OT: You are President of the US...
stillsunny
(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
What do you do?
What are your priorities?
Who will be in your cabinet?
Sunny
who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
discussion, too
stillsunny
I forgot to mention, citizenship requirements are waived. Anybody can
play :-)
Jim2002
>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
>What do you do?
>What are your priorities?
>Who will be in your cabinet?
You don't mean I am George W. Bush, I hope. In that case the best
thing I could be doing is sleeping.
Come to think of it, I would be, in any case, asleep.
Priorities:
1. Building consensus with our international friends toward a peaceful
but resolute stance toward Iraq. The only reason this is priority #1
is because GW has made such a mess of the situation. Signing the Kyoto
treaty would be a first step.
2. Establishing a sense of economic stability and "directedness"
toward an enduring recovery of confidence in the American economic
system. Using it as an engine of change, as was done in th Space Race,
would be good. Turning the economy away from oil dependence could be
part of this. Putting Americans in a fleet of super low emissions cars
that get 50+ mpg should be doable in 8 years. Making this a matter of
National Security should be supported.
3. Confronting Israel's continuing unwillingness to behave in a way
that allows us to support it with confidence that peace is possible.
4. With the above (very broad brush, having many implications) work
toward a situation where the Middle East is no more important for us
to "control" than, say, most of sub saharan Africa.
5. Keep security against terrorism in the U.S. a high priority, again,
because of the botches of GW and predecessors.
Staff cabinet offers with the above as Litmus tests.
Jim2002
Ted King
stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
First, make sure I'm not hallucinating. Then tell the American people I
would work hard to establish a mechanism for a gradual change to world
government. Then I would expect not to be president much longer.
> What are your priorities?
Free birth control everywhere in the world. Give a $100 billion dollar
prize to anyone who can make fusion power workable (but they have to
make the technology available to everyone).
> Who will be in your cabinet?
Attorney General - you
Secretary of State - keep Powell
Everybody else - I need to think about that some more.
Ted
Etherman
"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com...
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
The cute intern down the hall.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
raven1
<sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
>What do you do?
Demand a recount! (attrib. W.F. Buckley...)
>What are your priorities?
End the disastrous failure often referred to as the "War on Drugs",
vigorously prosecute every corrupt CEO and CFO in the recent business
scandals, institute a National Health Care system like every other
"civilized" nation on Earth, Federally recognize gay marriage, work to
end US dependency on foreign oil (and acknowledge in public that for
all their lip service to the contrary, Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not
our ally), and let Saddam Hussein know that he's going to be admitting
either UN Inspectors or US Marines (his choice) into Iraq by September
30th, for a start.
>Who will be in your cabinet?
Well, I'd ask you for a start, in all seriousness, although I doubt
you'd agree with my more "hawkish" positions.
Fred Stone
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
Get full intelligence briefings on *everything*. 99% of the news
is spin, and I'm the spinn*er*, not the spin*ee*.
>
> What are your priorities?
Defend our friends.
Build our economy.
Destroy our enemies.
>
> Who will be in your cabinet?
Lord Calvert - Director, FBI
Automort - Secretary of Defense
Stillsunny - Secretary of Interior
Jeremy Martin - Secretary of State
Elroy Willis - Press Secretary
>
>
> Sunny
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
"B-five-two baby, way up in the sky,
keep dropping your loving on me, child..."
The Cult
Wheat Cracker Experience
<sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
>What do you do?
>What are your priorities?
>Who will be in your cabinet?
>
>Sunny
>
I would call upon the Congress to pass a Tax Elimination Bill which
would abolish all income, sales, and property taxes. To balance the
budget, all welfare and social security cheques would be stopped
immediately. Public works projects would be sold off to the highest
bidder. Ditto schools. Ditto ditto government-run charities,
offices, etc. Plus there would be a massive pay cut for all elected
officials. As impetus to pass these cuts, I would tell the Justice
Department not to go after any business for failing to collect sales
tax or withhold from employees' cheques. I would tell every American
not to file a retun next year, unless they are claiming a refund.
Once all that bloat is cut, I would put the money that did come in
(from capital-gains taxes, luxury taxes, and fines) into where it
belongs: military and intelligence.
And now my foreign policy: We find some sparsely populated section of
land in a terrorist country, preferably Iraq. We drop our smallest
nuke on it. Then I make a public statement that the rest, the big
ones, are aimed at the major cities, and if there's one more terrorist
act on US soil (including embassies and military vessels at sea), as
soon as we find out what country it originated from, we push the
button.
No, I'm only kidding about all that. I'd just bag an intern. But I'd
want to do all that.
stillsunny
<jJim...@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> said:
>
>>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>>What do you do?
>>What are your priorities?
>>Who will be in your cabinet?
Hi, Jim.
I'll confess to you (and everyone else) that the reason for posting
this is I'm a little tired of the fatalistic grousing with respect to
politics these days. There are a good number of decent intelligent
people in the US, and a substantial number of them on this ng. I
hoped, by posting the questions, it might help move at least some of
us to thinking about what _could_ be done, instead of just griping
about how bad things are.
Please keep that in mind, because I'm going to go through your
responses. It may look like I'm being argumentative (though I'll try
not to), but I'd like to explore your ideas a little more fully.
Bearing in mind that all your actions are going to have consequences,
not all of them anticipated, here we go...
(thank you, by the way, and you don't have to answer all -- it might
be book length)
>You don't mean I am George W. Bush, I hope. In that case the best
>thing I could be doing is sleeping.
>
>Come to think of it, I would be, in any case, asleep.
It being midnight, I probably will be, too.
>Priorities:
>
>1. Building consensus with our international friends toward a peaceful
>but resolute stance toward Iraq. The only reason this is priority #1
>is because GW has made such a mess of the situation. Signing the Kyoto
>treaty would be a first step.
I agree with that, in part. I'm still puzzled as to the out of the
blue saber rattling. I'm curious, though, how *at this point* you
could build a consensus.
Two specifics: If you had information which was as factual, provable,
and trustworthy as it is possible to be, but which you couldn't reveal
to the American people, that Saddam indeed was within weeks of
finishing a nuclear weapon which could take out Israel (or something
along those lines) would that affect your goal of consensus?
And do you know (because I don't, honestly) *why* the US didn't sign
the Kyoto treaty?
>2. Establishing a sense of economic stability and "directedness"
>toward an enduring recovery of confidence in the American economic
>system. Using it as an engine of change, as was done in th Space Race,
>would be good. Turning the economy away from oil dependence could be
>part of this. Putting Americans in a fleet of super low emissions cars
>that get 50+ mpg should be doable in 8 years. Making this a matter of
>National Security should be supported.
I think that's a great idea. Actually, we probably should have been
doing that since the '70's. Can you think of any downside to this?
>3. Confronting Israel's continuing unwillingness to behave in a way
>that allows us to support it with confidence that peace is possible.
This one's stickier.
What sort of changes would you expect/demand, and what means would you
use to "entice" them? Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all the other
peaceniks seem to rather consistently respond to *any* overt action by
the US, by word or deed, in negative response to Israel, as a reason
to increase bomb attacks.
>4. With the above (very broad brush, having many implications) work
>toward a situation where the Middle East is no more important for us
>to "control" than, say, most of sub saharan Africa.
I think that's a worthy goal, too, except...
I keep coming back to wondering how well off *they* would be, and not
just monetarily, if we just completely left the region.
Does this make a difference in your policy?
And if so, is there a way to at least ameliorate the damage (financial
and social) of complete withdrawal?
Oh, and do we have an ethical obligation to help maintain some sort of
stability in the nations we, in effect, have created?
>5. Keep security against terrorism in the U.S. a high priority, again,
>because of the botches of GW and predecessors.
I agree with that, too.
What in specific did you have in mind?
>Staff cabinet offers with the above as Litmus tests.
Fair enough :-)
Sunny
stillsunny
>In article <eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com>,
> stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>> What do you do?
>
>First, make sure I'm not hallucinating. Then tell the American people I
>would work hard to establish a mechanism for a gradual change to world
>government. Then I would expect not to be president much longer.
A statesman! At last!
What kind of different world government do you envision?
>> What are your priorities?
>
>Free birth control everywhere in the world.
What if they didn't want it?
>Give a $100 billion dollar
>prize to anyone who can make fusion power workable (but they have to
>make the technology available to everyone).
Only fusion power? (I like the prize idea, because it would compensate
for loss of revenue if the technology were universally available)
>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
>Attorney General - you
>
>Secretary of State - keep Powell
>
>Everybody else - I need to think about that some more.
Thanks, you :-)
Sunny
who'd better go get a law degree, then
stillsunny
<psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:06:27 -0400, stillsunny
><sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>
>>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>>What do you do?
>
>Demand a recount! (attrib. W.F. Buckley...)
>
>>What are your priorities?
>
>End the disastrous failure often referred to as the "War on Drugs",
How?
I do think marijuana needs to be at least decriminalized, and probably
overtly legalized. It would not only clear the courts and jails, but
would give farmers two different cash crops -- marijuana and hemp for
use in making paper and so forth, which has itself some ecological
benefits, as we'd not be cutting down trees. I'm not sure about the
harder stuff, though.
>vigorously prosecute every corrupt CEO and CFO in the recent business
>scandals,
That, I agree with. People need to abide by the law, no matter who
they are. And if what they did wasn't illegal, then it needs to be.
How do you feel about eliminating part of the shield incorporation
provides, so that directors can be *criminally* prosecuted in some
cases (say, if they know their cars blow up, and sell them anyway).
>"civilized" nation on Earth, Federally recognize gay marriage,
Yep.
Anybody should be able to enter into a legal contract who chooses to.
Making it illegal is stupid.
>work to
>end US dependency on foreign oil (and acknowledge in public that for
>all their lip service to the contrary, Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not
>our ally),
I agree with ending dependence on foreign oil.
> and let Saddam Hussein know that he's going to be admitting
>either UN Inspectors or US Marines (his choice) into Iraq by September
>30th, for a start.
<grin>
No playing games there. I like that better than veiled threats and
halfhearted feints.
Do you care if the rest of the world (including the Arab heavy UN)
bails on the US on this one?
>>Who will be in your cabinet?
>
>Well, I'd ask you for a start, in all seriousness, although I doubt
>you'd agree with my more "hawkish" positions.
You might be surprised.
Basically, I love peace. I know sometimes war is necessary to achieve
it. I think it's very likely ambiguous positions and playing footsie
do more to encourage wars than plain speech and clear actions.
Sunny
stillsunny
<fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>stillsunny wrote:
>
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>> What do you do?
>
>Get full intelligence briefings on *everything*. 99% of the news
>is spin, and I'm the spinn*er*, not the spin*ee*.
An informed president. Good priority.
>> What are your priorities?
>
>Defend our friends.
>Build our economy.
>Destroy our enemies.
How do you determine who our friends or enemies are?
And how would you (as a member of government) build the economy?
>>
>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
>Lord Calvert - Director, FBI
>Automort - Secretary of Defense
>Stillsunny - Secretary of Interior
>Jeremy Martin - Secretary of State
>Elroy Willis - Press Secretary
I like it!
Except, you know Automort's going to say something snide about women,
and I'm going to get testy, and "y'all" will slip out in a cabinet
meeting, and Lord Calvert's going to start talking about
neo-Confederates, and it will probably completely disrupt the seances
we have to contact Machiavelli :-)
Thanks, Fred.
Sunny
Nyarlathotep
My first priority would be securing a source of oil other than the Middle
East (perhaps one of the former Soviet republics) or cutting our consumption
or (preferably) both. Then I would tach the powers that be a lesson in "be
careful what you wish for" by pulling out of the region completely and
refusing to buy anything from them or sell anything to them. As for the
Isrealis and Palestinians I would leave them to either work things out or
annihillate each other, whichever they want (I am sad to say I thik they
would pick mutual annihilation). I would have half a mind to make it clear
that any country wishing to be our friend would do likewise.
At home my priorities would be to stop the "war on drugs". It is costly and
doesn't accomplish a damn thing. And stop trying to make government into
peoples nannies. People need to learn to take responsibility for their
actions
As for my cabinet, that's hard to say. I would pick experts in their
fields, not political appointees though. Even if they disagreed with me
politically, because even Machievelli has pointed out that a wise ruler
needs to have people around him that are willing to tell him that which he
doesn't want to hear. In fact I might appoint one person totally opposed to
me politacally for just that purpose.
--
Nyarlathotep
atheist#2075
Head of the Free Cthulu Committee
First Consort of She Who Leads The EAC
stillsunny
<paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:06:27 -0400, stillsunny
><sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>
>>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>>What do you do?
>>What are your priorities?
>>Who will be in your cabinet?
>>
>>Sunny
>>
>
>I would call upon the Congress to pass a Tax Elimination Bill which
>would abolish all income, sales, and property taxes.
Do you think it would pass?
And what about state taxes?
Isn't that within their province under the Constitution?
>To balance the
>budget, all welfare and social security cheques would be stopped
>immediately.
What do you think would happen then?
> Public works projects would be sold off to the highest
>bidder. Ditto schools. Ditto ditto government-run charities,
>offices, etc.
That was tried with prisons. I don't think it had a good success
rate. Given that, what would you do to make sure it did work?
> Plus there would be a massive pay cut for all elected
>officials. As impetus to pass these cuts, I would tell the Justice
>Department not to go after any business for failing to collect sales
>tax or withhold from employees' cheques.
What effect do you think cutting their salaries would have on:
1. their effectiveness
2. the economy (the government is the largest employer in the US)
3. social services
>I would tell every American
>not to file a retun next year, unless they are claiming a refund.
And rejoicing was heard throughout the land -- except in accountant
offices :-)
>Once all that bloat is cut, I would put the money that did come in
>(from capital-gains taxes, luxury taxes, and fines) into where it
>belongs: military and intelligence.
Okay. But where would it come from, if you eliminated all taxes?
>And now my foreign policy: We find some sparsely populated section of
>land in a terrorist country, preferably Iraq. We drop our smallest
>nuke on it. Then I make a public statement that the rest, the big
>ones, are aimed at the major cities, and if there's one more terrorist
>act on US soil (including embassies and military vessels at sea), as
>soon as we find out what country it originated from, we push the
>button.
Sort of a "walk noisily and carry a big stick" policy?
>No, I'm only kidding about all that. I'd just bag an intern. But I'd
>want to do all that.
LOL!
Sunny
who wonders how we came to the place that "President of the US"
immediately suggests sleeping with interns
stillsunny
wrote:
>
>"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
>news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com...
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>> What do you do?
>
>The cute intern down the hall.
<whack!>
Woden
Officially resign at 12:01. Somehow I think the job would interfere
excessively with my life. I enjoy having time with my family, friends,
hobby,...
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Olrik
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
Open up a beer, read this newsgroup while watching Letterman. Same old,
same old.
> What are your priorities?
Bootstrap the poorest nations, stop short-changing the developing
countries and forget about Saddam until the fucker dies.
And continue to buy lots of goods from friendly neighbor, Canada.
> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
Ditch Ashcroft, Rumsfled into the Potomac and replace them with the
first decent human beings found on the street.
Put a beer-bellied, 3-packs-a-day smoker, Big-Mac addicted slob as
Surgeon General. Then, only then, will you see serious cures for common
diseases.
> Sunny
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Karl E. Taylor
stillsunny wrote:
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
>
First up, dismantle the IRS. Second, transfer some 40 - 50 Billion
dollars to the U. S. Coast Guard for better ships and housing. Third,
fire every single one of those congressional chaplains and install
instead Paul Kurtz for a rational outlook on life.
> What are your priorities?
Patch up relations with the UN and EU. Become part of the global
community, instead of trying to run it. Clean up my own back yard
before I start to tackle all of the worlds problems. To wit:
1. Universal health care for all people in this country, not just
Americans.
2. Drug companies can go to hell. Medicine is for the benefit of
mankind, not the profits of greedy men.
3. Jobs. And first and foremost is to hire all those laid off IT folks
into a new government agency to make solar, wind, and other clean energy
sources work, and work cheaply.
4. Education. Transfer another 40 - 50 billion dollars from the DoD,
to the NEA. Kids come first, so lets have first rate kids in our schools.
5. Flat tax. I don't care how you make it, 5% of it belongs to your
country. No, you can't get it back, and no you can't get out of it.
It's the price you pay for living in this society.
6. John Ashcroft promoted to head window washer on the National
Archives staff. His only window to clean, the one covering the
constitution.
7. Tell Israel that they have 30 days to knock off their shit, or I
pull the plug on their aid packages.
8. Mobilize the FBI, Secret Service, US Marshals Service and local law
enforcement to round up and charge all domestic terrorist. Let's see,
we can start with Focus on the Family, Operation Rescue, Army of God,
Westbouro Baptist Church, CBN, and any other "religious" organization
that supports and or demands terrorist actions against those that do not
agree with them.
9. Inform his whollyness, the pope, that the United States does not
recognize the vatican as a country, or as a world power or leader. That
in fact the USA will from this day forward treat the vatican and the
pope as any other religious organization. And should they attempt to
push their will onto americans, americans will push back.
>
> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
Vice President: James Randi (My dose of reality)
Sec. of State: Mr. Powell
Sec. of Defense: Warlord Steve
Attn. General: Don't care, so long as they are from the ACLU
Sec. of the Interior: Micky
Sec. of Transportation: I have to think on that one
Dir of the National Science Foundation: Dr. Robert Ballard
And so forth and so on. I'd find good people for all of them.
--
Karl E. Taylor
(Who's laptop died and is still being rebuilt)
raven1
<sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:04:14 GMT, raven1
><psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:06:27 -0400, stillsunny
>><sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>>
>>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>>
>>>What do you do?
>>
>>Demand a recount! (attrib. W.F. Buckley...)
>>
>>>What are your priorities?
>>
>>End the disastrous failure often referred to as the "War on Drugs",
>
>How?
By Executive Order that all Federal agencies would cease pursuing such
an agenda, and granting amnesty to all prisoners incarcerated solely
for such offenses. .
>I do think marijuana needs to be at least decriminalized, and probably
>overtly legalized. It would not only clear the courts and jails, but
>would give farmers two different cash crops -- marijuana and hemp for
>use in making paper and so forth, which has itself some ecological
>benefits, as we'd not be cutting down trees.
I totally agree.
> I'm not sure about the
>harder stuff, though.
Me either, but if there's one thing that alcohol Prohibition back in
the 1920s and the "War on Drugs" have taught us, it's surely that the
cure is worse than the disease. Make booze illegal, and you wind up
with Al Capone. Make smack illegal, and you wind up with John Gotti's
crew. Treat addictions of any kind as a medical issue, not a criminal
one, and you're a good way towards helping to cure the problem.
>
>>vigorously prosecute every corrupt CEO and CFO in the recent business
>>scandals,
>
>That, I agree with. People need to abide by the law, no matter who
>they are. And if what they did wasn't illegal, then it needs to be.
>
>How do you feel about eliminating part of the shield incorporation
>provides, so that directors can be *criminally* prosecuted in some
>cases (say, if they know their cars blow up, and sell them anyway).
Are you kidding? These SOBs need to do serious jail time.
>
>>"civilized" nation on Earth,
You seem to have missed (or inadvertently cut off) my National Health
Care part, so I'll ask you what you think about that aspect of my
presidential slate... :)
> Federally recognize gay marriage,
>
>Yep.
>Anybody should be able to enter into a legal contract who chooses to.
>Making it illegal is stupid.
How do you feel about overriding State sovereignty in such an issue?
Just wondering (as it just occurred to me! ;-) )...
>
>>work to
>>end US dependency on foreign oil (and acknowledge in public that for
>>all their lip service to the contrary, Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not
>>our ally),
>
>I agree with ending dependence on foreign oil.
So how do you regard SA?
>
>> and let Saddam Hussein know that he's going to be admitting
>>either UN Inspectors or US Marines (his choice) into Iraq by September
>>30th, for a start.
>
><grin>
>No playing games there. I like that better than veiled threats and
>halfhearted feints.
>Do you care if the rest of the world (including the Arab heavy UN)
>bails on the US on this one?
No. Saddam is in violation of multiple UN resolutions, and has a
history of using banned weapons against dissidents in his own country
combined with a record of aggression against his neighbors; whatever
lip service his neighbors are currently paying to him in public, I'd
be astounded if anyone in the Middle East was sorry to see his regime
reach a sudden drastic end.
>
>>>Who will be in your cabinet?
>>
>>Well, I'd ask you for a start, in all seriousness, although I doubt
>>you'd agree with my more "hawkish" positions.
>
>You might be surprised.
>Basically, I love peace. I know sometimes war is necessary to achieve
>it. I think it's very likely ambiguous positions and playing footsie
>do more to encourage wars than plain speech and clear actions.
Welcome to my cabinet, Secretary of State!
stillsunny
<psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Probably right.
There's a certain saturation point in a population of those that will
use those drugs, irrespective of their legality or illegality.
Maybe a look at some of the countries that *have* decriminalized it,
to see what they've done, and what troubles they've run into (there
have been some, I think, mostly in the way of junkies sort of openly
lying around in public instead of hiding in crack houses)
There's still the question of importation, though, and all the money,
and all the violence all that money produces.
<snip>
>>>"civilized" nation on Earth,
>
>You seem to have missed (or inadvertently cut off) my National Health
>Care part, so I'll ask you what you think about that aspect of my
>presidential slate... :)
I actually didn't mean to cut it off, but it's the one bit I can't
agree with. It's too long to go into, but basically, I think the
medical advances in the field, including stem cell research, are best
served in a free market. I've never known government to do anything
efficiently. And I will say, I don't necessarily think pharmaceutical
companies are greedy. I know they charge a lot for new medicines, but
it's because they have a ten year window of time to recoup what
they've spent on development of not just that one medicine, but all
the ones that failed. This area might need some input from countries
which *have* socialized medicine, though.
This is an odd aside, but have you seen "John Q"?
>> Federally recognize gay marriage,
>>
>>Yep.
>>Anybody should be able to enter into a legal contract who chooses to.
>>Making it illegal is stupid.
>
>How do you feel about overriding State sovereignty in such an issue?
>Just wondering (as it just occurred to me! ;-) )...
I think it pretty much boils down the same as interracial marriages.
Basically speaking, the gov doesn't have the right to force religious
institutions to perform what those institutions see as a religious
ceremony. However, for any government -- state or federal -- to deny
the ability of any two humans to form a secular contract between them,
when that same right is extended to other humans, is discriminatory.
>>
>>>work to
>>>end US dependency on foreign oil (and acknowledge in public that for
>>>all their lip service to the contrary, Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not
>>>our ally),
>>
>>I agree with ending dependence on foreign oil.
>
>So how do you regard SA?
Tough call, raven.
There are allies who are our traditional (mostly) "friends", those
with whom we share a common heritage as well as common interests. And
then there are allies with whom we share only a common interest.
Right now -- and for years to come, even if we started tomorrow -- the
Saudis have an interest in selling us cheap oil, and we have an
interest in buying it. The Saudis have an interest in keeping their
country from being invaded by Hussein, and we have an interest in
that, too. The government isn't exactly enlightened, and gives
funding to Wahabbi extremists to keep them off their backs, which
feeds radical fervor, and creates a climate for terrorism. On the
other hand, Prince Abdullah seems to command some respect, and may
have the ability to bring some of these warring factions to the table,
so to speak. And then there's the ethical dilemma that the country
was "created" by imperialist powers (including us), and the royal
family put in place by imperial powers -- so how much responsibility
do we have to help keep some sort of stability in the region?
I just don't know.
They're not our "friends," but we do have common interests, and big
ones.
I think the call will be easier when we develop alternative fuel
sources. Actually, I suspect a lot of the technology is already
there, but bought up by big oil and auto makers because it would
effectively crash the massive infrastructure they already have in
place. (I sound like a conspiracy theorist, don't I?)
>>> and let Saddam Hussein know that he's going to be admitting
>>>either UN Inspectors or US Marines (his choice) into Iraq by September
>>>30th, for a start.
>>
>><grin>
>>No playing games there. I like that better than veiled threats and
>>halfhearted feints.
>>Do you care if the rest of the world (including the Arab heavy UN)
>>bails on the US on this one?
>
>No. Saddam is in violation of multiple UN resolutions, and has a
>history of using banned weapons against dissidents in his own country
>combined with a record of aggression against his neighbors; whatever
>lip service his neighbors are currently paying to him in public, I'd
>be astounded if anyone in the Middle East was sorry to see his regime
>reach a sudden drastic end.
I tend to think you're right.
The biggest problem I keep coming up against is -- how in the sam hill
do you get a sufficient number of troops there?
It's a massive undertaking, and though no country is going to be *sad*
to see him fall, none of them are going to want to overtly provide
assistance to us, either. And Iraq is almost completely landlocked.
There's Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Kuwait, and a tiny
little piece on the Persian Gulf. Which of those countries are going
to provide the base for an all out invasion?
And actually, the likeliest candidate is Saudi, both for reasons of
common interest and because they have a long border against Iraq.
Which is another sticking point in calling them enemies.
<snip>
>Welcome to my cabinet, Secretary of State!
The power! The absolute power!
Sunny
Elroy Willis
> 3. Jobs. And first and foremost is to hire all those laid off IT folks
> into a new government agency to make solar, wind, and other clean energy
> sources work, and work cheaply.
I'm hep, man. I can head the department of solar energy, no problem.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
stillsunny
<ktay...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>stillsunny wrote:
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>> What do you do?
> >
>First up, dismantle the IRS. Second, transfer some 40 - 50 Billion
>dollars to the U. S. Coast Guard for better ships and housing. Third,
>fire every single one of those congressional chaplains and install
>instead Paul Kurtz for a rational outlook on life.
Who would be in charge of tax collection?
And what's wrong with Coast Guard housing and ships?
I thought the Coast Guard had Navy vessels?
I'm honestly ignorant here.
>> What are your priorities?
>Patch up relations with the UN and EU. Become part of the global
>community, instead of trying to run it. Clean up my own back yard
>before I start to tackle all of the worlds problems. To wit:
>
>1. Universal health care for all people in this country, not just
>Americans.
How comprehensive?
>2. Drug companies can go to hell. Medicine is for the benefit of
>mankind, not the profits of greedy men.
Okay :-)
Who's going to develop new medicines?
>3. Jobs. And first and foremost is to hire all those laid off IT folks
>into a new government agency to make solar, wind, and other clean energy
>sources work, and work cheaply.
Actually, I like this idea.
We waste a great deal of money already.
If we could put those excellent brains to work on something of
national interest, we'd kill two rocks with one bird.
>4. Education. Transfer another 40 - 50 billion dollars from the DoD,
>to the NEA. Kids come first, so lets have first rate kids in our schools.
I have to confess, I'm not a huge fan of the NEA.
<want to know something funny? Clinton appointed my ex-governor, Dick
Riley, as Secretary of Education -- and my state was finishing dead
last in the nation in education>
I do agree that education is a top priority. We're raising
generations of poorly educated kids.
What would you like to see the NEA do to improve education?
>5. Flat tax. I don't care how you make it, 5% of it belongs to your
>country. No, you can't get it back, and no you can't get out of it.
>It's the price you pay for living in this society.
<happy sigh>
Yes, you have my vote.
Oh, yeah. You're already president.
The question is, is 5% going to be enough?
And is there a minimum below which you don't have to pay?
>6. John Ashcroft promoted to head window washer on the National
>Archives staff. His only window to clean, the one covering the
>constitution.
LOL!
Perfect!
>7. Tell Israel that they have 30 days to knock off their shit, or I
>pull the plug on their aid packages.
What shit, specifically?
<that's not a challenge -- I think some of their moves have been
either boneheaded or counterproductive, but they've got a heck of a
mess there, and a bunch of groups who respond to every offer of peace
with an increase in terror attacks>
>8. Mobilize the FBI, Secret Service, US Marshals Service and local law
>enforcement to round up and charge all domestic terrorist. Let's see,
>we can start with Focus on the Family, Operation Rescue, Army of God,
>Westbouro Baptist Church, CBN, and any other "religious" organization
>that supports and or demands terrorist actions against those that do not
>agree with them.
Some of those I don't know.
Some I agree with.
How is Focus on the Family a terrorist organization?
>9. Inform his whollyness, the pope, that the United States does not
>recognize the vatican as a country, or as a world power or leader. That
>in fact the USA will from this day forward treat the vatican and the
>pope as any other religious organization. And should they attempt to
>push their will onto americans, americans will push back.
In what ways do you see the Vatican pushing?
And how would you push back?
>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>>
>Vice President: James Randi (My dose of reality)
>Sec. of State: Mr. Powell
>Sec. of Defense: Warlord Steve
>Attn. General: Don't care, so long as they are from the ACLU
>Sec. of the Interior: Micky
>Sec. of Transportation: I have to think on that one
>Dir of the National Science Foundation: Dr. Robert Ballard
>
>And so forth and so on. I'd find good people for all of them.
It sounds like it.
Chani
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
First, I oust that ugly usurper and his wishy wife from my new bed!! And
then we get to business.
> What are your priorities?
1) End the war on drugs - it is a senseless waste of time, money and man
power, not to mention lives. I would do what I could to set in place a
taxation system similar to all controlled substances such as alcohol and
cigarettes, and start earning our country a few billion rather than wasting
it on a useless and loosing war. Allow adults to have the freedom to do
with their bodies as they will.
2) I will do everything in my power to end the use of a Social Security
Number for any other purpose than for employment.
3) I will do everything in my power to end this countries attack on personal
freedoms and will put an end to as many victimless crimes as possible so
that our polices and protective agencies have time to spend protecting us
from *real* criminals, and not some poor John who just wanted a $20 blow job
(of course, I do realize that this is state and county mandated as opposed
to federally so).
4) End this absurd Homeland Security Crap.
5) Encourage Scientific Research, including, but not limited to stem cell
research and cloning.
6) Do everything I can to make sure that we completely pull out of the
middle east any and all of our interests, and that we find new sources to
get what they supply. Also, do everything in my power to end our support of
Isreal.
> Who will be in your cabinet?
Hard to say, but I would try my best to find the most qualified people I can
for each position. Most likely not people with a political bent though.
Also, I would always keep someone close to me who isn't afraid to tell me
the truth; the hard, harsh truth as they see it.
--
Chani
atheist #1118
Head of the EAC! Why? Because I still say so!!
overli...@sbcglobal.net
stillsunny
>stillsunny wrote:
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>> What do you do?
>
>Open up a beer, read this newsgroup while watching Letterman. Same old,
>same old.
>
>> What are your priorities?
>
>Bootstrap the poorest nations, stop short-changing the developing
>countries and forget about Saddam until the fucker dies.
I think he's taking the same vitamins as Castro.
Curious: what if it became clear that Saddam actually *had* a massive
weapon, which he was going to use?
What do you mean by "bootstrap" and "short-changing"?
I do think the best thing for *everyone* is for all nations to achieve
some measure of prosperity, and economic interdependence.
>And continue to buy lots of goods from friendly neighbor, Canada.
If you could get the USDA to quit making Canadians ruin with additives
the lovely beer they make before it can be legally imported, I'll vote
for you twice.
>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
>Ditch Ashcroft, Rumsfled into the Potomac and replace them with the
>first decent human beings found on the street.
>
>Put a beer-bellied, 3-packs-a-day smoker, Big-Mac addicted slob as
>Surgeon General. Then, only then, will you see serious cures for common
>diseases.
LOL!
That's a great idea!
Sunny
Olrik
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:17:18 -0400, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>stillsunny wrote:
>>
>>>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>>
>>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>>
>>>What do you do?
>>
>>Open up a beer, read this newsgroup while watching Letterman. Same old,
>>same old.
>>
>>
>>>What are your priorities?
>>
>>Bootstrap the poorest nations, stop short-changing the developing
>>countries and forget about Saddam until the fucker dies.
>
>
> I think he's taking the same vitamins as Castro.
Yeah...
Ever wondered why some dictators live longer than they ought to?
Ever wondered why "legitmate" authorities wait until dictators are very
old to take actions? (Like Pinochet, Petain, Franco, Mugabe, etc...).
> Curious: what if it became clear that Saddam actually *had* a massive
> weapon, which he was going to use?
You mean the "weaponsofmassdestruction" mantra? A lot of countries have
them, whatever these are. I'm (was) more concerned about India and
Pakistan than Irak...
>
> What do you mean by "bootstrap" and "short-changing"?
> I do think the best thing for *everyone* is for all nations to achieve
> some measure of prosperity, and economic interdependence.
There're billions of persons living in abject poverty. Why? Maybe this
planet can not sustain the "way of life" of Western, developed
countries, but we can do better.
We also should pay more for some "basics", like coffee, fruits, etc. We
buy too cheaply for these goods.
>
>
>>And continue to buy lots of goods from friendly neighbor, Canada.
>
>
> If you could get the USDA to quit making Canadians ruin with additives
> the lovely beer they make before it can be legally imported, I'll vote
> for you twice.
Hear! Hear!
>
>
>>>Who will be in your cabinet?
>>
>>Ditch Ashcroft, Rumsfled into the Potomac and replace them with the
>>first decent human beings found on the street.
>>
>>Put a beer-bellied, 3-packs-a-day smoker, Big-Mac addicted slob as
>>Surgeon General. Then, only then, will you see serious cures for common
>>diseases.
>
>
> LOL!
> That's a great idea!
I know! ;-)
But I'm pretty sure it would work!
>
> Sunny
stillsunny
wrote:
>
>"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
>news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com...
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>> What do you do?
>
>First, I oust that ugly usurper and his wishy wife from my new bed!! And
>then we get to business.
Madam President! I'm honored :-)
>> What are your priorities?
>
>1) End the war on drugs - it is a senseless waste of time, money and man
>power, not to mention lives. I would do what I could to set in place a
>taxation system similar to all controlled substances such as alcohol and
>cigarettes, and start earning our country a few billion rather than wasting
>it on a useless and loosing war. Allow adults to have the freedom to do
>with their bodies as they will.
That seems to be a consensus.
Are you talking about across the board legalization of controlled
substances, or decriminalization?
>2) I will do everything in my power to end the use of a Social Security
>Number for any other purpose than for employment.
Okay.
Why? (curious)
>3) I will do everything in my power to end this countries attack on personal
>freedoms and will put an end to as many victimless crimes as possible so
>that our polices and protective agencies have time to spend protecting us
>from *real* criminals, and not some poor John who just wanted a $20 blow job
>(of course, I do realize that this is state and county mandated as opposed
>to federally so).
I understand.
What federal crimes do you consider victimless?
(and I agree about the attack on civil liberties)
>4) End this absurd Homeland Security Crap.
Do you have an approach to the threat of terrorism, domestic or
foreign?
Or do you think it's overblown?
>5) Encourage Scientific Research, including, but not limited to stem cell
>research and cloning.
How would you encourage it?
(I agree, though)
>6) Do everything I can to make sure that we completely pull out of the
>middle east any and all of our interests, and that we find new sources to
>get what they supply. Also, do everything in my power to end our support of
>Isreal.
Well, realistically, if we were completely independent of middle
eastern oil, we wouldn't *need* Israel.
Which might be the best thing for both of us.
I don't know that you can stop the private donations sent from
America.
The question is, though, do you think they can survive without the
assistance we provide?
Or does it matter?
Or, even, if the countries in question suddenly faced a dramatic loss
of revenue from oil sales, would they be less or more inclined to
ignore Israel, and try to figure out how to diversify their economies?
>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
>Hard to say, but I would try my best to find the most qualified people I can
>for each position. Most likely not people with a political bent though.
>Also, I would always keep someone close to me who isn't afraid to tell me
>the truth; the hard, harsh truth as they see it.
Sounds like a great plan.
Sunny
hypa...@comcast.net
Secretary of the Interior?
Mickey
Jim2002
I couldn't. I don't have the political skills. But it's a dream.
>
>Two specifics: If you had information which was as factual, provable,
>and trustworthy as it is possible to be, but which you couldn't reveal
>to the American people, that Saddam indeed was within weeks of
>finishing a nuclear weapon which could take out Israel (or something
>along those lines) would that affect your goal of consensus?
The situation in which I am not able to reveal that information to the
American people is the situation in which the American experiment has
failed. I would reveal it, come what may.
>
>And do you know (because I don't, honestly) *why* the US didn't sign
>the Kyoto treaty?
No, I don't.
>
>>2. Establishing a sense of economic stability and "directedness"
>>toward an enduring recovery of confidence in the American economic
>>system. Using it as an engine of change, as was done in th Space Race,
>>would be good. Turning the economy away from oil dependence could be
>>part of this. Putting Americans in a fleet of super low emissions cars
>>that get 50+ mpg should be doable in 8 years. Making this a matter of
>>National Security should be supported.
>
>I think that's a great idea. Actually, we probably should have been
>doing that since the '70's. Can you think of any downside to this?
Oil people lose money?
>
>>3. Confronting Israel's continuing unwillingness to behave in a way
>>that allows us to support it with confidence that peace is possible.
>
>This one's stickier.
>What sort of changes would you expect/demand, and what means would you
>use to "entice" them? Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all the other
>peaceniks seem to rather consistently respond to *any* overt action by
>the US, by word or deed, in negative response to Israel, as a reason
>to increase bomb attacks.
Changes? Too complex to state here, but they have to do with
respecting boudaries. Serious problems will have to be dealt with,
around the issue of setlements. This is not to say that there are no
concessions needed from the other side. This problem might be
insoluble.
>
>>4. With the above (very broad brush, having many implications) work
>>toward a situation where the Middle East is no more important for us
>>to "control" than, say, most of sub saharan Africa.
>
>I think that's a worthy goal, too, except...
>I keep coming back to wondering how well off *they* would be, and not
>just monetarily, if we just completely left the region.
No worse than sub-seharan Africa and how much do we care about them?
>Does this make a difference in your policy?
>And if so, is there a way to at least ameliorate the damage (financial
>and social) of complete withdrawal?
No. They will work it out, possibly with great pain.
>
>Oh, and do we have an ethical obligation to help maintain some sort of
>stability in the nations we, in effect, have created?
We are just part of the stream of history.
>
>>5. Keep security against terrorism in the U.S. a high priority, again,
>>because of the botches of GW and predecessors.
>
>I agree with that, too.
>What in specific did you have in mind?
Overt profiling.
>
>>Staff cabinet offers with the above as Litmus tests.
>
>Fair enough :-)
I know you won't me as one who should have all the answers in order
to have any good ideas, please. We are all imperfect in our
approaches.
Jim2002
Michael Nash
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
Actually I think we went over that in last week's EAC meeting, but thanks
anyway... :-)
> What do you do?
1) Make out my last will and testament (since I didn't put my hand on a
bible or use the words "so help me gawd" when I was sworn in, I'll have
people ready to shoot me pretty much straight off)
2) Sneak up behind Dick Cheney and scare the shit out of him
3) After Cheney has been declared legally dead, announce my choice to
succeed him as VP--Jesse Ventura
4) Run all of the lobbyists, Republicans, televangelists and other cretins
out of the White House
5) Have the White House fumigated
6) Wake up Bush and tell him the party's over, and it's time to go home
7) Clean up the vomit stains on the Oval Office carpet, and throw away all
the empty Jack Daniels bottles behind the desk
8) Address a joint session of Congress to deliver my legislative agenda
and introduce my Cabinet nominees
9) Make note to self: Do NOT ride through downtown Dallas in an open
convertible
> What are your priorities?
DOMESTIC AGENDA:
1) Tax Simplification Initiative--simplify the tax code by eliminating all
itemized deductions and riducing the number of tax brackets to 3. Increase
the standard deduction and exemption amounts so that the lower and middle
classes (poorest 90% of the population) are receiving a modest to
substantial tax increase, and make up the difference in lost revenue by
raising taxes on the richest 10%.
2) Social Security--shore up the system by removing the tax cap and using
means testing to eliminate benefits for those who make more than
$150,000/year from non-SS sources of income. Reduce the tax rate to 12% (6%
employee, 6% employer), 2% of which employees would be given limited control
over to invest as they see fit.
3) Universal Health Care--see the Labor Party's Just Health Care proposal
(http://www.justhealthcare.org/).
4) Propose that the number of members in the House of Representatives be
doubled in order to reduce the size of congressional districts.
5) Propose a constitutional amendment to require a none-of-the-above option
in all races in which candidates are running unopposed, and an instant
runoff system in which voters can rank candidates by preference.
6) Adopt an aggressive program for manned exploration and colonization of
the solar system, including a return to the moon and a manned mission to
Mars.
7) Establish and work toward a goal of having the entire country running on
renewable energy sources by the year 2020.
8) Rebuilding the Wall--Eliminate the words "in god we trust" from the
currency and national motto, to be replaced by "E Pluribus Unum"; remove
"under god" from the pledge; eliminate the House and Senate chaplainries
9) Increase funding for education, and propose a program to ensure free
access to college for all students in exchange for several years of public
service
FOREIGN POLICY:
1) Build a true international consensus for removing Saddam Hussein from
power, and lead an international coalition under UN mandate to occupy and
democratize Iraq, remove Hussein and place him under arrest for war crimes
2) Lobby for a UN mandate to occupy Israel and Palestine. Erect a Berlin
Wall-type structure along the border to be patrolled by Americans on the
Israeli side, and a multinational force on the Palestinian side (to be
composed mainly of troops from Arab/Islamic nations). Assist the
Palestinians in the building of a democratic republic, and establish a
framework for an eventual reconciliation between Israel and Palestine with
the ultimate goal of being able to tear down the wall between them.
3) Spearhead the formation of an international alliance to elevate the
economic status of Third World countries. This alliance would temporarily
assume interest payments on the debt of any Third World nation that is
willing to enter into a ten-step nation-building program which would include
necessarily include democratic reforms as part of the program. For every
step in the program completed, the alliance members would permanently assume
responsibility for 10% of that nation's debt. Nations participating in this
program would also receive Marshall Plan-style aid with the goal of
elevating the standard of living in these nations to be on par with America
and Western Europe.
4) Work with the international community to address environmental issues on
a global scale.
> Who will be in your cabinet?
Secretary of State--George Mitchell
Secretary of Defense--Colin Powell
Secretary of the Interior--Ralph Nader
I'd have to give some thought to the other cabinet positions...
> Sunny
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
>
--
Michael Nash
aa # 1651
Reinstated EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers
Undermining Christian Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing
Things)
Founder, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
*************
I pledge resistance to the flag of the United States of Americhrist, and to
the theocapitalist empire for which it stands: one nation undereducated,
irredeemably, with liberty and justice for all major campaign contributors.
Michael Nash
"Michael Nash" <nas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l5Dd9.306727$Aw4.12...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
10) Propose a constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for gays
and lesbians, including the right to marry and adopt.
11) Legalize marijuana for personal use, and reduce the "punishment" for
use/possession of other drugs to successful completion of a rehab program.
Immediate amnesty for all previously convicted non-violent drug offenders
who successfully complete a rehab program. Increased funding for prevention
programs.
12) Require violent and non-violent inmates be segregated from each other
in prisons and jails at all levels. For inmates who sexually abuse other
inmates, the punishment would be mechanical castration. For prison
officials who allow it to happen, the punishment would be incarceration in
the jail where they formerly worked.
13) Outlaw the death penalty in all cases.
--
johac
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
> What are your priorities?
> Who will be in your cabinet?
I'll need some time to think this over, but I suspect that if I were
elected today, I'd spend the next four years trying to clean up the
mess made during the last two.
The only one who I would keep from the Dubya administration is Powell.
One more thing, I would give everyone in my cabinet, on my staff, and
the whole Executive Branch a copy of the Constitution. To make sure
they read it there would be daily 'pop quizzes'.
Priorities not in any order:
Universal Health coverage. (with prescription benefit)
Increased funding for science research
Election Reform (elections should not be auctions)
Tax Reform (no breaks for the top 1%)
Maintain separation of church and state
Repair foreign relations and join the rest of the world.
and more.
Then again, I doubt if I would ever be nominated, and if I were, I'm
not so sure that I would want the job.
>
> Sunny
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
It was the schoolboy who said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain (1835-1910).
MEow
moon was full and in a distance I heard stillsunny
<sun...@tiredofspam.com> say:
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
Renounce my position and run away screaming, wondering who on earth
has send me to USAmerica without my knowledge or consent...
> What are your priorities?
1) Renouncing
2) Running away screaming
3) Wondering
4) Going home.
> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
No one, since I won't have one after I've renounced my position.
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
Oh. Sorry to disappoint you, then.
--
Nikitta - aa#1759. Apatriot#18.
Remove the obvious to email me
axel heyst
stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>>2. Drug companies can go to hell. Medicine is for the benefit of
>>mankind, not the profits of greedy men.
>
>Okay :-)
>Who's going to develop new medicines?
Drug companies spend two to three times as much on marketing as they do on
R&D.
To cite one example-
Merck & Co. netted $40.36 billion in sales in 2000. Of that amount, 17
percent was profit; 15 percent was spent on advertising, marketing and
administration; and 6 percent was spent on research and development. (NY
Times July 11, 2001).
For years they've claimed that the prices they charged were needed to fund
the large investments in R&D. Now they are saying that it's because such
large profits can be made that they are driven to develop new products.
I suspect that there's profit to be made on thinner margins, but given the
pharms' lobbying muscle I wouldn't want to bet my life on them giving that
scenario a go.
See http://www.freewarehof.org/nytdrug.html for more info.
axel
tireless usenet busybody
MEow
<psyched...@flashmail.com> say:
>
> End the disastrous failure often referred to as the "War on Drugs",
> vigorously prosecute every corrupt CEO and CFO in the recent business
> scandals, institute a National Health Care system like every other
> "civilized" nation on Earth, Federally recognize gay marriage, work to
> end US dependency on foreign oil (and acknowledge in public that for
> all their lip service to the contrary, Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not
> our ally), and let Saddam Hussein know that he's going to be admitting
> either UN Inspectors or US Marines (his choice) into Iraq by September
> 30th, for a start.
>
Typical! You just *had* to choose my birthday as the day to invade
Iraq! Now I'm going to be miffed! ;0)
Mike Ruskai
>....as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
>What do you do?
>What are your priorities?
Repair the damage done by Shrub, including environmental policy (Kyoto
being one of the big ones), civil liberties, religion-based policy (e.g.
denying foreign medical aid that might go towards birth control), etc.
Put together a group of people who know the issues to discuss all problems
that come up.
Remove from posts all people who have a conflict of interest (i.e.
virtually every person Shrub has appointed).
>Who will be in your cabinet?
A large number of scientists, of many disciplines.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
William Boutwell
news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com:
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
> What are your priorities?
> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
> Sunny
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
Aw, Hell, Sunny... Ask an easier question next time.
Hmmm... My priorities?
First I'd make sure I had extremely good life insurance, 'cause the
things I'm about to do are going to be *very* unpopular.
The first thing I'd do after that is to gut the DEA. By executive
order I'd rescind the power of Federal agencies to confiscate
property without due process. Property seized but not yet sold
would be returned to its owners - provided they've not been charged
or convicted with/of crimes.
Second, I'd open up full diplomatic relations with Cuba. 45 years
is long enough to hold a grudge. Castro fooled the Eisenhower
administation fair and square. Cuba is without allies, these days,
and Castro will die soon enough.
Third, I'd direct the General Accounting Office to audit the books
of every Federal agency. Many of those agencies handle more money
than some multi-national corporations, so it wouldn't surprise me
if some of it stuck to some fingers somewhere along the line.
Fourth, I'd find out where the money that is supposed to be in the
(so-called) Social Security Trust Fund actually resides. Yeah, I
know the SSTF is a polite fiction maintained by the legislature.
I'd just like to put the screws to the dishonest sonsabitches
who've lied to us all for the past 65 years.
And then, provided a bullet from a calibre .50 sniper rifle hasn't
removed my spine from my body, I'd start selling, to the highest
bidder, Federal lands to citizens of the United States. All
proceeds from such sales would first go to social security to fill
the trust fund to its 'proper' level, and any excess to retire the
national debt.
I would scuttle the Homeland Security department. I'd scuttle the
faith-based initiative.
I'd let my friends stay in the Lincoln bedroom for free!
During my first state of the union address I'd let Congress know
that I think it is filled with vote-whores who'd sell their own
mothers for another term in office. I'd veto bills with pork
barrel riders attached to them.
And I would tell the citizens of the nation, in blunt terms,
exactly why I was vetoing those bills.
I'd want the stingiest, meanest tightwads I could find in my
cabinet. I'd find people who know how to do without. I'd find men
and women who have raised families on $400/week to fill all the
important cabinet posts. Penny pinching people would be a
refreshing change, don't you think?
--
Dale.
aa #1969
"Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.", Mark Twain.
There's an extra "r" in my email address.
*nemo*
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
Yeah, well, now I have the CIA working for *me* so I'll get that info
shortly anyhow.
>
> What do you do?
Do the job right and make damn sure Dick Cheney is *kept* in his bloody
"undisclosed location."
> What are your priorities?
1) Re-establishing an operational First Amendment and dismantling this
"faith-based initiatives" business.
2) Reviving the Kyoto Protocols
3) Making the US a fair player in the international community
4) Solving the Mid-East quagmire permanently.
> Who will be in your cabinet?
I dunno - but I'd love to have Walter Cronkite for a press secretary. {;-)
>
> Sunny
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
Or something in between, eh?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Quotemeister since March 2002
**************************************************
Wheat Cracker Experience
>>would abolish all income, sales, and property taxes.
>
>Do you think it would pass?
Not unless I had near-total grass-roots support, which is why the
extreme measures are needed.
>And what about state taxes?
>Isn't that within their province under the Constitution?
>
I'm sure something can be found to cover it. Otherwise, we'd have to
amend. We'd probably have to go that "special committee" route.
>>To balance the
>>budget, all welfare and social security cheques would be stopped
>>immediately.
>
>What do you think would happen then?
>
A bunch of mooches would complain. Working people would rejoice.
>> Public works projects would be sold off to the highest
>>bidder. Ditto schools. Ditto ditto government-run charities,
>>offices, etc.
>
>That was tried with prisons. I don't think it had a good success
>rate. Given that, what would you do to make sure it did work?
>
What business can be run in a prison? Private companies need a profit
motive. A school that charged parents (instead of everyone) could be
profitable.
>> Plus there would be a massive pay cut for all elected
>>officials. As impetus to pass these cuts, I would tell the Justice
>>Department not to go after any business for failing to collect sales
>>tax or withhold from employees' cheques.
>
>What effect do you think cutting their salaries would have on:
>1. their effectiveness
Zero divided by two is?
>2. the economy (the government is the largest employer in the US)
Only elected officials, I'm talking about.
>3. social services
>
>>I would tell every American
>>not to file a retun next year, unless they are claiming a refund.
>
>And rejoicing was heard throughout the land -- except in accountant
>offices :-)
>
Naw, they'd just start helping everyone cheat.
>>Once all that bloat is cut, I would put the money that did come in
>>(from capital-gains taxes, luxury taxes, and fines) into where it
>>belongs: military and intelligence.
>
>Okay. But where would it come from, if you eliminated all taxes?
