeding 1 million dollars, and risk closure upon repeated violations, with a mandatory shut down after 3 violations. This is one area where government intervention is required because it is the duty of the government to protect the Right of the People to Life and
Health. Giving someone the ultimatum to either suffer further health consequences or pay up is no different then holding a weapon to someone and trying to take their wallet.
Drilling
We have to take into effect the environment consequences of our actions when discussing Alaskan refuge drilling, and offshore drilling. The two environments are part of our balance. They are two distinctly different environments, almost acting like poles. If we fail to respect this balance, can we be angry at the consequences? Our problem with gasoline prices doesn't seem to be from a gas shortage. It appears to be from greed and self-centered behavior. Oil companies have cashed in on any and every situation and turned it into an oil crisis, shooting the prices up. But we could have, and can revert this. It's actually quite simple, and it goes back to one the most successful principles of the Civil Rights Movement and other successful movements in human history...The Boycott. If we aren't dedicated to sending a message that we will not stand for high gas prices, then why should we expect the prices to come down just because we are allowing the Oil companies to drill for more oil they don't even need. It seems to me that we are welcoming more profit and control on their part, if anything.
Rather then do harm to other creatures, and to environmental balance, we have an oppurtunity to empower ourselves and make all of our lives better. Bringing down the pump prices would also bring down the food prices, bring down home heating prices, and bring down electric bill prices. It would be a very big positive shockwave for our economy and our self esteems.
Dumping
Rivers, Lakes, Reserviors, and our Oceans are becoming increasingly toxic, in addition to the very ground we walk on. It is a combination of behaviors that has led to this. We, for one, have to take responsibility for our littering and wreckless tossing of items such as plastic bottles onto beaches and into the ocean. These plastics leak toxins, many of these items kill sea life, and it's all coming back to us. When we drop a wrapper on the street, chemicals from the inks and plastics/aluminums go into the ground and when it rains, they find their way into fresh and salt water. They make our soils less fertile and they adversely effect the balance of life in our environments. We are risking facing a generation of cancer when we behave this way. So we must take this action into our own hands, and think about the good we are doing everytime we decide not to lazily toss aside garbage.
Just the same, Corporate Dumping is largely responsible for our woes as well. Mercury is at dangerous levels in many of our water systems. Toxic chemicals sit in barrels at the bottom of the Hudson River in Ny, and in rivers all across the country, as well as lakes and our two ocean waters. The leak over time and again, come back to us. Corporate government, to no surprise, has been light on itself. We need stricter laws against dumping. Because many rivers lead into multiple states, and our oceans touch many states, i believe the is a rightful argument for passing a Federal crime statute against such behavior that will make it a much bigger risk for companies to attempt to dump toxins. Human and animal life being harmed comes with serious consequences in most walks of life. It should be no different here. I believe there should be a minimum 1 million dollar fine(5 million minimum for a second offense, as well as a shut down of related facilities) against any corporation that dumps toxins, and a minimum year in prison for any person who orders and takes part in such activity. Additionally, said corporation should have to pay for the cleaning up of the toxins, which shall be overseen.
War On Drugs; Should Any Drugs Be Legalized?
The Rockefeller Laws have long been proven to fit in to a project of racial bias. The War On Drugs has, to no surprise, not done much to solve our drug issues(hmm could it be in part, the CIA smuggling?). Rather it has helped feed racial division and inequality. These laws need to be repealed, as they hold a clear bias. And example of this is that drugs which are common in the urban community draw larger sentences then those in the corporate community. Additionally, 3 strikes and you're out is not an appropriate way to handle an addiction.
Just as the War On Drugs should come to an end, and a more sound and less militaristic approach to the problem be found, conversely no illegal drug should be legalized. Drugs have a history of use in supression of population(such as Opium in China, under British control), and most drugs lead to vastly increased abuse of another, not just oneself. Marijuana has been the main topic of debate in legalization. My legal argument against would be that Marijuana use takes the worst of both the Alcohol and Cigarrette world, and combines the two. Marijuana smoke toxicates the air of those around the smoker, and Marijuana smoking drivers are more then twice as likely to get into a fatal car accident then those who don't smoke. Additionally, would it be a good idea to someone working on an airline runway, or as a safety inspector, or as a bus driver, and so on, to be able to go and smoke a joint on a smoking break? One of the fundamentals contained in our basic rights is that you have a right to do what you wish, as long as it doesn't physically harm another. Thus why i cannot support legalization.
There is also the issue of legalization for the sake of medicinal purpose. As well as the use of hemp for non-drug products. I do think both are good ideas. In terms of medicine, many medicines that are sold to the public are far more harmful then marijuana if misused. But yet, due to the profit, we don't hear a word about banning them. So there doesn't appear to be a legitimate argument as to why marijuana is held under separate principles then say, pain killers.
Hemp items are useful to our society and economy. The are also cheaper to make, and more accessable to the citizen. Hemp plants are natural to our environment. It seems to me that banning something natural to our environment is altering the environment itself. The government of the U.S. currently only allows for industrial hemp to be grown through purchasing a license. This is another example of the government attempting to control a market that would otherwise be very good for economics, both in terms of production and in terms of consumer prices. This license requirement should be lifted, and likewise to create a balance to discourage the amount of hemp that will be grown for drug purposes, property seizures should be the result of growing hemp for drug sales. In addition to prosecution. For personal drug use, a heavy fine should be enacted.
...........................................................................................
As bleak as our future looks, with such a small percentage of the population feeling we are on the right path, we can pitch tent rather then fold up tent. We can get hands on with the problems rather then let rhetoric continue to tear us down the road of ruin. We have to make that committment each, as individuals, and then as it grows person to person..we will find ourselves having built a bandwagon without waiting for others to jump on it. We will have already taken steps that will have laid the ground, for the entirety of the kind of alterations in our government and society that are direly needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment