My Platform

[filkertom]

Once again, I am disgusted by the rank cowardice of our "leaders". On both sides.

They snipe. They whine. They shriek. They clutch at power with their grasping, nasty claws. And they don't care about their actual job, that of running the country. And not just any country: the biggest economy, the biggest military, the biggest potential force for good -- or evil -- the world has ever seen.

There are things that have to be done in America, and they aren't getting done.

In the thread below, selenesue suggested I run for office. Nah, I'm definitely not the guy you want, and I know it. But I like to think I'd make a decent court jester, in the tell-the-king-the-truth sense.

Back in July 2004, when the Dems came up with a ludicrously watered-down and safely-worded "platform", every bit as useful as a company's Mission Statement ("To be the best by using state-of-the-art technology and great personnel", you know the drill), I posted a little platform of my own on Daily Kos. I present it here verbatim. It was a stream-of-consciousness thing; rewriting it, I would add the restoration of habeus corpus, close the damn illegal prisons, and make environmental protection a much higher priority. But I think it says what I want.

1. To publicly apologize to Iraq, the United Nations, and the world at large for the unnecessary and criminal invasion of Iraq;
2. To maintain our military force in Iraq only so long as to rebuild vital services and infrastructure in that country, under a bidding system weighted to favor Iraqi and other Middle Eastern companies, and to train native military and police forces according to a stringent schedule lasting no longer than the end of calendar year 2007 [2005 in the original];
3. To finish what we have started in Afghanistan, removing the resurgent colonial warlords from power and clearing out al-Qaeda and the Taliban to the largest extent we can;
4. To encourage the U.N. to help us foster whatever form of government those countries' populations choose for themselves, worrying about their interests before ours;
5. To consolidate our intelligence gathering and analysis divisions, reducing bureaucracy and redundancy, while encouraging speakers of Arabic languages to join our services;
6. To rescind, revoke, and otherwise reverse the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts, restoring the tax base to what it was at the beginning of 2001, with the exceptions of the elimination of the marriage penalties and the keeping of certain targeted tax cuts for persons and couples with incomes under $200,000;
7. To eliminate any loopholes, tax incentives, or other benefits that primarily American-based companies receive from having a "post office box" headquarters in a foreign nation with less stringent tax laws;
8. To create fair economic incentives for doing business in the U.S., e.g., lowered (but not eliminated) taxes, and to also create penalties for using low-paying jobs in foreign lands;
9. To create a set of laws protecting and helping the American worker, without whom American companies do not exist, including enhanced safety regulations, the restoration of ergonomic requirements, overtime and time-and-a-half laws, union protections, and other safeguards to keep workers from being abused;
10. To institute a national health care system, which would be much cheaper and easier to manage than the current patchwork maintained and implemented by the profit-driven insurance industry, which frankly we hope to drive out of business;
11. To allow persons of either gender to marry persons of either gender, taking full advantage of the legal and societal advantages of that status, and to protect them from harrassment by those narrow-minded enough to think that such an arrangement affects them in any way;
12. To rescind the vast bulk of the PATRIOT Act, keeping only those few extra advantages and safeguards that actually do aid in law enforcement, and completely eliminating its obliteration of civil rights;
13. To make our borders and infrastructure secure without curtailing civil liberties, including heightened effective security at dams, power plants, water treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, and medical facilities, and making better use of existing security at airports and other sites, trying always to be as efficient and unobtrusive as possible;
14. To wean ourselves off the dependency upon foreign oil, coal, and other polluting energy sources, and to make our nation energy independent using new technologies such as fission, fusion, modified solar, hydrogen, and others not yet envisioned;
15. To create rewarding jobs paying living wages, through such methods as: the rebuilding and improvement of our infrastructure, particularly rebuilding roads to autobahn-specifications or better and updating the electric grid; new energy technologies; new computer technologies; a national health-care infrastructure; and a greater emphasis on education;
16. To rebuild the public school system, emphasizing not testing but learning, and creating a basic minimum curriculum including math, science, literature, music, computer technology, civics and the workings of government, sociology and comparative religion, and "life skills" such as cooking, automobile maintenance, basic finances, child care, etc.;
17. To upgrade the computer systems for the Air Traffic Control systems, the I.R.S., and the intelligence services, using off-the-shelf technology and avoiding high-cost, high-promise, low-results manufacturers and providers who "know" what we need. They have been wrong time and again. Accordingly, volunteer computer programming in such national service would be considered either a formal government job or a term of service in AmeriCorps, at the volunteer's preference;
18. To restore the standards of broadcasting ethics that have degenerated over the years, including making it illegal for news organizations to misrepresent the news and making both broadcaster and employee liable for libel, slander, innuendo, or outright lies;
19. To reach out to the religious community with the notion that America requires freedom, and that we should celebrate our differences; and to point out that this country was founded on both freedom of and freedom from religion, and the laws of the land will continue to encourage that;
20. To uphold the rights of women to have abortions or seek family planning services, and of homosexual persons to live and work as they wish; of persons of different ethnic descent to not fear "profiling" or other forms of discrimination.

Yeah, it's a pipe dream. But I think it's a pretty tasty pipe that can be shared with everyone.

Thoughts?

Comments

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

Much too reasonable. The country would never go for it.

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

*applause* I'll vote for it. Pity no one who is actually running has the courage to use it.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Must look more carefully. But to clarify one of the tax bits: I assume one of the things you'd do is take the Alternative Minimum Tax and reset its parameters to more or less match reality; at the very least, raise the minimum income for it to adjust for inflation since its creation. That's one of the nastiest burdens on the middle class right now, particularly on two-earner middle class homes filing jointly.

More later, after laundry and ibuprofen

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

I would vote for that.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

I'd vote for it, but it's been explained to me very clearly why you'd never get any of it done, and why it would be a Bad Thing for you even to try.

[popefelix.livejournal.com]

I don't know why you'd never get any of it done, and why it would be a Bad Thing for you to even try. Can you tell me?

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Because--so I was told--the system was designed to provide government by compromise. So for instance, President Smith suggests apologising to Iraq. The other side say absolutely not, they're terrorists and aliens and they eat babies. You go back and forth, and end up promising not to brag too much about how you won the war, and, er, that's it. That, apparently, is democracy in action. If the President tried to *force* an apology to Iraq, that would be disrupting this precious system of checks and balances, and that would make him a dictator. It was all explained to me, when I put forward my fairly modest ideas about how I would approach the presidency, in the somewhat bizarre event of my getting it, right here. I found it a touch disheartening.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Hm. I say, hm.

I looked at the comments on that thread -- I presume you're talking about the one by filkerdave, along with a couple by keristor. And while I see what they're saying, I think -- mind you, I think -- they're wrong.

The job of the Congress, very loosely, is to make laws based on policy initiatives. The job of the President is to enforce laws, and also to set a direction for policy. Also included in those job descriptions is upholding and defending the US Constitution. So, basically, between the two of them, the Legislative and Executive branches set the tone for the country.

Here's the important point: Compromise is vital in the Legislative branch, if the majority party doesn't want to be perceived as cads and bullies. It is not necessary with the Executive branch -- at least, not as it relates to Congress. That's why the President gets a veto that macho. And that's why the Congress can override him.

Now, BushCo has violated numerous laws and treaties to which our country is a signatory. They have violated both the letter and the spirit of their oaths of office, and put partisan power ahead of the good of the nation and the enforcement of its laws.

So, imagine this: The newly elected president in 2008 comes out for the State of the Union address, and says:

"Before we get to anything else... the state of the union is many things this year. One of them is ashamed. As is now widely known and accepted, our country -- for reasons of fear, and with misguided information, for motives still not clear, although ulimately they were the gathering and keeping of power -- our country invaded another nation. To do this, we not only violated a number of international laws, but we lied to the world community. Many in that community told us to wait, to not do it. We did not listen. Effectively, we destroyed Iraq. And the capture of Saddam Hussein was not in any way worth it.

"Our nation, which we have called the greatest and most powerful nation in the history of the world, became much less than that. We became The Bad Guys.

"As President, on behalf of our country, I apologize to the people of Iraq, and to the world. I know that these are only words, but they will be backed up with action. We will withdraw our troops on a strict timetable, and leave the Iraqi people with UN Peacekeeping forces that we hope will work better with them than our forces did. We will pay -- above the table -- for the restoration of infrastructure, and the beginnings of the rebuilding of the Iraqi economy.

"Now, I know that some of you are probably enraged by this, wondering 'How could he say such a thing? How could he make the sacrifices of our fighting men and women be in vain?' But the truth is, we were all lied to. We had no business being in Iraq; we were never in danger from Iraq. And while there are still a lot of people who want to keep fighting, and even spread the fight to other countries, we have no reason to do so. We never did. And so, for the sake of our military, our treasury, and our international reputation, we must and will withdraw from Iraq. And we will make restitution to that country, which we so cruelly broke."

Suffice it to say, any Republican response would be interesting.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

That would work...okay, that's point one on the platform. Does the SOTU have to be passed by Congress before it's given?

If you really don't want to be President, how do you feel about Communications Director? :)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, no. It's the point where the CEO, i.e., the President, sets the country's agenda for the year, as well as saying what our status is now.

I could work with Communications Director. :) Although I think Jon Stewart would be fabulous, my own self....

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Does the SOTU have to be passed by Congress before it's given?

Emphatically not. It is a specific Constitutional duty of the President to report to the Congress on the State of the Union. It would be a clear violation of the Constitutional requirement for the Congress to exercise editorial control over that report.

(Interestingly enough, it is merely tradition that the report is delivered as a speech and released to the public. A number of Presidents reported in the form of a letter. It is only with the advent of television that it became the premier exposition of the President's policies to the American people.)

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Having just wandered over to your journal to read the linked post, I have to say that I'm pretty much with you and not your detractors on the issue. While a politician who's so sure he knows what is right that he won't listen to other opinions is not a good thing, a politician who can listen to opposing opinions, and perhaps change his mind, but in any case still come out of the debate with a firm, principled position he will fight for is something we need.

We need politicians who are trying to do their job in their current term, not trying to be elected to the next one. The ones who really lived up to that principle wouldn't be standing in the next election, but would be elected again after a term off in the one after that.

[batyatoon]

Dude, don't bogart that. *reaches for pipe*

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I'd make you President in a hot second, but since you won't accept, I'd settle for someone who even promised to enact half of your proposed platform. I would only add that companies that "headquarter" themselves in tax-haven countries should not only have those loopholes closed but face federal prosecution for tax evasion.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

POST this at Kos please? I'm a diletante policy wonk--people don't listen to me, until eventually they remember, somewhere, someone said something that's finally made sense and decide it was their idea. But you're a performer, and you can make yourself heard to an audience of thousands. Post, damnit, post.

[joshuwain.livejournal.com]

There is, I think, a general sense that "the Jester" cannot be "King". That's what Robin Williams said in "Man of the Year". However, I must respectfully disagree. In a Democratic Republic like ours, anyone may be President ... even the Jesters. Not all Jesters should be, mind you, but -then again- neither should all lawyers, firefighters, teachers, senators, mayors, dog catchers, etc... I believe that even a Jester may be President if that Jester speaks with conviction, possesses a flexible mind, and has plans that honestly can make life better for people. I worry that too many people fall into the trap of thinking they cannot rule because they are "only" a Jester.

Or "only" a housewife.

Or "only" a whatever.

I think it may be unlikely to have a decent Jester running the show but based upon what you wrote, I think that the only factor which remains is your confidence that you are the right Jester for the job.

Yours,
Sylvan (Dave)

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

But if Tom becomes president, he won't have time to make any more music.

But it would be great if, at a formal diplomatic banquet, the leader of some important nation strides up to Tom, shakes his hand, and says "Before we negotiate that peace treaty, could you sing us that song about Peter Lorrie?"

[allandaros.livejournal.com]

A thought. If you ever update 'n rewrite this, you might want to refine #12 - you seem to be saying "Take away all of the PATRIOT Act, but the good bits", which doesn't convey much.

That said...are you sure you aren't interested in running in 2008? Pleeeeease?

Some comments

[lizard-sf.livejournal.com]

Mostly, I agree, with a few exceptions:
a)National Health Care -- Sorry, I can't see the government making an even worse mess of it that it already is. And, YES, I've lived several years w/out medical insurance and have spent the last two years paying off ONE emergency room visit, so I do have some knowledge of how bad the system currently is. I just think the government will make it worse. No, I don't know how to make it better. The problem is that medicine isn't subject to normal cost controls, because you can't comparison shop when you're bleeding to death and most of us will literally pay anything to stay alive.

b)Education -- "Learning, not testing", is a great bumpersticker -- but if you don't test, how do you determine if someone has learned? Won't this just lead to even more 'social promotions', where unqualified students get bumped up grade after grade, to graduate as incompetent morons?

c)Number 18 -- here's where I have my strongest disagreement. The stronger libel laws are, the more power the already-powerful have to squelch criticism and dissent. You, no doubt, are thinking "Hah hah, this will screw Fox!" -- but in reality, it's more likely to hit the Daily Kos -- or you. Go back through your blog. How many times have you called someone a 'liar', a 'coward', a 'traitor' or a 'criminal'? Them's fightin' words! Do you have the money to defend against the suits that would be filed under stronger libel laws? Even if the charges are baseless, you'd still be shredded. America's relatively weak libel laws, compared to the UK or Australia or Germany, allow a much more vigorous, rough-and-tumble debate, and that is a strength, not a weakness.

Re: Some comments

[lizard-sf.livejournal.com]

Insert a "not" between "government" and "making". Ooops.

Re: Some comments

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

a) Well, thing is, the VA and Medicare systems do actually mostly work. There are rough spots (and not all of them are from BushCo), but they are in place now. I think you're looking at health care as a competitive commodity, when the idea is to make it as uncompetitive as possible.

b) Not necessarily. And I did say "emphasize". The Bushies are big fans of standardized testing, which is easy and cheap to administer, but which doesn't take into account sociological differences between students, neighborhoods, cities, learning disabilities, etc., etc., etc. Of course you have to have some baseline, but a cut-and-dried standardized test is really only a start.

c) The chance I take. I have no money, so it really wouldn't be worth it for anyone to sue me. Moreover, I call people "liar" when they demonstrably lie, when there's evidence that flatly contradicts them. The other words, similar. I might be in the most trouble from "coward".

What I am really thinking has nothing to do with screwing Fox, although it would have that effect. It's simple: you can't just make shit up and spew it on the airwaves as if anyone besides the person spewing it gives it any credence. It's the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" routine, shoved down our throats a hundred times a day as serious political discourse.

I'm all for differences of opinion... but facts are facts. And when not-facts are put up against them, it is the responsibility of the news agency to investigate their veracity, and either confirm them or call bullshit on them. Publicly.

Re: Some comments

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

a) the health care system congress has for it's own people works well, and it _can_ be expanded to cover everyone who is without health care now, but that's just one way. There are several different ways to do it, the first step should be a honest study of what other countries do, what works and what doesn't, but an honest study is impossible these days with the money the big pharmacueticals have paid congress for protection.

b) I know many people who score well at standardized testing, but are complete morons when out in the real world (for instance, they tend to vote republican), and I have known several brilliant, genius people who score low on tests but excell in areas that can't be easily graded, so straight testing isn't the way to go. I've seen many alternatives proposed and debated, and the best of them offer some kind of balance. For instance, students are tested in spelling, math, the basics, the traditional way, but are tested for history, civics and critical thinking in a more essay-style way to demonstrate you understand, rather than just memorized dates (in fact, a few of the alternatives proposed using the essay answers as the vocabulary/spelling test). Then to round things off, a student has to get a passing grade (graded by participation, performance and advancement) of classes such as music, theater, art, cooking, etc.

c) agree with lizard about the libel laws, but it should be easy to prove a "news" show lies, or "accidently" misrepresents the facts. While mistakes do happen, they should be judged by how they respond, so repeating a "mistake" twenty times during the day's broadcast should require a complete correction _at_least_ twenty times the following day (a headline lie followed months later by a one sentance correction buried in the want ads should carry a mandatory 20 year jail sentance ;-) Also, making the punishments incrementally toughter with each infraction should have the desired effect, so a news reader who can't suppress his disgust during one broadcast at Bush suspendign habeus corpus would get something like a $1,000 fine, while Fox news would be facing billion dollar fines and multiple life sentances within a month.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I'm not running for President either, but I think writing a personal election platform is a good exercise anyway. Here's mine.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

I think you're overlooking an important point in your list:

• Governmental transperancy and adequate punishments for failing to do so. Getting health care pushed through congress means nothing if they allow the big pharmas to write the laws behind closed doors. It should be a federal law that any meeting between a politician, or their staff, with a lobbyist, constituant or anyone connected with pending legislation be recorded, transcribed and put on the net for open access, failure to do so would end up as a hefty fine against both the lobbyist _and_ the politician, and repeated violations would require jail time. Not only will this go a long way in preventig secret deals, but offers the politicians some good fact-checking and counter-arguments.

I can't remember who it was, but one congress-critter was all for supporting the RIAA draconian anti-piracy measures, mainly because all of the RIAA lobbyists fed him a lot of bullshit, exaggerations and outright lies. Then he got an iPod for his birthday, and one of his grandkids showed him how to use it, how to rip his CDs, how to download free music from myspace musicians, and how to subscribe to podcasts. He realized during this educational process that everything he was doing would have been illegal if the RIAA got it's way, and when he returned to congress he started speaking out against restrictive copyright legislation. Now imagine if every lobbyist had to face that kind of public scrutiny, that whatever they say would be on public record. K Street would be a ghost town in no time ;-)

Also, something about outlawing faked studies or suppression of valid studies would be a very good thing to have.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Like I said, it was stream-of-consciousness a couple of years ago. :) You're absolutely right: transparency in the governmental process, no attaching frickin' unrelated amendments to bills after they've been voted on, no holding down bills by attaching unrelated amendments obviously stuck there for political ploys, and no fake science. And government-funded campaign financing, dammit. The public interest is always greater than corporate interests.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

When I have a stream of conciousness like this, eager and willing women usually featured in a couple bullet points ;-)

While I definitely agree with you on forbidding adding amendments _after_ the vote, there has been some good on adding amendments to a bill. I can't remember exactly what it is (hell, after a day's work of handling emergencies and dealing with customers, it's a wonder I can remember... um, remember... ummm, something, I think it's blue... or green...) but wasn't there a key EPA provision added to one of Reagan's buget requests? He wanted to shovel money to big corporations in a hurry, so couldn't veto but made sure everybody knew how much he hated it, then later Bush sr. bragged about that provision passing under Reagan when running against Clinton.

And as for fake science, that actually _is_ illegal right now. Comes under the heading of lying under oath to congress. Problem is, congress is the place where it's decided to punish the perps or not, and since all of the fake science being presented supports the republicans lies, we're never going to see any prosecutions.

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

My own personal tweaks would include:

To allow persons of either gender to marry persons of either gender

"To allow any person of one, single, universal legal age or greater to marry any other person or persons of that same one, single, universal legal age or greater"

To make our borders and infrastructure secure

"To fine-tune the security of public infrastructure and borders to allow maximum public utility with minimum interference, based on real-world data" - although I'm more of the mindset that thinks borders should consist of a couple of quarantine inspectors, someone handing out coupons for free local-primary-language-and-culture classes, and brochures detailing the best places to live if you've just arrived. Biological plagues aside, why should a bunch of fossilised old white dudes in suits think they should have a say in where on this planet I can walk?

To rebuild the public school system, emphasizing not testing but learning

I can see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't want to drift so far in that direction that we end up with math classes consisting of "So, how does everyone feel about the number three?" Provide help for kids falling behind in certain areas, and support those way ahead of their age group in others, but remember that an F is as useful a tool as an A, and should probably be wielded more often.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Can we have something about inviting the International Court in The Hague to initiate an investigation into war crimes alleged against the current US regime (including launching a war of aggression), and an agreement to abide by their decision?

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd vote for that...

Hmm, if you don't want the job of leader, how about taking Karl Rove's position of king maker whateverthehellitis that he's nominally supposed to be doing...? You'd make a good chief advisor/campane stratergist/handler etc.

Or at least, an entertaining one!

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

I like everything except for eight. Of course I don't get a vote in the USA so not of much use to you.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Ah, but number 8 makes sense for someone trying to boost the US. I'd expect that someone running on a similar platform in the UK, or Canada, etc., would tweak that one to benefit their own country.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

No number eight only appears to make sense for someone trying to boost the US economy. In actual fact it increases red tape which costs everyone money, increases labour costs which then increase the price people pay for goods and worst of all it cuts income in the third world which delays their climb out of poverty.

It is like US steel tarrifs which mostly had the effect of hurting US steel consumers like car makers.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

The reason #8 is there is very simple: Corporations want to make money. They want to make as much money as possible. They often want to do this to the exclusion of every other consideration, including their own long-term financial health, certainly that of their workers. So they lay off a bunch of people, close a factory here in the US, and start a new factory in some country where there are fewer safeguards for worker health, much lower wages, much looser environmental regulations, and much lower taxes. They effectively take lots of jobs from here, and put them into sweatshops. This is called "free trade". And the only people it helps are the stockholders of the companies, and only in short-term bottom-line profit.

I admit it's a philosophical point with me: I think everyone can be a lot better off, if companies decide to be just a little less rich. I really having nothing against people getting rich -- I hope to myself someday. But after a certain point, what are you going to do with it?