>
See above.
>>And now my foreign policy: We find some sparsely populated section of
>>land in a terrorist country, preferably Iraq. We drop our smallest
>>nuke on it. Then I make a public statement that the rest, the big
>>ones, are aimed at the major cities, and if there's one more terrorist
>>act on US soil (including embassies and military vessels at sea), as
>>soon as we find out what country it originated from, we push the
>>button.
>
>Sort of a "walk noisily and carry a big stick" policy?
>
Exactly. 9-11 was not the result of reduced military; it was the
result of the terrorists' belief we would fail to use it.
>>No, I'm only kidding about all that. I'd just bag an intern. But I'd
>>want to do all that.
>
>LOL!
>
>Sunny
>
>who wonders how we came to the place that "President of the US"
>immediately suggests sleeping with interns
Well, I guess there could be presidential groupies. Or we could hold
a contest where the winner gets free pardons for life.
Mike Smith
=I forgot to mention, citizenship requirements are waived.
Intelligence, honesty, scruples, respect for the law,
etc., aren't important either, evidently.
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door,
and my bowels were moved for him." - Song of Solomon 5:4
stillsunny
<paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I would call upon the Congress to pass a Tax Elimination Bill which
>>>would abolish all income, sales, and property taxes.
>>
>>Do you think it would pass?
>
>Not unless I had near-total grass-roots support, which is why the
>extreme measures are needed.
Uh-oh :-)
The words "extreme measures" scares me, the citizen.
What are you talking about?
>>And what about state taxes?
>>Isn't that within their province under the Constitution?
>
>I'm sure something can be found to cover it. Otherwise, we'd have to
>amend. We'd probably have to go that "special committee" route.
I'm fairly sure both congress and the supreme court would rebel.
What then?
>>>To balance the
>>>budget, all welfare and social security cheques would be stopped
>>>immediately.
>>
>>What do you think would happen then?
>
>A bunch of mooches would complain. Working people would rejoice.
Welfare (AFDC) doesn't take up but like part of one percent of the
national budget.
Social Security goes mostly to the elderly, who paid into the system
and built the country so that they *could* retire on it.
>>> Public works projects would be sold off to the highest
>>>bidder. Ditto schools. Ditto ditto government-run charities,
>>>offices, etc.
>>
>>That was tried with prisons. I don't think it had a good success
>>rate. Given that, what would you do to make sure it did work?
>
>What business can be run in a prison? Private companies need a profit
>motive.
Actually, I think that was the problem.
It was motivated on profit. The government agreed to pay X dollars
per convict. The prisons were theoretically going to be more
efficient at cost saving techniques, thereby pocketing the margin.
Unfortunately, that led to all sorts of problems.
> A school that charged parents (instead of everyone) could be
>profitable.
Sure, and I think there's something to the argument that competition
between schools might encourage excellence. How do you feel about the
idea that a poorly educated population is, overall, a big net negative
for the country, or the correlation between compulsory public
education and the US rise to first world status?
>>> Plus there would be a massive pay cut for all elected
>>>officials. As impetus to pass these cuts, I would tell the Justice
>>>Department not to go after any business for failing to collect sales
>>>tax or withhold from employees' cheques.
>>
>>What effect do you think cutting their salaries would have on:
>>1. their effectiveness
>
>Zero divided by two is?
LOL!
You've got a point there.
>>2. the economy (the government is the largest employer in the US)
>
>Only elected officials, I'm talking about.
So you'd prefer to see people running for office who were motivated by
patriotism and self sacrifice, instead of lining their pockets? I'd
agree that would be a great change of pace. One question, though. If
you decrease salaries, but the power remains the same, do you increase
the potential for graft and vote selling sorts of problems?
<snip>
>>>Once all that bloat is cut, I would put the money that did come in
>>>(from capital-gains taxes, luxury taxes, and fines) into where it
>>>belongs: military and intelligence.
>>
>>Okay. But where would it come from, if you eliminated all taxes?
>
>See above.
Do you mean profitable public services?
But they're now in the private sector.
Or something else that I'm missing?
>>>And now my foreign policy: We find some sparsely populated section of
>>>land in a terrorist country, preferably Iraq. We drop our smallest
>>>nuke on it. Then I make a public statement that the rest, the big
>>>ones, are aimed at the major cities, and if there's one more terrorist
>>>act on US soil (including embassies and military vessels at sea), as
>>>soon as we find out what country it originated from, we push the
>>>button.
>>
>>Sort of a "walk noisily and carry a big stick" policy?
>
>Exactly. 9-11 was not the result of reduced military; it was the
>result of the terrorists' belief we would fail to use it.
>
>>>No, I'm only kidding about all that. I'd just bag an intern. But I'd
>>>want to do all that.
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>Sunny
>>
>>who wonders how we came to the place that "President of the US"
>>immediately suggests sleeping with interns
>
>Well, I guess there could be presidential groupies. Or we could hold
>a contest where the winner gets free pardons for life.
Oh, heavens.
It sounds like another reality show.
"Who wants to boff the President?"
Sunny
Karl E. Taylor
stillsunny wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 20:38:48 -0700, "Karl E. Taylor"
> <ktay...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>stillsunny wrote:
>>
>>>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>>
>>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>>
>>>What do you do?
>>>
>>
>>First up, dismantle the IRS. Second, transfer some 40 - 50 Billion
>>dollars to the U. S. Coast Guard for better ships and housing. Third,
>>fire every single one of those congressional chaplains and install
>>instead Paul Kurtz for a rational outlook on life.
>
>
> Who would be in charge of tax collection?
> And what's wrong with Coast Guard housing and ships?
> I thought the Coast Guard had Navy vessels?
> I'm honestly ignorant here.
>
The source of income would be required by law to send the tax. The
Federal Reserve is where it would be sent to.
The Coast Guard is still out there trying to save lives and protect the
coasts with ships from WWII and Korea. Housing is some of the lowest
I've ever seen. In fact, it is not uncommon on the east coast to have
USCG leased housing right along Section 8 housing, in areas that the
police don't even like to travel into.
>
>>>What are your priorities?
>>
>>Patch up relations with the UN and EU. Become part of the global
>>community, instead of trying to run it. Clean up my own back yard
>>before I start to tackle all of the worlds problems. To wit:
>>
>>1. Universal health care for all people in this country, not just
>>Americans.
>
>
> How comprehensive?
>
You need a heart, we find you a heart. It covers every thing. Cradle
to grave, to coin a phrase.
>
>>2. Drug companies can go to hell. Medicine is for the benefit of
>>mankind, not the profits of greedy men.
>
>
> Okay :-)
> Who's going to develop new medicines?
>
That's what research through hospitals and labs is for. And companies
can still develop new meds. I just would not let them charge 80 year
old grandmothers through the nasal cavity for them.
>
>>3. Jobs. And first and foremost is to hire all those laid off IT folks
>>into a new government agency to make solar, wind, and other clean energy
>>sources work, and work cheaply.
>
>
> Actually, I like this idea.
> We waste a great deal of money already.
> If we could put those excellent brains to work on something of
> national interest, we'd kill two rocks with one bird.
>
And in turn help get us out from under the middle east thumb. Not that
we were to bright when we put our selves there in the first place. But
there you go.
>
>>4. Education. Transfer another 40 - 50 billion dollars from the DoD,
>>to the NEA. Kids come first, so lets have first rate kids in our schools.
>
>
> I have to confess, I'm not a huge fan of the NEA.
> <want to know something funny? Clinton appointed my ex-governor, Dick
> Riley, as Secretary of Education -- and my state was finishing dead
> last in the nation in education>
> I do agree that education is a top priority. We're raising
> generations of poorly educated kids.
> What would you like to see the NEA do to improve education?
>
Educate teachers. Oh wait, oxymoron there.
Maybe it's not the NEA I'm thinking of. But if I were in charge, the
federal budget would turn around, with a very large portion of the
budget going to kids in school, and a much smaller one going to the
military. I would not gut the military, but, they would not be the
sacred cow either.
>
>>5. Flat tax. I don't care how you make it, 5% of it belongs to your
>>country. No, you can't get it back, and no you can't get out of it.
>>It's the price you pay for living in this society.
>
>
> <happy sigh>
> Yes, you have my vote.
> Oh, yeah. You're already president.
> The question is, is 5% going to be enough?
> And is there a minimum below which you don't have to pay?
>
Well, along with income, there would be corporate as well. 5% of
$60,000 may not seem like all that much. 5% of 2.2 billion dollars is a
whole nother matter. And no, there would not be a minimum. Everyone
pays, no one skates.
Is it going to be enough, well, there is one word that is always ignored
in the term Federal Budget. Guess which word that is?
>
>>6. John Ashcroft promoted to head window washer on the National
>>Archives staff. His only window to clean, the one covering the
>>constitution.
>
>
> LOL!
> Perfect!
>
I thought you'd like that.
>
>>7. Tell Israel that they have 30 days to knock off their shit, or I
>>pull the plug on their aid packages.
>
>
> What shit, specifically?
> <that's not a challenge -- I think some of their moves have been
> either boneheaded or counterproductive, but they've got a heck of a
> mess there, and a bunch of groups who respond to every offer of peace
> with an increase in terror attacks>
>
Come on now sunny. You know exactly what I'm talking about here. They
have no business pulling the land grab crap they have been doing since
1968. No reason what so ever to expand their territory by using the
excuse of "we moved in the military to protect our settlers." when the
settlers had no good reason to be their in the first place.
But don't think for one second I'd let the Palestinians off either.
Personally, I'm something of an isolationist. I'd back off and enjoy
the show, watching them try and kill each other off.
Not my problem mon!
>>8. Mobilize the FBI, Secret Service, US Marshals Service and local law
>>enforcement to round up and charge all domestic terrorist. Let's see,
>>we can start with Focus on the Family, Operation Rescue, Army of God,
>>Westbouro Baptist Church, CBN, and any other "religious" organization
>>that supports and or demands terrorist actions against those that do not
>>agree with them.
>
>
> Some of those I don't know.
> Some I agree with.
> How is Focus on the Family a terrorist organization?
>
By lending aid and support to some of the above listed groups. FoF is
well known for it's support of Operation Rescue. FoF is just as guilty
of domestic terrorism as OR is.
>
>>9. Inform his whollyness, the pope, that the United States does not
>>recognize the vatican as a country, or as a world power or leader. That
>>in fact the USA will from this day forward treat the vatican and the
>>pope as any other religious organization. And should they attempt to
>>push their will onto americans, americans will push back.
>
>
> In what ways do you see the Vatican pushing?
> And how would you push back?
>
They push by constantly attempting to set global policy. Why is a small
town in Italy, entitled to a seat on the UN? Why is a religious
organization, recognized around the world as a political force?
I'd start pushing back by removing tax exemptions for religious
organizations. Remember above, 5%. I don't care how you make it, but
that cream on the top belongs to me.
>
>>>Who will be in your cabinet?
>>>
>>
>>Vice President: James Randi (My dose of reality)
>>Sec. of State: Mr. Powell
>>Sec. of Defense: Warlord Steve
>>Attn. General: Don't care, so long as they are from the ACLU
>>Sec. of the Interior: Micky
>>Sec. of Transportation: I have to think on that one
>>Dir of the National Science Foundation: Dr. Robert Ballard
>>
>>And so forth and so on. I'd find good people for all of them.
>
>
> It sounds like it.
>
So, do you want to be my second advisor. You'd have to be second since
my wife is my first advisor. But I'd listen to what you'd say any day.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@yahoo.com
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Ted King
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:50:33 GMT, Ted King <lod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com>,
> >
> >> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
> >>
> >> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
> >>
> >> What do you do?
> >
> >would work hard to establish a mechanism for a gradual change to world
> >government. Then I would expect not to be president much longer.
>
> A statesman! At last!
>
> What kind of different world government do you envision?
One that a majority of the people in the world would agree to. I would
ask the United Nations to form a committee of well respected diplomats
who are not known to have a strong agenda of their own on the issue
and have them take a few years going around the world talking to
people about how it might be done. And then have them draft a series
of proposals. The General Assembly would then debate and vote on a
proposal to be put forward and voted on by a plebiscite of all adult
people worldwide (secret ballot). I would give the permenant members
of the Security Council veto power over any proposal that would be
sent to the people - but a veto would require the concurrence of three
of the members of the Security Council.
In rough terms, I think Locke had the right general practical ideas
about government - legislative, executive, judicial - with checks and
balances. And the government should be founded by a constitution with
a somewhat democratic mechanism for amendment. Also in rough terms I
think each level of government is optimally suited for certain kinds
of services; e.g., land zoning and education - local government,
"intercity" road construction and maintenance and coastal regulation -
state, and so on. So in rough terms I would like to see an
international government first focus on problems between nations - try
to come up with a system to resolve differences without conflict
between nations and set up a coherent system of laws regulating
international commerce and criminal behavior. In rough terms I think
the international government should leave as much autonomy with
national and local governments as possible, but have the legitimacy to
intervene when those governments are not letting people practice
minimal freedoms.
I know this is all an extremely tricky business and the devil is
definitely in the details.
>
> >> What are your priorities?
> >
> >Free birth control everywhere in the world.
>
> What if they didn't want it?
Tell the men they should let the women speak for themselves.
>
> >Give a $100 billion dollar
> >prize to anyone who can make fusion power workable (but they have to
> >make the technology available to everyone).
>
> Only fusion power? (I like the prize idea, because it would compensate
> for loss of revenue if the technology were universally available)
I like the ideas some have put forth to discourage use of fossil fuels
and would support those. I just happen to think that if we don't get
the fusion thing figured out pretty soon within a few decades there
will be increasing temptation to start building fission power plants
like crazy. We humans have become electric power hungry critters and
aren't likely to give it up, so we're going to create that power
however we can. I just hope we can do it with fusion rather than
fission because I think it will probably be safer and better for the
environment.
>
> >> Who will be in your cabinet?
> >
> >Attorney General - you
> >
> >Secretary of State - keep Powell
> >
> >Everybody else - I need to think about that some more.
>
> Thanks, you :-)
>
> Sunny
>
> who'd better go get a law degree, then
Why not? Not that I think you'd need one to be a good Attorney
General.
Ted
stillsunny
<jJim...@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> said:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:40:16 GMT, Jim2002
>><jJim...@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>>Priorities:
>>>
>>>1. Building consensus with our international friends toward a peaceful
>>>but resolute stance toward Iraq. The only reason this is priority #1
>>>is because GW has made such a mess of the situation. Signing the Kyoto
>>>treaty would be a first step.
>>
>>I agree with that, in part. I'm still puzzled as to the out of the
>>blue saber rattling. I'm curious, though, how *at this point* you
>>could build a consensus.
>
>I couldn't. I don't have the political skills. But it's a dream.
Actually, maybe you could.
>>Two specifics: If you had information which was as factual, provable,
>>and trustworthy as it is possible to be, but which you couldn't reveal
>>to the American people, that Saddam indeed was within weeks of
>>finishing a nuclear weapon which could take out Israel (or something
>>along those lines) would that affect your goal of consensus?
>
>The situation in which I am not able to reveal that information to the
>American people is the situation in which the American experiment has
>failed. I would reveal it, come what may.
That's very appealing. I am tired of being lied to by politicians.
If my tax dollars are going to fund a conflict that my sons are going
to fight, making me at least partially responsible for the death
and/or suffering of the other guy, I would like to have a reason for
it more concrete than "Iraq funds terrorists," or something.
>>And do you know (because I don't, honestly) *why* the US didn't sign
>>the Kyoto treaty?
>
>No, I don't.
I may have to look that up. I simply don't know the answer.
The only parallel I can think of is the griping that the US hasn't
signed the UN Rights of the Child, or whatever it's called. I looked
that one up, and found that the important things (with the exception
of the provision regarding the death penalty or life in prison for
those under 18) we were already doing, and in most cases, doing better
and more aggressively than the signatories. There were a few
provisions in that paper that I took exception to, and some that just
looked plain stupid. At risk of sounding self serving, I wonder if
it's some anachronism about the US feeling a commitment to actually
*do* the things it signs on to do, and not being willing to sign if
it's not willing to do them.
>>>2. Establishing a sense of economic stability and "directedness"
>>>toward an enduring recovery of confidence in the American economic
>>>system. Using it as an engine of change, as was done in th Space Race,
>>>would be good. Turning the economy away from oil dependence could be
>>>part of this. Putting Americans in a fleet of super low emissions cars
>>>that get 50+ mpg should be doable in 8 years. Making this a matter of
>>>National Security should be supported.
>>
>>I think that's a great idea. Actually, we probably should have been
>>doing that since the '70's. Can you think of any downside to this?
>
>Oil people lose money?
And probably auto makers, at least at first.
>>>3. Confronting Israel's continuing unwillingness to behave in a way
>>>that allows us to support it with confidence that peace is possible.
>>
>>This one's stickier.
>>What sort of changes would you expect/demand, and what means would you
>>use to "entice" them? Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all the other
>>peaceniks seem to rather consistently respond to *any* overt action by
>>the US, by word or deed, in negative response to Israel, as a reason
>>to increase bomb attacks.
>
>Changes? Too complex to state here, but they have to do with
>respecting boudaries. Serious problems will have to be dealt with,
>around the issue of setlements.
I completely agree. There's been some double dealing, no doubt about
it. You can't make nice speeches about an eventual Palestinian state
while you're pushing Jewish settlements as fast as you can.
>This is not to say that there are no
>concessions needed from the other side. This problem might be
>insoluble.
That region seems to highlight a difficulty in US foreign policy.
What we *do* has serious ramifications, and what we *don't* do has
them as well.
>>>4. With the above (very broad brush, having many implications) work
>>>toward a situation where the Middle East is no more important for us
>>>to "control" than, say, most of sub saharan Africa.
>>
>>I think that's a worthy goal, too, except...
>>I keep coming back to wondering how well off *they* would be, and not
>>just monetarily, if we just completely left the region.
>
>No worse than sub-seharan Africa and how much do we care about them?
I dunno.
Your point is reasonable, though. Were it not for a need for
inexpensive oil, how much *would* we care what they did to each other?
>>Does this make a difference in your policy?
>>And if so, is there a way to at least ameliorate the damage (financial
>>and social) of complete withdrawal?
>
>No. They will work it out, possibly with great pain.
>
>>Oh, and do we have an ethical obligation to help maintain some sort of
>>stability in the nations we, in effect, have created?
>
>We are just part of the stream of history.
>>
>>>5. Keep security against terrorism in the U.S. a high priority, again,
>>>because of the botches of GW and predecessors.
>>
>>I agree with that, too.
>>What in specific did you have in mind?
>
>Overt profiling.
>
>>>Staff cabinet offers with the above as Litmus tests.
>>
>>Fair enough :-)
>
>I know you won't me as one who should have all the answers in order
>to have any good ideas, please. We are all imperfect in our
>approaches.
Oh, I know. I appreciate your input, seriously.
One thing's becoming clear from this thread. There are several areas
a lot of people agree on. The sticky part is, how to get there,
trying to see all the effects any approach is going to have. I didn't
mean to seem like I was picking your ideas apart.
Sunny
>
>Jim2002
stillsunny
<spammoc.r...@begoneynnaht.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:06:27 -0400, stillsunny wrote:
>
>>....as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>>What do you do?
>>What are your priorities?
>
>Repair the damage done by Shrub, including environmental policy (Kyoto
>being one of the big ones), civil liberties, religion-based policy (e.g.
>denying foreign medical aid that might go towards birth control), etc.
Do *you* know why the US didn't sign the Kyoto treaty?
I mean, something close to the real reason, whatever it is?
I don't.
>Put together a group of people who know the issues to discuss all problems
>that come up.
I have to agree with that one.
No one person can know everything. Having smart people, who are
intimately familiar with the specifics, but who share your vision, is
almost required.
>Remove from posts all people who have a conflict of interest (i.e.
>virtually every person Shrub has appointed).
Who would you replace them with?
This is just a local thing, but in my county, there's a planning
commission which is an appointed body. Its purpose is to streamline
the process to change zoning on properties, because county council is
comprised of plain old citizens who aren't necessarily experts in how
development works, or affects the community. It's also an unpaid
position (which I haven't figured out yet). What they _want_ are
experts, which means realtors and developers. In fact, they need
them, because they have first hand experience. But the thing is,
those same realtors are often those that profit, directly or
indirectly, from the things they pass up to council for approval. I
don't know how to get the expertise in any given area without running
into conflicts of interest. Do you have an idea? Are you thinking,
perhaps, of specific areas or people, or specific conflicts of
interest?
>>Who will be in your cabinet?
>
>A large number of scientists, of many disciplines.
That almost sounds like a throwaway line, except it makes sense.
You'd want people who could combine empathy or determination with a
pragmatic approach, so that, for instance, someone concerned about the
plight of urban minorities, with expertise in social or behavioral
sciences, would be more likely to put together realistic expectations
with some effective means of getting there.
Sunny
Reverend Lovejoy
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
> What are your priorities?
>
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
(As they pop into my mind, not in any priority order)
1) Decriminalization of victimless crimes (ie marijuana and softer drugs,
elimination of age bans on alcohol). Regulation and control of harder drugs,
as well as regulation and control over prostitution, rather than pretend
that making it illegal makes it go away.
2) Public education reform. To start with, every teacher in the country
should receive a 6 figure salary. Eliminate or strongly revise standardized
testing. Work from there.
3) Public health reform. No firm ideas there, but there needs to be a new
system.
4) Launch a massive overseas PR battle. The first step to ending terrorism
is getting rid of the forces which make people hate us so much. This should
probably take the form of a campaign to end world poverty (a bit idealistic,
but I'd have some good advisors to tell me how it might be done.) In any
case though, virtually anything you do with regards to foreign policy would
be better than what Bush has been doing lately.
5) Ecological reform. No more SUVs. Massive funding for mass transit. Put in
a lot of money, and a lot of incentive, for alternative clean fuels.
6) SOMETHING to change the litigous nature of our society. The number of law
suits is just ridiculous, and even it takes personally smacking everyone
that starts a frivolous suit, it'd be worth it.
Hmmm, that's all for now
--
"This so called new religion is nothing
but a pack of weird rituals and chants
designed to take away the money of
fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40
times, but first let's pass the collection
plate."
Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
stillsunny
Well, that's the thing.
Corporations are supposed to make money.
It keeps them productive, and keeps their stockholders happy, and
keeps their employees paid.
That's their purpose.
I don't know how you can limit how much they're allowed to earn, when
the motivation for being productive *is* how much they can earn. The
market itself determines that, in part, too. It's how much people are
willing to pay, and how many people *can* pay.
Artificially limiting what they're allowed to earn basically means
you've just assumed a power you don't have, which you can also use on
other corporations -- which is going to be a powerful political tool
"I promise, if elected, that I'll cut the prices of cars, and the
price of houses."
But it's going to ultimately inhibit the very thing that drives the
productivity in the first place.
It's one thing to smack down corporations who are profiting without
actually producing anything (Enron et al) What you're proposing is to
penalize those who are profiting *for* producing things, and they're
things we all want.
However...
I wouldn't mind a moritorium on direct to consumer marketing of
prescription drugs. Something about that bothers me. The trouble is,
if one company does it, then the market says they all have to do it,
to protect their market share. A law prohibiting any of it would free
up some of that percentage spent on advertising, and would mean that
the drug companies would have to convince the doctors, who are the
experts and have (theoretically) the best interests of the patient at
heart, of the efficacy of their products, rather than having a patient
show up and tell their doctor they want the purple pill. It puts the
doctor on the spot. If he knows the green pill works equally well,
and costs one tenth the money, but his patient's not going to be happy
unless it's purple, and is willing to pay for the purple, he's simply
going to prescribe the purple.
> See http://www.freewarehof.org/nytdrug.html for more info.
Interesting.
I tried to search this topic a few days ago, but it's tedious to sort
through the information.
Sunny
> axel
>tireless usenet busybody
>
>
stillsunny
wrote:
>stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>
>=I forgot to mention, citizenship requirements are waived.
>
>Intelligence, honesty, scruples, respect for the law,
>etc., aren't important either, evidently.
They are, if they're important to you, Mr. President.
Basically, I'm very interested in how people *would* address the
various issues the US faces at the moment. There are some good ideas
floating here. Perhaps if we (the American people, with assistance
from our friends) start thinking more about which direction we want to
go, and how to get there, instead of just throwing our hands up, we'd
be more inclined to vote for a statesman who's going to tell us the
truth and respect the law, instead of a person who's going to tell us
the stuff we want to hear, and then do the opposite.
I think I'm fomenting revolution :-)
Sunny
stillsunny
You didn't at all, cutie :-)
Okay, you don't have to be president.
I need you in an advisory capacity.
One of the things that's emerging from this thread is a growing call
for universal health care. Truth is, I like the idea that anybody
could just go to the doctor when they needed to, irrespective of
finances, and could get the treatment they need, irrespective of
insurance rules.
I tend not to trust government to be very efficient at that, though,
and I'm concerned about the inhibiting effect it will have on research
and development. Trouble is, I don't have firsthand experience of
what it's like to live in a country with socialized medicine. Do you
mind a few questions?
Do you think it's a good thing?
What percent of the budget (if you know) goes toward it?
How do people feel generally about how much money they have to pay in
taxes to support it?
How accessible are services, from basic, general practice sorts of
things to the high tech, cutting edge sorts of things (like organ
transplants or laser surgery)? In other words, can you get the
service, and how long does it take to, for instance, schedule an
appointment?
Are there still newer and better procedures and so forth being
developed in socialized countries?
Are there things you can't get or have done, due to expense?
Basically, the overall positives and negatives.
Please?
Sunny
Jim2002
No problem, thanks for the stimulations topic. It helps me appreciate
the difficulties of the situation and how easy it is for the sideline
quarterback.
Jim2002
J Forbes
>
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:04:14 GMT, raven1
> <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:06:27 -0400, stillsunny
> >
> >>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
> >>
> >>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
> >>
> >>What do you do?
> >
> >
> >>What are your priorities?
> >
> >End the disastrous failure often referred to as the "War on Drugs",
>
> I do think marijuana needs to be at least decriminalized, and probably
> overtly legalized. It would not only clear the courts and jails, but
> would give farmers two different cash crops -- marijuana and hemp for
> use in making paper and so forth, which has itself some ecological
> benefits, as we'd not be cutting down trees. I'm not sure about the
> harder stuff, though.
At least, get the relative dangers of pot and booze and tobacco
to be reflected in law.....it's bass ackwards now.
> >vigorously prosecute every corrupt CEO and CFO in the recent business
> >scandals,
>
> That, I agree with. People need to abide by the law, no matter who
> they are. And if what they did wasn't illegal, then it needs to be.
>
> How do you feel about eliminating part of the shield incorporation
> provides, so that directors can be *criminally* prosecuted in some
> cases (say, if they know their cars blow up, and sell them anyway).
Well....perhaps put a big sticker on the dashboard of cop cars,
that says: "don't park on the freeway"
Manufacturers are not responsible for *all* the things that
stupid people can do with their products.
> >"civilized" nation on Earth, Federally recognize gay marriage,
>
> Yep.
> Anybody should be able to enter into a legal contract who chooses to.
> Making it illegal is stupid.
Of course we'll have to also be willing to allow
polygamy.....think about it. Not that I object :)
> >work to
> >end US dependency on foreign oil (and acknowledge in public that for
> >all their lip service to the contrary, Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not
> >our ally),
>
> I agree with ending dependence on foreign oil.
I don't. If we didn't depend on foreign oil, then we'd be using
up OUR oil! where would that put us in the long term?
But the president ought to go ahead and tell us that oil is a
very big part of all mideast foreign policy...instead of
pretending it's not important.
I even heard a rumor that as soon as we had some control over
Afghanistan, we started working on building that long needed
pipeline from the Caspian sea out to the ocean.
> > and let Saddam Hussein know that he's going to be admitting
> >either UN Inspectors or US Marines (his choice) into Iraq by September
> >30th, for a start.
>
> <grin>
> No playing games there. I like that better than veiled threats and
> halfhearted feints.
> Do you care if the rest of the world (including the Arab heavy UN)
> bails on the US on this one?
Unfortunately, Bush has been approaching the Iraq situation from
an almost religious angle...claiming that they are evil, and
that's enough reason to attack. If we play the game more
carefully, we could probably build support from at least part of
the rest of the world.
Jim
EAC Agenda Publishing Plant
J Forbes
-snip-
> I think the call will be easier when we develop alternative fuel
> sources. Actually, I suspect a lot of the technology is already
> there, but bought up by big oil and auto makers because it would
> effectively crash the massive infrastructure they already have in
> place. (I sound like a conspiracy theorist, don't I?)
Actually, the technology *is* there...but it's been replaced by
cars. We used to get along just fine with horses and feet and
trains and ships in the 19th century.
The reason that fuel eficient technology is not being used, is
that it's not economically feasible. Oil is cheap, and will
stay that way for a long time (politics allowing). In places
where there is some common sense in politics, there is a very
high tax on oil, and people don't use as much of it. But in the
US, the short term economic benefits are a political priority,
so the gov't helps keep oil prices down, and encourages us to
use as much as possible.
There's no conspiracy...except perhaps that some folks like
making a lot of money, and they are adept at using our system of
gov't to help them make more. And we go along for the
ride...because it's comfy.
I like to tell folks that I drive something that gets abysmal
gas mileage, because I'm trying to use up all the gasoline as
fast as I can so we can move on to more efficient technology.
Jim
EAC Oil Price Manipulation Board
MEow
moon was full and in a distance I heard stillsunny
<sun...@tiredofspam.com> say:
<snip question>
> >> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> >> discussion, too
> >
> >Oh. Sorry to disappoint you, then.
>
> You didn't at all, cutie :-)
Aw! You're so sweet! :0)
> Okay, you don't have to be president.
YAY! I get to not be a president! Sunny permitted me! Oh joy! :0)
> I need you in an advisory capacity.
*gulp* Eh - okay.
>
> One of the things that's emerging from this thread is a growing call
> for universal health care. Truth is, I like the idea that anybody
> could just go to the doctor when they needed to, irrespective of
> finances, and could get the treatment they need, irrespective of
> insurance rules.
Personally, I don't understand why you don't have it...
>
> I tend not to trust government to be very efficient at that, though,
> and I'm concerned about the inhibiting effect it will have on research
> and development. Trouble is, I don't have firsthand experience of
> what it's like to live in a country with socialized medicine. Do you
> mind a few questions?
Not at all.
>
> Do you think it's a good thing?
Yes. Admittedly there are some problems like long lines of waiting to
get to the hospital (for certain operations), which the politicians
keep promising to make smaller... Some believe that it should be done
by privatisation of the hospitals and some believe that it should be
done with more money to the hospitals, but all agree that it should be
available to people, regardless of their income... I don't understand
how a country can have people who can't afford to go to the doctor and
still call itself "developed" - It's obvious that having people in
good health is also the best for the country, as a whole...
> What percent of the budget (if you know) goes toward it?
I'm afraid that I don't know at all...
> How do people feel generally about how much money they have to pay in
> taxes to support it?
Far most people are fine with it - I've never met people who were
against it (that is, of people who live where there is such a thing).
even those on the right who'd like to privatise almost everything
thinks that health-care should be available for all, regardless of
income... A lot of people don't mind paying fairly high taxes, as long
as they feel that they get something for it... Some feel that they
don't, but their complaints isn't on having to pay for a health system
- Rather that the health system is too bad and too expensive...
> How accessible are services, from basic, general practice sorts of
> things to the high tech, cutting edge sorts of things (like organ
> transplants or laser surgery)? In other words, can you get the
> service, and how long does it take to, for instance, schedule an
> appointment?
On some things there's a problem with long waiting-lines, as said...
> Are there still newer and better procedures and so forth being
> developed in socialized countries?
AFAIK, yes - But my knowledge in this area is very small.
> Are there things you can't get or have done, due to expense?
For some strange reason (which is beyond me), then you have to pay for
dental work, yourself, but apart from that, all health related
operations are available to all (AFAIK). Purely cosmetic surgery is,
of course something people need to pay for, themselves - as I think is
completely fair, since they don't strictly *need* it...
>
> Basically, the overall positives and negatives.
I've answered to the best of my abilities. I hope you found it useful
and I hope that not too many people will flame me :0)
stillsunny
<ktay...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>stillsunny wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 20:38:48 -0700, "Karl E. Taylor"
>> <ktay...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>stillsunny wrote:
>>>
>>>>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>>>
>>>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>>>
>>>>What do you do?
>>>>
>>>
>>>First up, dismantle the IRS. Second, transfer some 40 - 50 Billion
>>>dollars to the U. S. Coast Guard for better ships and housing. Third,
>>>fire every single one of those congressional chaplains and install
>>>instead Paul Kurtz for a rational outlook on life.
>>
>>
>> Who would be in charge of tax collection?
>> And what's wrong with Coast Guard housing and ships?
>> I thought the Coast Guard had Navy vessels?
>> I'm honestly ignorant here.
>>
>The source of income would be required by law to send the tax. The
>Federal Reserve is where it would be sent to.
So you'd basically make a separate office in the Federal Reserve to
handle collection, instead of an entirely different office?
That makes sense, especially since you've streamlined the tax law.
>The Coast Guard is still out there trying to save lives and protect the
>coasts with ships from WWII and Korea. Housing is some of the lowest
>I've ever seen. In fact, it is not uncommon on the east coast to have
>USCG leased housing right along Section 8 housing, in areas that the
>police don't even like to travel into.
That's not right.
>>
>>>>What are your priorities?
>>>
>>>Patch up relations with the UN and EU. Become part of the global
>>>community, instead of trying to run it. Clean up my own back yard
>>>before I start to tackle all of the worlds problems. To wit:
>>>
>>>1. Universal health care for all people in this country, not just
>>>Americans.
>>
>>
>> How comprehensive?
>>
>You need a heart, we find you a heart. It covers every thing. Cradle
>to grave, to coin a phrase.
This seems to be a big issue.
My question would be, how are you going to pay for it?
There's a practical thing, too. Even in a consumer system, people
want the very best health care available, irrespective of cost. How
can you curtail excessive use of free medical care (that's worded
poorly, but I can't think how else to put it).