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

I believe I understand what your motivation is here but I still disagree. What about a non american company, will you make them open factories in the USA or charge high import tarrifs on them when their goods enter the USA? If so you are likely to get a trade war if not then foreign firms will have an advantage over american firms.

If firms are polluting or running sweatshops outside your jurisdiction then publicise this, encourage consumer boycotts.

You seem to be making a blanket assumption that all companies are evil and will be trying to screw the poor and pollute the environment. I agree some companies are but punishing all companies is not a proportionate response.

Genuine free trade, not what most western governments promote but genuine free trade, is the only way to reduce poverty. Removal of US and EU farm tarrifs, including cotton, would do more for Africa than all the other measures we talk about and then fail to fund.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Ummm... yeah, I'm making that assumption. Demonstrated over hundreds of years of economics all over the world. Perhaps "evil" is too strong in this context; "single-minded" is closer, single-mindedly in pursuit of profit uber alles. Most companies will do everything they can to pay their workers as little as possible, and they will do everything they can to, if not deliberately pollute, at least avoid environmental regulations unless called on it.

There is no such thing as "genuine free trade". Unrestrained free trade is a bad thing, because the only motivation is making money.

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Corporations want to make money. They want to make as much money as possible.

As far as I was aware, corporations in America are pretty much required to do this by law, if they have stockholders. Thus, the people who do this one thing, even at the expense of all other considerations, rise or are pushed to the top of the heap.

Remove this requirement, and perhaps we'll eventually see fewer psychopathic profitmongers running the country.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Hm. I'd sure like to see documentation on that one. Because I can think of lots of circumstances, and a number of companies, that don't do business that way, and they seem darn healthy. Zingerman's here in Ann Arbor, CostCo, Ben & Jerry's....

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Not being American myself, I'm not sure of the exact circumstances or legal tangles. However, whatever the current situation, it couldn't hurt to tone down the massive business-culture push for profit uber alles.

[magicaltrevor.livejournal.com]

Love it. I hear ya on the healthcare. I don't understand why people have such a problem with the idea of a national helathcare system. Not only do they work when they're the only thing available, but we're not even talking about implementing a national healthcare system to the exclusion of privatized healthcare. It's just like the US post office vs UPS vs FedEx. You can pick which one you'd like to use, it's just that one of those competitors is cheaper, better, faster, more efficient, and its motives are transparent. I mean, the USPS has one motive: to send mail. UPS has an entirely different motive: to make money. I use the USPS cos I'm interested in sending mail, not in helping some greedy corporation make money.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield, for example, will not be made to dismantle if national healthcare is implemented. I get the feeling a lot of people believe this is the case. But how can it make the problem worse to give people another choice?

Okay, I'm done rambling. I could go on all day about how great this list is. Thanks for creating it.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

As I say, people who can afford it will always want more. But there should be a basic level of care, and it should include preventive care, dental, optical, and mental health. If people want to pay for more advanced and experimental techniques, newer drugs that haven't gone generic, really high-priced specialists, or an extra cup of sorbet and white wine with every meal, that's where the third-party companies would come into it.

And, word on USPS/UPS. I'm paying less for a PO box for a year than I payed for two months at the UPS store. The only advantage was that they'd sign for non-mail packages that I couldn't have delivered at home or at work. Now I'm home.

[wolfger.livejournal.com]

In addition to your afformentioned rewrites, if you just throw in something about stopping the wastefull (in terms of money and human lives) "war on drugs" in favor of legalization, education, regulation, taxation, and rehabilitation, then you've definitely got my vote locked down.I'll even forgive you for wanting to pass more work safety laws (which, as a worker, I think are already stupidly stringent in a lot of ways).

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I am so for the legalization, regulation, taxation, etc., of recreational drugs. That's not even a no=-brainer; that's a notochorder.

A lot of my impetus for stronger safety laws is based on my experience in retail, food service way back when, and office work. You'd be surprised how many stupid ways there are to get hurt in an office; you'd be even more surprised at how many seemingly perfectly fine arrangements actually contribute to long-term, chronic health problems. The banks and the mortgage-doc company I worked for always had a number of people sick, and they were all sicker than what would be considered "normal"; moreover, because they needed the money, or because their bosses wouldn't let them go home and get better, they shared the joy, and the contagion, with the rest of us whenever possible.