>>>2. Drug companies can go to hell. Medicine is for the benefit of
>>>mankind, not the profits of greedy men.
>>
>>
>> Okay :-)
>> Who's going to develop new medicines?
>>
>That's what research through hospitals and labs is for. And companies
>can still develop new meds. I just would not let them charge 80 year
>old grandmothers through the nasal cavity for them.
Do you have any numbers that show a comparison between research
results from public institutions versus private companies? (that's a
serious question -- it's darned hard to look that stuff up)
Under universal health care, grandmothers aren't going to be paying
for them at all, except through taxes.
>>>3. Jobs. And first and foremost is to hire all those laid off IT folks
>>>into a new government agency to make solar, wind, and other clean energy
>>>sources work, and work cheaply.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I like this idea.
>> We waste a great deal of money already.
>> If we could put those excellent brains to work on something of
>> national interest, we'd kill two rocks with one bird.
>>
>And in turn help get us out from under the middle east thumb. Not that
>we were to bright when we put our selves there in the first place. But
>there you go.
It's not always possible to see every result. It's probably not a
good thing we're there, but I have to say, there's a lot that's good
about the country and the economy that had its foundation in access to
a consistent and abundant supply of cheap energy.
I do agree that less entanglement in the middle east is optimal for
this country, however, and most people seem to agree.
One thing I'm curious about -- do you have any opinion as to what
would happen *in* the middle east if, say, within five years, we had
upfitted everything to some new, alternative energy supply, and simply
didn't need them any longer?
>>
>>>4. Education. Transfer another 40 - 50 billion dollars from the DoD,
>>>to the NEA. Kids come first, so lets have first rate kids in our schools.
>>
>>
>> I have to confess, I'm not a huge fan of the NEA.
>> <want to know something funny? Clinton appointed my ex-governor, Dick
>> Riley, as Secretary of Education -- and my state was finishing dead
>> last in the nation in education>
>> I do agree that education is a top priority. We're raising
>> generations of poorly educated kids.
>> What would you like to see the NEA do to improve education?
>>
>Educate teachers. Oh wait, oxymoron there.
LOL!
>Maybe it's not the NEA I'm thinking of. But if I were in charge, the
>federal budget would turn around, with a very large portion of the
>budget going to kids in school, and a much smaller one going to the
>military. I would not gut the military, but, they would not be the
>sacred cow either.
I don't mind federal dollars going to schools.
I only get frustrated, on a local level, with the rules and guidelines
that accompany that money, which so often have very little to do with
the actual, day to day problems of any one school. It seems to create
more of a burden, which frustrates good teachers and makes them want
to bail.
What I can't figure out is how to jiggle the beaurocratic system the
military and other government agencies operate under, which *makes*
them such inefficient spenders of tax money.
>>>5. Flat tax. I don't care how you make it, 5% of it belongs to your
>>>country. No, you can't get it back, and no you can't get out of it.
>>>It's the price you pay for living in this society.
>>
>>
>> <happy sigh>
>> Yes, you have my vote.
>> Oh, yeah. You're already president.
>> The question is, is 5% going to be enough?
>> And is there a minimum below which you don't have to pay?
>>
>Well, along with income, there would be corporate as well. 5% of
>$60,000 may not seem like all that much. 5% of 2.2 billion dollars is a
>whole nother matter. And no, there would not be a minimum. Everyone
>pays, no one skates.
I think I remember hearing some good arguments somewhere against a
flat tax, but the truth is, I can't recall them. It would certainly
eliminate the human inclination to do less than one's best, because
one's best bumps you into a higher tax bracket.
How do you feel about eliminating income tax altogether, and going
with a national sales tax?
>Is it going to be enough, well, there is one word that is always ignored
>in the term Federal Budget. Guess which word that is?
That would be... budget :-)
>>>7. Tell Israel that they have 30 days to knock off their shit, or I
>>>pull the plug on their aid packages.
>>
>>
>> What shit, specifically?
>> <that's not a challenge -- I think some of their moves have been
>> either boneheaded or counterproductive, but they've got a heck of a
>> mess there, and a bunch of groups who respond to every offer of peace
>> with an increase in terror attacks>
>>
>Come on now sunny. You know exactly what I'm talking about here.
Honest, I didn't. People have gripes about Israel for all sorts of
reasons.
>They
>have no business pulling the land grab crap they have been doing since
>1968. No reason what so ever to expand their territory by using the
>excuse of "we moved in the military to protect our settlers." when the
>settlers had no good reason to be their in the first place.
I wonder. It's possible *then* they had at least a justifiable reason
to be there. I do agree that holding out the carrot of "one day,
maybe a Palestinian state," while building a Jewish one, is double
dealing, and has had a very, very negative effect on the whole
situation.
>But don't think for one second I'd let the Palestinians off either.
I went back recently and read what happened between Jordan and the
Palestinians in 1970. The parallels are amazing. What's more amazing
is that the west, and even Israel, lauds King Hussein as a
representative of Arab moderation, while condemning Israel as horrible
for actually responding a whole lot more moderately than he did. Did
you realize, King Hussein responded (finally) so ... erm ... firmly to
the Arafat led Palestinians in his land that there were Palestinians
applying for asylum in *Israel*?
>Personally, I'm something of an isolationist. I'd back off and enjoy
>the show, watching them try and kill each other off.
I do wonder what would happen, seriously.
I can envision all sorts of scenarios, most of them contradictory.
>Not my problem mon!
The real question -- seriously -- is, would it eventually *become* the
US problem, if things got sufficiently hot in that area?
I simply don't know.
>>>8. Mobilize the FBI, Secret Service, US Marshals Service and local law
>>>enforcement to round up and charge all domestic terrorist. Let's see,
>>>we can start with Focus on the Family, Operation Rescue, Army of God,
>>>Westbouro Baptist Church, CBN, and any other "religious" organization
>>>that supports and or demands terrorist actions against those that do not
>>>agree with them.
>>
>>
>> Some of those I don't know.
>> Some I agree with.
>> How is Focus on the Family a terrorist organization?
>>
>By lending aid and support to some of the above listed groups. FoF is
>well known for it's support of Operation Rescue. FoF is just as guilty
>of domestic terrorism as OR is.
I might need to look that up.
Do you have a link?
>>
>>>9. Inform his whollyness, the pope, that the United States does not
>>>recognize the vatican as a country, or as a world power or leader. That
>>>in fact the USA will from this day forward treat the vatican and the
>>>pope as any other religious organization. And should they attempt to
>>>push their will onto americans, americans will push back.
>>
>> In what ways do you see the Vatican pushing?
>> And how would you push back?
>>
>They push by constantly attempting to set global policy. Why is a small
>town in Italy, entitled to a seat on the UN? Why is a religious
>organization, recognized around the world as a political force?
I don't know.
It's not my impression that the vatican has *that* much influence on
US policy, though they may globally.
>I'd start pushing back by removing tax exemptions for religious
>organizations. Remember above, 5%. I don't care how you make it, but
>that cream on the top belongs to me.
I actually have no problem with taxing churches.
I just don't know how you'd do it.
Most of them have incorporated as non-profit organizations.
Plus, there's the reverse weirdness of church/state separation.
You'd be directly taxing religious bodies who oppose some of the
things their tax dollars go for (for instance, the Methodist Church
came out against the war on terror).
We do it to individuals, but I wonder if there isn't a constitutional
dilemma there with respect to religious organizations.
I'm just musing. I don't know the answer to that, either.
>So, do you want to be my second advisor. You'd have to be second since
>my wife is my first advisor. But I'd listen to what you'd say any day.
Shoot, yeah. I can always be trusted to come up with an opinion on
just about anything :-)
Sunny
Beowulf
<sun...@tiredofspam.com> ejaculated:
>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:06:27 -0400, stillsunny
><sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>
>>...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>>What do you do?
>>What are your priorities?
>>Who will be in your cabinet?
>>
>>Sunny
>>
>>who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
>>discussion, too
>
>I forgot to mention, citizenship requirements are waived. Anybody can
>play :-)
1. Abolish the Department of Fatherland Security.
2. Repeal the Patriot Act
3. Legalize pot.
4. Tell Israel to fuck off.
5. Have a Coke and a smile.
6. Teach the World to Sing.
---
Resurrection is for those who didn't get it right the first time.
- Otep, "Sacrilege"
Fred Stone
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 20:29:15 -0400, Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
> >stillsunny wrote:
> >
> >> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
> >>
> >> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
> >>
> >> What do you do?
> >
> >Get full intelligence briefings on *everything*. 99% of the news
> >is spin, and I'm the spinn*er*, not the spin*ee*.
>
> An informed president. Good priority.
>
> >> What are your priorities?
> >
> >Defend our friends.
> >Build our economy.
> >Destroy our enemies.
>
> How do you determine who our friends or enemies are?
Our friends are the ones who trash us in the media.
Our enemies are the ones who trash us in Real Life.
>
> And how would you (as a member of government) build the economy?
By paralysing the Congress over profoundly irrelevant stuff so that they
don't have time to meddle.
> >>
> >> Who will be in your cabinet?
> >
> >Lord Calvert - Director, FBI
> >Automort - Secretary of Defense
> >Stillsunny - Secretary of Interior
> >Jeremy Martin - Secretary of State
> >Elroy Willis - Press Secretary
>
> I like it!
> Except, you know Automort's going to say something snide about women,
> and I'm going to get testy, and "y'all" will slip out in a cabinet
> meeting, and Lord Calvert's going to start talking about
> neo-Confederates, and it will probably completely disrupt the seances
> we have to contact Machiavelli :-)
Loki would be proud. :-)
>
>
> Thanks, Fred.
>
> Sunny
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
"B-five-two baby, way up in the sky,
keep dropping your loving on me, child..."
The Cult
stillsunny
wrote:
>"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
>news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com...
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
>Yeah, well, now I have the CIA working for *me* so I'll get that info
>shortly anyhow.
Poot.
I didn't think of that.
>> What do you do?
>
>Do the job right and make damn sure Dick Cheney is *kept* in his bloody
>"undisclosed location."
>
>> What are your priorities?
>
>1) Re-establishing an operational First Amendment and dismantling this
>"faith-based initiatives" business.
Sounds reasonable.
>2) Reviving the Kyoto Protocols
Nemo, do *you* know the specifics as to why the US refused to sign on?
Frankly, I don't have the time to wade through mounds of spin
documents. Everyone seems to think we *should* have signed on;
everyone thinks we're bad for *not* signing on; but no one knows (that
I know of) what the specifics of the Kyoto treaty said, or what of
those specifics the US objected to.
To be honest, much as I can easily say I think it's imperative to give
some thought about how humans may be needlessly ruining the very
environment they require for living, I'm not willing to translate that
into an automatic "We should agree to the protocols" until I actually
know what's *in* the protocols, or what the reasons were for not
signing.
>3) Making the US a fair player in the international community
How?
I don't mean to pigeonhole you (well, yeah I do :-)
"Fair" is an ambiguous word. It sounds good, but it's sort of like
"family values."
What unfairness or inequity do you see, and how would you approach
fixing it? And what result would that have on the nation, as a whole?
>4) Solving the Mid-East quagmire permanently.
Yer an ambitious one, aren't ya?
Shall I take it, you'll be sending some of our abundant nuclear
arsenal to effect that solution? ;-)
Otherwise, how would you solve it, and could you solve it without the
active participation and cooperation of the players themselves?
>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
>I dunno - but I'd love to have Walter Cronkite for a press secretary. {;-)
That's _perfect_!
I do wonder sometimes how press secretaries are chosen.
>> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
>> discussion, too
>Or something in between, eh?
Yep :-)
This is turning out to be a fun thread.
There are a _lot_ of smart people here.
Sunny
Mark Stahl
> >
this has been an interesting thread; let me just throw in my $.02 on one
small bit:
> >You seem to have missed (or inadvertently cut off) my National Health
> >Care part, so I'll ask you what you think about that aspect of my
> >presidential slate... :)
>
> I actually didn't mean to cut it off, but it's the one bit I can't
> agree with. It's too long to go into, but basically, I think the
> medical advances in the field, including stem cell research, are best
> served in a free market. I've never known government to do anything
> efficiently.
then i don't think you're familiar with how the U.S. basic and biomedical
research machine- the envy of the world- basically works. although there are
private funding sources like foundations as well as pharma and biotech
companies actively doing research, the vast majority of our medical research
is funded by the government. most of this is through the marriage of the
(private and public) university system with the NIH. it works efficiently
becasue all the government does is review (using scientists in the fields)
and write checks :-) - there is significant competition in terms of peer
review, publishing, tenure, etc. to provide the necessary motivation that
sometimes is the problem with government inefficiency.
i think the problem is that you're confusing health care with basic research
(like stem cell work). there are connections on many levels, of course, but
they're independent to what may be a surprising degree. getting an R01 grant
from the NIH has nothing to do with how much you pay for a mammogram. a lot
of the higher cost of fee-for-service or other 'free(er) market' ways we do
medicine in the US comes from the cost of training residents- an important
function and also part of why our medical system is so good but also
(mostly) separate from basic research.
this is a complex issue and even though i've been in med school and (basic
research) grad school for the last 5 years i don't completely understand all
of it. however, there are (common) ways in which there are exceptions to
these generalities and a university funnels $ from a hospital to its
research facilities or pays its researchers who are also MDs based on
patients seen and the like sometimes. i haven't scratched the surface here.
> And I will say, I don't necessarily think pharmaceutical
> companies are greedy.
oh, they are. a common MO is to hire a (usually government supported)
researcher who has made a discovery, patent her work, and do research on
applications once the groundwork has been paid for through public funds.
what they do is important and expensive, but make no mistake- they get a
great deal of 'indirect' intellectual subsidy, and are in fact
overwhelmingly greedy. this is also a somewhat separate issue from what
common people pay for health care, since most folks don't necessarily need
the newest meds for primary care. certainly it's a related issue though.
> I know they charge a lot for new medicines, but
> it's because they have a ten year window of time to recoup what
> they've spent on development of not just that one medicine, but all
> the ones that failed.
yeah, they can cry me a river. have you seen their profit margins? pharma is
the most profitable industry in the country, last time i checked. as i said
above, their more applied work is expensive and necessary for bringing out
new meds, but they have a pretty good deal going with so much basic science
done for them with public funds. i am generally unsympathetic, particularly
when it comes to cases like HIV in africa for example (sorry, a different
topic). although i certainly don't begrudge them a profit, it think they
take (unfair) advantage of their position at times.
> This area might need some input from countries
> which *have* socialized medicine, though.
>
we could certainly provide a basic level of health care to everyone in this
country in a practical, reasonably efficient way without disturbing the
powerhouse of discovery, education, and development at the top levels. as
always, the devil is in the details (what counts as "basic", for example?)
and everyone has heard a horror story about social medicine- but the current
system is manifestly unfair and inhumane, IMO.
> This is an odd aside, but have you seen "John Q"?
>
i have not, although i keep meaning to.
ok, off the ol' soapbox! :)
stillsunny
<dal...@cfl.rrr.com> wrote:
>stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in
>news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com:
>
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>> What do you do?
>> What are your priorities?
>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>>
>> Sunny
>>
>> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
>> discussion, too
>
>Aw, Hell, Sunny... Ask an easier question next time.
No way, Jose.
Brain cells need a stretch every now and again.
I have a feeling partisan carping atrophies them.
>Hmmm... My priorities?
>
>First I'd make sure I had extremely good life insurance, 'cause the
>things I'm about to do are going to be *very* unpopular.
>
>The first thing I'd do after that is to gut the DEA. By executive
>order I'd rescind the power of Federal agencies to confiscate
>property without due process. Property seized but not yet sold
>would be returned to its owners - provided they've not been charged
>or convicted with/of crimes.
Why the distinction with regard to charged?
Unless they're found guilty, they're presumed innocent.
I like that a lot, though.
>Second, I'd open up full diplomatic relations with Cuba. 45 years
>is long enough to hold a grudge. Castro fooled the Eisenhower
>administation fair and square. Cuba is without allies, these days,
>and Castro will die soon enough.
That's true, and it's not like it's going to cost us anything by way
of prestige or gamesmanship. The USSR is defunct; Cuba is a little
old country with no big brother to back it up any more.
I am, however, interested in why that's a priority for you, although
I'd concede merits of the idea.
>Third, I'd direct the General Accounting Office to audit the books
>of every Federal agency. Many of those agencies handle more money
>than some multi-national corporations, so it wouldn't surprise me
>if some of it stuck to some fingers somewhere along the line.
Interesting.
>Fourth, I'd find out where the money that is supposed to be in the
>(so-called) Social Security Trust Fund actually resides. Yeah, I
>know the SSTF is a polite fiction maintained by the legislature.
>I'd just like to put the screws to the dishonest sonsabitches
>who've lied to us all for the past 65 years.
So far, your focus seems to be on creating an environment of honesty
and accountability. I genuinely like that.
>And then, provided a bullet from a calibre .50 sniper rifle hasn't
>removed my spine from my body, I'd start selling, to the highest
>bidder, Federal lands to citizens of the United States. All
>proceeds from such sales would first go to social security to fill
>the trust fund to its 'proper' level, and any excess to retire the
>national debt.
Are you talking about national parks and so forth?
>I would scuttle the Homeland Security department. I'd scuttle the
>faith-based initiative.
Crab :-)
>I'd let my friends stay in the Lincoln bedroom for free!
Woohoo!
>During my first state of the union address I'd let Congress know
>that I think it is filled with vote-whores who'd sell their own
>mothers for another term in office. I'd veto bills with pork
>barrel riders attached to them.
>
>And I would tell the citizens of the nation, in blunt terms,
>exactly why I was vetoing those bills.
You know, don't you, that they attach that pork to bills they think
the public wants quite a lot, or that are seen as essential.
You've got guts, I'll tell you that.
>I'd want the stingiest, meanest tightwads I could find in my
>cabinet. I'd find people who know how to do without. I'd find men
>and women who have raised families on $400/week to fill all the
>important cabinet posts. Penny pinching people would be a
>refreshing change, don't you think?
Yes, it would!
People who know how to get from point A to point B, *without* using
the limo.
Thanks, Dale.
There are several things coming clear from this thread, and one of
them is a real desire for someone honest, who will speak plainly to
the American people, and do the hard stuff, even if it's unpopular.
The question is, would we actually *vote* for such a person?
Sunny
Reverend Lovejoy
message news:H5Jd9.195169$vg.34...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
2 more things to add that I've thought of since before.
1) Breeding licenses. People should be licensed to have children. In
addition to controlling population, its humanitarian. Licenses will only be
given to people with stable home lives, who can financially afford a child,
clean criminal records, has a certain level of intelligence/education, and
can demonstrate that he/she has the motivation and time to put in the effort
of raising the child.
2) Removal of government restrictions due to safety concerns. Things like
seat belt laws, laws against suicide, etc. should be removed. The only
person who's life you're endangering by not buckling up is your own, and you
should have the right to take that risk. Laws should remain in place which
prevent someone being harmed by another's actions, but your life should be
yours to risk.
dummie
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
> What are your priorities?
> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
> Sunny
>
> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> discussion, too
1) End our dependance on countries that are not democracies. Screw the
middle east and other banana republics. Make ethanol, promote hydrogen
cars, eat fewer mangoes. When they're ready to join the civilized
world they can start making money again.
2) End the drug war. Its a failure. As someone that tried grass in
college like everyone else, I found it relatively benign. I think
either I'm odd physiologically, or its a mistake. It neither addicted
me nor led to harder drugs. Druggies will always exist in society, and
if you think its your right to waste away on heroin like some dumbshit
its not my call anyways. The only problems that I can forsee are
people that have kids while on drugs, or smoke crack while they have a
kid in the house. Also some prison gaurds might have problems finding
work. I would also grant presidental pardon to most people convicted
on drug charges, dealers included, with some exceptions.
3) Cut star wars spending and other national pride hooha crap that is
useless. Socialist subsidies to farmers, lumber industry, yadda yadda
yadda would be CUT, but sponsoring those that lose their jobs for an
education should they want it for four years so their families don't
go hungry or homeless, with relocation programs to those that wish it.
4) Flat rate tax. Its only fair no matter how much squabbling we do
about the rich being able to afford it, however anyone making less
that $20,000 a year won't be taxed on the argument this government
isn't doing anything for them. Our country fails them, they pay no
taxes to it.
5) Diversify education to more than the meat n' potatoes. We need to
be taught storytelling, music, and Fortran alongside the sciences,
plus more hands on schooling. Any kid can be taught mechanics and
geometry, they just need to be given some encouragement.
6) No property taxes. If people want to buy land and simply live on it
without interference, shut themselves in like a Montana religer
compound with no contact to the outside world and eating venison jerky
all year long, good on ya, we don't need you anyways. Selling land
would be taxed as income.
7) No internet regulations, make it hands off free market, and we can
deal with the spam. Its a byproduct of freedom and we can handle it.
Make your email only accept messages from people on your list of those
you'll accept it from.
8) SEC would get a LOT more money. The USFS, NPS, DNR would get more
money, the IRS would be murdered.
9) Make polluting more serious a crime. Polluters must be held
responsible for everything between severe erosion and spilled oil. If
it means no logging, mining, farming, or ranching in certain parts of
the country, tough. So long as we're not at war and not going hungry,
no need to waste our country.
9) make it illegal to have your speeches prepared for you, read off
cue cards, or anything else that helps politicians talk about a
subject they don't know anything about. if they are unprepared and
falter. CAUGHT. If they have unsavory bias, CAUGHT. Hire presidents
for what they truly think, not what they were told to say. Yes this
will be hard, and our presidents will look dumb on occasion, but at
least its reality.
10) I could go on forever. But the thing I would like to see most
besides the look on John Ashcroft's face when removing that blue
curtain from those beautiful statues, is increased awareness of
environmental issues. Promote the Y2Y initiative, the roadless
wilderness area project, having fewer children, etc.
10 b) Oh, one more biggie: I would grant the presidental pardon to
many people that resemble political prisoners moreso than criminals,
first day in the office, no dicking around with the 11'th hour crap
like Clinton, whom I might hire if I can fancy his pocketbook.
10 c) Pay off national debt. Cut cut cut cut cut cut spending anywhere
and everywhere. After this I expect impeachment, so why continue? :)
People I would hire/fire in cabinet:
Especially competent or specialized members of the ACLU, PFAW,
Republican Party, which must be given an IQ test, among other things
before they are given a job.
To whom I would fire? John Ashcroft, 1 moment after the removal of
the blue curtain, if he doesn't resign before I can get to him. I
would keep Powell, he's competent and direct, from what I can see.
Mike Smith
=...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
=(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
=What do you do? What are your priorities?
=Who will be in your cabinet?
1.) All lawyers will be shot or exiled to Antarctica. Their
property will be confiscated and/or burned. Laws will
be rewritten in English. Juries will understand cases.
People will be able to read contracts, wills, etc.
Savings: a lot.
2.) The present income tax quagmire will change to a
flat tax. Households making < $20k/yr. will be exempt.
IRS staff will be eliminated, their property confiscated
and distributed to above-mentioned households.
3.) Anyone owns property, they pay property tax. Period.
No more free ride for churches.
Increased revenue: a lot.
4.) Energy policy: former IRS staff pulls rickshaws to
replace motor vehicles in large metropolitan areas.
Oil consumption: none. Savings: a lot.
5.) Middle east: these are all religious people, aren't they?
Praying for peace will be advised, foreign aid cut off.
Savings: a lot.
6.) Legalize, regulate, & tax all drugs. Use part of the
current "drug war" budget for financing.
Savings/increased tax revenue: a lot.
7.) Rappers will be exiled to Antarctica, along with the
lawyers. Drum machines & samplers will be illegal.
Satisfaction for musicians: a lot.
8.) There will be no permanent cabinet. I'll call people for
advice when I need it, or use an astrologer like Ray-gun.
Savings: modest.
Muddy Boggs
> ...
> There are several things coming clear from this thread, and one of
> them is a real desire for someone honest, who will speak plainly to
> the American people, and do the hard stuff, even if it's unpopular.
>
> The question is, would we actually *vote* for such a person?
>
> Sunny
We did. We elected Al Gore, but Dubya Bush and his crew stole the election.
Haven't you been following the news?
Mike Smith
= Mike Smith <mike...@godisdead.com> wrote:
=>
=>=I forgot to mention, citizenship requirements are
=>=waived.
=>
=>Intelligence, honesty, scruples, respect for the law,
=>etc., aren't important either, evidently.
=
=They are, if they're important to you, Mr. President.
I meant historically.
=Basically, I'm very interested in how people *would*
=address the various issues the US faces at the moment.
=There are some good ideas floating here. Perhaps if we
=(the American people, with assistance from our friends)
=start thinking more about which direction we want to go,
=and how to get there, instead of just throwing our hands
=up, we'd be more inclined to vote for a statesman who's
=going to tell us the truth and respect the law, instead of
=a person who's going to tell us the stuff we want to hear,
=and then do the opposite.
=I think I'm fomenting revolution :-)
I admit to having a defeatist attitude WRT this stuff. Even
when people *do* get out & vote -- didn't a majority vote
for Gore? It's the same old rich guys in suits, year after
year. Good ideas will surface only if big corporations
stand to profit from them.
stillsunny
<Nyarla...@great.old.ones.org> wrote:
>
>"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
>news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com...
>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>
>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>
>> What do you do?
>> What are your priorities?
>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>>
>> Sunny
>>
>> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
>> discussion, too
>
>My first priority would be securing a source of oil other than the Middle
>East (perhaps one of the former Soviet republics) or cutting our consumption
>or (preferably) both. Then I would teach the powers that be a lesson in "be
>careful what you wish for" by pulling out of the region completely and
>refusing to buy anything from them or sell anything to them. As for the
>Isrealis and Palestinians I would leave them to either work things out or
>annihillate each other, whichever they want (I am sad to say I thik they
>would pick mutual annihilation). I would have half a mind to make it clear
>that any country wishing to be our friend would do likewise.
You get to be put in the designated hot spot.
Clearing out of the middle east seems to be a common theme, and one I
tend to agree with.
However...
What do you think the result would be, if we did that?
Seriously?
And would an anticipated result affect your decision?
The more I think about that region, the more I realize how integrated
into the whole crazy fabric the US (and/or west) is.
Would the Arab states attack Israel?
Would Israel nuke somebody?
Or, suddenly facing lack of revenue, would they have to diversify
their economies?
Or -- would the resulting poverty actually *increase* the potential to
simply use Israel as a focal point for the general anger in society?
Would they attack each other, particularly over basic resource issues
like water?
Would other countries stop purchasing oil? (I can't think why they
would)
Would the fragile little pockets of emerging representative
governments be overrun and murdered?
(NPR had a great little story on Kurdistan the other day -- with ten
years of living in the no-fly zone, and US jets preventing assault by
Hussein, they've developed a remarkably thriving economy and open
society, with a dozen newspapers, and even an amusement park)
In a nutshell, *does it matter*?
If the whole place goes up in flames, do we care, and does it have the
potential to materially affect us sometime down the road?
And -- are we *morally* responsible to those countries we, as past
imperialists and member states of the UN, created in the first place?
And that's all of them, not just Israel, although Israel's obvious.
>At home my priorities would be to stop the "war on drugs". It is costly and
>doesn't accomplish a damn thing. And stop trying to make government into
>peoples nannies. People need to learn to take responsibility for their
>actions
That seems a consensus.
I won't quibble over details :-)
>As for my cabinet, that's hard to say. I would pick experts in their
>fields, not political appointees though. Even if they disagreed with me
>politically, because even Machievelli has pointed out that a wise ruler
>needs to have people around him that are willing to tell him that which he
>doesn't want to hear. In fact I might appoint one person totally opposed to
>me politacally for just that purpose.
Sounds wonderful.
Sunny
Elroy Willis
> stillsunny wrote:
>> How do you determine who our friends or enemies are?
> Our friends are the ones who trash us in the media.
> Our enemies are the ones who trash us in Real Life.
Yeah, the pen vs. a sword or bomb or airplane.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Muddy Boggs
> ...
> I think I'm fomenting revolution :-)
> ...
What you are actually doing is known in politics, technically, as "Shoveling
shit against the tide." But please keep it up, Chicken, it is good exercise.
I recommend you get in touch with your local Democrats. 8^)
Therion Ware
GMT, "Reverend Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com>
brought the total lines of text written about "Re: You are President
of the US..." to 81. I decided to observe the following about them:
[snip]
>1) Breeding licenses. People should be licensed to have children. In
>addition to controlling population, its humanitarian. Licenses will only be
>given to people with stable home lives, who can financially afford a child,
>clean criminal records, has a certain level of intelligence/education, and
>can demonstrate that he/she has the motivation and time to put in the effort
>of raising the child.
>2) Removal of government restrictions due to safety concerns. Things like
>seat belt laws, laws against suicide, etc. should be removed. The only
>person who's life you're endangering by not buckling up is your own,
That's not actually true. Stick someone in the seat behind the driver
or passenger with no seatbelt and, crash, and you get a body hurtling
into the driver or front seat passenger at 70 miles an hour (bloody
inertia). This is usually very messy and not infrequently fatal to the
person in front.
>and you
>should have the right to take that risk. Laws should remain in place which
>prevent someone being harmed by another's actions, but your life should be
>yours to risk.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
stillsunny
wrote:
>stillsunny wrote:
>
>-snip-
>
>> I think the call will be easier when we develop alternative fuel
>> sources. Actually, I suspect a lot of the technology is already
>> there, but bought up by big oil and auto makers because it would
>> effectively crash the massive infrastructure they already have in
>> place. (I sound like a conspiracy theorist, don't I?)
>
>Actually, the technology *is* there...but it's been replaced by
>cars. We used to get along just fine with horses and feet and
>trains and ships in the 19th century.
>
>The reason that fuel eficient technology is not being used, is
>that it's not economically feasible. Oil is cheap, and will
>stay that way for a long time (politics allowing). In places
>where there is some common sense in politics, there is a very
>high tax on oil, and people don't use as much of it. But in the
>US, the short term economic benefits are a political priority,
>so the gov't helps keep oil prices down, and encourages us to
>use as much as possible.
I know.
I was thinking of something else.
I remember, specifically, in the 70's, a report on one of the TV news
shows, like 20/20 -- something along those lines. I remember it,
because a fellow in a little small town near me had perfected and
patented a carburator (that dates it, huh?) that got upwards of 200
miles per gallon, city or highway.
It sticks in my mind, because I was young, and it was one of the first
real "news" stories I was extremely interested in. I was thrilled,
because that was the decade of price wars and gas lines, and it was
obvious _then_ that the national addiction to cheap oil put us at a
severe disadvantage.
I remember following the story, and I remember that the patent was
purchased by either an auto manufacturer or an oil company, though I
can't recall which one.
And I've not seen it *yet*.
So it makes me wonder how many *other* innovations are out there,
bought up and sat on because somebody's assembly line is already in
place, and the car designs are there, and the marketing's running --
and it would be too expensive to change it, and the competition would
drive them out of business.
Sunny
stillsunny
wrote:
I know that.
I'm not really talking about that.
I'm talking about direct criminal culpability, when a company _knows_
its product is a hazard (is it the Pinto I'm thinking of, that blew
up?) and the number crunchers decide it's cheaper to pay off the
damage claims for deaths than to recall and/or adjust the assembly
lines.
>
>> >"civilized" nation on Earth, Federally recognize gay marriage,
>>
>> Yep.
>> Anybody should be able to enter into a legal contract who chooses to.
>> Making it illegal is stupid.
>
>Of course we'll have to also be willing to allow
>polygamy.....think about it. Not that I object :)
That's an interesting idea.
Do you mind if I mull that over?
It's not that I have a moral or ethical exception to it.
It's just that it does seem there must be some rough legal definition
of what constitutes marriage, contractually or otherwise.
If you allow polygamy, you could theoretically then allow "marriage"
between whole towns.
Or maybe not. I'm going to think about that one.
>> >work to
>> >end US dependency on foreign oil (and acknowledge in public that for
>> >all their lip service to the contrary, Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not
>> >our ally),
>>
>> I agree with ending dependence on foreign oil.
>
>I don't. If we didn't depend on foreign oil, then we'd be using
>up OUR oil! where would that put us in the long term?
Using something else.
Market pressures produce amazing things sometimes.
>But the president ought to go ahead and tell us that oil is a
>very big part of all mideast foreign policy...instead of
>pretending it's not important.
There you go.
>I even heard a rumor that as soon as we had some control over
>Afghanistan, we started working on building that long needed
>pipeline from the Caspian sea out to the ocean.
I don't trust rumors :-)
Though I don't know if that pipeline is being planned for or not, and
it wouldn't surprise me if it was.
The thing about that particular rumor, which I take exception to, is
that it's usually used to "prove" that the US went to Afghanistan
*only* to help large oil companies, which often leads to the
conclusion that the entire attack on the Pentagon and towers was
either planned by the US, or known about beforehand.
After a while, it gets out of hand.
>> > and let Saddam Hussein know that he's going to be admitting
>> >either UN Inspectors or US Marines (his choice) into Iraq by September
>> >30th, for a start.
>>
>> <grin>
>> No playing games there. I like that better than veiled threats and
>> halfhearted feints.
>> Do you care if the rest of the world (including the Arab heavy UN)
>> bails on the US on this one?
>
>Unfortunately, Bush has been approaching the Iraq situation from
>an almost religious angle...claiming that they are evil, and
>that's enough reason to attack. If we play the game more
>carefully, we could probably build support from at least part of
>the rest of the world.
Maybe.
Here's _another_ interesting thing I just thought of, since we're
exploring hidden fiscal agendas.
Iraq's sitting on known middle east oil reserves rivaled only by, I
think, Saudi Arabia (though Kuwait has more per square foot).
OPEC profits hugely by having this big player under UN sanction,
unable to legally market its oil.
Maybe they like him just where he is, for exactly that reason.
And maybe all that Arab unity, where even Kuwait endorsed Iraq against
the mean old US, is really about mutual protection -- in Iraq, of
Hussein's power and sovereignty, and in the rest, of their own
pocketbooks.
Sunny
stillsunny
wrote:
>"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
>news:e5ndnuoa81ukvtgbq...@4ax.com...
>> >
>
>this has been an interesting thread; let me just throw in my $.02 on one
>small bit:
>
>> >You seem to have missed (or inadvertently cut off) my National Health
>> >Care part, so I'll ask you what you think about that aspect of my
>> >presidential slate... :)
>>
>> I actually didn't mean to cut it off, but it's the one bit I can't
>> agree with. It's too long to go into, but basically, I think the
>> medical advances in the field, including stem cell research, are best
>> served in a free market. I've never known government to do anything
>> efficiently.
>
>then i don't think you're familiar with how the U.S. basic and biomedical
>research machine- the envy of the world- basically works.
I'll admit that right off the bat.
I'll also admit that it's darned hard to dig out specific information.
>although there are
>private funding sources like foundations as well as pharma and biotech
>companies actively doing research, the vast majority of our medical research
>is funded by the government. most of this is through the marriage of the
>(private and public) university system with the NIH. it works efficiently
>becasue all the government does is review (using scientists in the fields)
>and write checks :-) - there is significant competition in terms of peer
>review, publishing, tenure, etc. to provide the necessary motivation that
>sometimes is the problem with government inefficiency.
That governmental inefficiency is a big sticking point with me.
>i think the problem is that you're confusing health care with basic research
>(like stem cell work). there are connections on many levels, of course, but
>they're independent to what may be a surprising degree. getting an R01 grant
>from the NIH has nothing to do with how much you pay for a mammogram. a lot
>of the higher cost of fee-for-service or other 'free(er) market' ways we do
>medicine in the US comes from the cost of training residents- an important
>function and also part of why our medical system is so good but also
>(mostly) separate from basic research.
That makes sense.
My step-brother-in-law is second year resident, so I have some idea of
what you're talking about.
>this is a complex issue and even though i've been in med school and (basic
>research) grad school for the last 5 years i don't completely understand all
>of it. however, there are (common) ways in which there are exceptions to
>these generalities and a university funnels $ from a hospital to its
>research facilities or pays its researchers who are also MDs based on
>patients seen and the like sometimes. i haven't scratched the surface here.
Can you think of a book or web site or something that might give an
overview of how the whole thing works?
>> And I will say, I don't necessarily think pharmaceutical
>> companies are greedy.
>
>oh, they are. a common MO is to hire a (usually government supported)
>researcher who has made a discovery, patent her work, and do research on
>applications once the groundwork has been paid for through public funds.
>what they do is important and expensive, but make no mistake- they get a
>great deal of 'indirect' intellectual subsidy, and are in fact
>overwhelmingly greedy.
Two things here.
First, it's my impression that the scientific community is rather more
freely democratic with information, and in fact, depends on the free
flow of information, no matter what the source (leaving aside
protection things, new discoveries and so forth, until a patent is in
place).
And second, I probably just normally take exception to characterizing
any industry as "greedy". It's a perjorative term, but industries are
*supposed* to make money. "Greedy" indicates, at least to me,
sanction for doing that which they are supposed to be doing, and doing
it well, especially if they're playing by the rules.
Part of the problem, as I see it (though perhaps a small part) is that
the US consumer *demands* the latest in treatments and medicines. The
normal market pressures which would be at play in other products are
less so here -- when it comes to health or life, nobody actually wants
the small or medium cup, if you understand what I'm saying.
>this is also a somewhat separate issue from what
>common people pay for health care, since most folks don't necessarily need
>the newest meds for primary care. certainly it's a related issue though.
I do, though.
Three years running, my middle son has had swimmer's ear.
Three years running, I've had to take him to the doctor.
And three years running, I've gotten an improved ear drop for it.
I _wanted_ that new, improved ear drop, because swimmer's ear hurts
like crazy.
I did ask the doctor, though, what people did back before antibiotic
drops.
They simply lived with the swimmer's ear until it went away.
>> I know they charge a lot for new medicines, but
>> it's because they have a ten year window of time to recoup what
>> they've spent on development of not just that one medicine, but all
>> the ones that failed.
>
>yeah, they can cry me a river. have you seen their profit margins? pharma is
>the most profitable industry in the country, last time i checked. as i said
>above, their more applied work is expensive and necessary for bringing out
>new meds, but they have a pretty good deal going with so much basic science
>done for them with public funds. i am generally unsympathetic, particularly
>when it comes to cases like HIV in africa for example (sorry, a different
>topic).
That's okay.
Actually, I think HIV in Africa is being considered a matter of
national security these days, for some decent reasons.
> although i certainly don't begrudge them a profit, it think they
>take (unfair) advantage of their position at times.
Maybe.
How do you define "unfair"?
And perhaps what's needed is a rule change?
>> This area might need some input from countries
>> which *have* socialized medicine, though.
>
>we could certainly provide a basic level of health care to everyone in this
>country in a practical, reasonably efficient way without disturbing the
>powerhouse of discovery, education, and development at the top levels. as
>always, the devil is in the details (what counts as "basic", for example?)
>and everyone has heard a horror story about social medicine- but the current
>system is manifestly unfair and inhumane, IMO.
I understand.
For the purpose of conversation, one of the paradoxes in this country
is that it's middle America who can't afford decent health care.
The impoverished are already covered under Medicaid.
Those that can afford either great medical care out of pocket, or
great insurance, are covered.
It's those in the middle -- like me, at the moment -- who are self
employed, with income committed to everywhere else, or who work at
middling jobs with no benefits, who actually can't afford to go to the
doctor.
<it helps to be related to a couple of them>
>> This is an odd aside, but have you seen "John Q"?
>
>i have not, although i keep meaning to.
It's interesting, though it's rather political. I'm a big Denzel
Washington fan, though, so I forgive them :-)
>ok, off the ol' soapbox! :)
I enjoyed it.
Part of the reason for the thread was I was actually looking for
people who *knew* something about the subjects, instead of those who
just have opinions.
Sunny
Laura
> Do you think it's a good thing?
without having to worry about cost, or what will happen if I get laid
off and get sick. I know that if I'm in an accident I can go to a
hospital and get whatever treatment I need, and financial concerns are
minimal.
> How do people feel generally about how much money they have to pay in
> taxes to support it?
The government here in Canada has just finished a very extensive,
cross-country poll/fact finding mission and the one thing that has
emerged is a hands down, very emphatic, keep-universal-health-care,
from all across the country. There have been a lot of suggestions to
streamline, and cost cut, but on the whole, people realize that they
get what they pay for, and they want their health care system in tact.
Also, I can't see how "provide services and make profit" can cost less
than "provide services, no profit", so how can private companies
manage to provide the same quality care for less?
> How accessible are services, from basic, general practice sorts of
> things to the high tech, cutting edge sorts of things (like organ
> transplants or laser surgery)? In other words, can you get the
> service, and how long does it take to, for instance, schedule an
> appointment?
There are waits for things like MRI's and cancer treatment, the
specialized things, but basic services are quickly available, and
free. Organ transplant surgery is dependent on organ availability and
nothing else. I can generally get an appointment with my GP in less
than a day, and when I went for an MRI on my knee this summer, it took
less than a month to get an appointment. The one thing we are really
failing on is cancer treatment times, with some women waiting up to
two months to start treatment for breast cancer. However, the Ontario
government opened up the first private clinic for cancer treatment in
Toronto almost a year ago, and promised that it would reduce the wait
times, cheaply, but it hasn't. We have a huge problem getting doctors
to serve in the more isolated communities, but I don't think that's a
socialized medicine problem so much as just the fact that people don't
want to work in places you can only get to by plane six months of the
year.
> Are there still newer and better procedures and so forth being
> developed in socialized countries?
Canada has a tremendous record for developing new medicines and
procedures, at least on a par with the US, and for certain things,
like diabetes treatments and possible cures, we are the world leaders.
Sick Kids hospital in Toronto is arguably the best hospital in the
world for paediatric care, and children are often flown there from
around the world for treatment and revolutionary procedures they can't
get anywhere else.
> Are there things you can't get or have done, due to expense?
Not really, only non-essentials, plastic surgery, laser-eye surgery,
things like that.
> Basically, the overall positives and negatives.
I think I've covered the positives pretty well. The negative? Well,
you pay for it even if you never use it, waiting times for some things
are longer because it's not only people who can afford it that use the
services, so there is a bigger load on facilities, pay scales for
staff are lower because they are capped, so that money is spent on
services, not salaries, which sometimes costs us in staff turnover. On
the whole though, Canadians love their universal health care.
Whew, that turned out to be much longer than I expected. Hope it
answered at least some of your questions.
Laura
stillsunny
<nik...@ichimusai.water_is_wet.org> wrote:
>It was a dark and stormy night in alt.atheism. An owl was howling, the
>moon was full and in a distance I heard stillsunny
><sun...@tiredofspam.com> say:
>
><snip question>
>
>> >> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
>> >> discussion, too
>> >
>> >Oh. Sorry to disappoint you, then.
>>
>> You didn't at all, cutie :-)
>
>Aw! You're so sweet! :0)
>
>> Okay, you don't have to be president.
>
>YAY! I get to not be a president! Sunny permitted me! Oh joy! :0)
LOL!
>> One of the things that's emerging from this thread is a growing call
>> for universal health care. Truth is, I like the idea that anybody
>> could just go to the doctor when they needed to, irrespective of
>> finances, and could get the treatment they need, irrespective of
>> insurance rules.
>
>Personally, I don't understand why you don't have it...
Because nobody can figure out how to pay for it, and none of the big
lobbies want it, and nobody can figure out what's "basic" coverage.
Mostly, though, it's the money, and probably some things about dealing
with things on a state/federal level. There are some expenditures the
US government has that do eat into the budget, that I'm not sure other
countries have, to quite that same level or percent. That's
speculative, though -- I really need to find a place to do a
comparison. Mostly, nobody wants to take the tax hike to accomplish
it.
All this makes me wonder if it's easier to offer in smaller countries.
Basically, everybody would like to have coverage.
But those that would be footing the bill, mostly, are already those
that can afford coverage. Essentially, they'd be paying the same
money (maybe) for reduced coverage.
The government already provides basic services for the indigent or
elderly (though it's not total coverage).
There's also this weirdness that's happening with Social Security.
People are living longer, so after they retire and are eligible for
benefits, they're dependent on the system for longer.
>> Do you think it's a good thing?
>
>Yes. Admittedly there are some problems like long lines of waiting to
>get to the hospital (for certain operations), which the politicians
>keep promising to make smaller... Some believe that it should be done
>by privatisation of the hospitals and some believe that it should be
>done with more money to the hospitals, but all agree that it should be
>available to people, regardless of their income... I don't understand
>how a country can have people who can't afford to go to the doctor and
>still call itself "developed" - It's obvious that having people in
>good health is also the best for the country, as a whole...
So there's talk of privatization then?
How do people feel about that, in general?
I had a class, *many* years ago, with a fellow from somewhere around
your neck of the woods. The professor was asking him questions, and
he said he (at least) wasn't crazy about the system, because his
parents were paying something like 70% of their income in taxes, but
if he wanted to get real medical care, he often had to pay for it
anyway, just to be seen, or get decent care. That's been years, and
it's anecdotal, but I admit it colored my perspective on national
health care for all these years.
>> What percent of the budget (if you know) goes toward it?
>
>I'm afraid that I don't know at all...
Nuts :-)
>> How do people feel generally about how much money they have to pay in
>> taxes to support it?
>
>Far most people are fine with it - I've never met people who were
>against it (that is, of people who live where there is such a thing).
>even those on the right who'd like to privatise almost everything
>thinks that health-care should be available for all, regardless of
>income...
I wonder how you'd privatize it and still ensure that health care was
universally available.
> A lot of people don't mind paying fairly high taxes, as long
>as they feel that they get something for it... Some feel that they
>don't, but their complaints isn't on having to pay for a health system
>- Rather that the health system is too bad and too expensive...
How do you mean too expensive?
Expensive to them personally?
Or expensive when you compare money spent to what you get for it?
>> How accessible are services, from basic, general practice sorts of
>> things to the high tech, cutting edge sorts of things (like organ
>> transplants or laser surgery)? In other words, can you get the
>> service, and how long does it take to, for instance, schedule an
>> appointment?
>
>On some things there's a problem with long waiting-lines, as said...
I reckon that might be everywhere. The longest I ever had to wait to
get an appointment was a month or so, but that's with me making the
appointment. When it's made from a doctor's office (say, your general
practitioner to a specialist) it's usually immediate.
>> Are there still newer and better procedures and so forth being
>> developed in socialized countries?
>
>AFAIK, yes - But my knowledge in this area is very small.
Truth is, it would be a difficult comparison.
Of the western world, the US is simply the biggest, so you'd have to
factor in size when you compared the overall numbers.
>> Are there things you can't get or have done, due to expense?
>
>For some strange reason (which is beyond me), then you have to pay for
>dental work, yourself, but apart from that, all health related
>operations are available to all (AFAIK). Purely cosmetic surgery is,
>of course something people need to pay for, themselves - as I think is
>completely fair, since they don't strictly *need* it...
Huh.
Interesting.
This is *way* off the beaten track, but it's customary in the US, with
breast cancer surgery, do do cosmetic surgery as part of it, so the
woman doesn't end up looking or feeling mutilated.
Would that be covered, do you know?
>> Basically, the overall positives and negatives.
>
>I've answered to the best of my abilities. I hope you found it useful
>and I hope that not too many people will flame me :0)
You are wonderful, and I thank you for your input.
Sunny
stillsunny
No, thanks.
I'm looking for answers, not politics :-)
Jim2002
There are good reasons to go even further than that, and a lot of case
law and regulatory law to back it up. THe concept of strict liability
extends civil and criminal penalties to corporate officials on the
basis that even if they do not know that their product is harmful or
violative of law; they are in a position where they are legally
obligated to know" and *legally obligated to prevent* undo harm, or,
at the least, make appropriate warning statements that will be
followed by a reasonable person, as to the use of their product.
Jim2002
William Boutwell
news:cf2fnuctdh67r6se2...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:07:54 GMT, William Boutwell
> <dal...@cfl.rrr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in
>>news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com:
>>
<snip>
>>
>>The first thing I'd do after that is to gut the DEA. By
>>executive order I'd rescind the power of Federal agencies to
>>confiscate property without due process. Property seized but
>>not yet sold would be returned to its owners - provided they've
>>not been charged or convicted with/of crimes.
>
> Why the distinction with regard to charged?
> Unless they're found guilty, they're presumed innocent.
> I like that a lot, though.
>
Hmm... Now that I think of it, perhaps you are correct. Private
property is supposed to be private until such time as it is proved
it was ill-gotten.
I hate the idea of a drug-lord exporting his cash. It's a
conundrum, because I also hate the idea of property confiscation
without charges being brought.
>>Second, I'd open up full diplomatic relations with Cuba. 45
>>years is long enough to hold a grudge. Castro fooled the
>>Eisenhower administation fair and square. Cuba is without
>>allies, these days, and Castro will die soon enough.
>
> That's true, and it's not like it's going to cost us anything by
> way of prestige or gamesmanship. The USSR is defunct; Cuba is a
> little old country with no big brother to back it up any more.
>
> I am, however, interested in why that's a priority for you,
> although I'd concede merits of the idea.
>
The United States is directly responsible for Cuba's revolution.
The CIA and other agencies were duped by Fidel and his cronies into
providing weapons and cash. It's time to admit that he played the
game better than we did.
If conditions in Cuba are terrible for the proletariat (and I don't
think they are worse off now than before the revolution), we are
responsible for that, as well.
When you make a mistake, fess up and apologize. It works for
individuals and it will work for nations as well. I'd call
normalizing relations with Cuba a beginning. It would help to
repair the USA's credibility in world politics.
<snip>
>
>>And then, provided a bullet from a calibre .50 sniper rifle
>>hasn't removed my spine from my body, I'd start selling, to the
>>highest bidder, Federal lands to citizens of the United States.
>>All proceeds from such sales would first go to social security
>>to fill the trust fund to its 'proper' level, and any excess to
>>retire the national debt.
>
> Are you talking about national parks and so forth?
>
Partly... But there are many "preserves" and "reserves" owned by
the Fed that aren't part of the Park Service. I've read some
estimates that there are thousands of billions of dollars tied up
in 'public lands' owned by the Fed. Unlocking that cash and
spending it wisely seems a good move to me.
Yes, it would open some of the land to exploitation. That's not
guaranteed, however. Many non-profit organizations would be happy
to buy big chunks of wilderness to preserve it.
For profit organizations (and citizens) would probably have to
abide by certain land-use restrictions; strip mining second-growth
forest land might not be such a good idea.
The public would benefit both now and later. Funding social
security (abolishing it is not going to happen, I fear) and paying
down the national debt strengthens everyone's financial future.
I'll admit I have a certain fondness for the beauty of Yellowstone
and the Grand Canyon... Perhaps those should continue to be owned
by everyone in common. ;-)
>>I would scuttle the Homeland Security department. I'd scuttle
>>the faith-based initiative.
>
> Crab :-)
>
>>I'd let my friends stay in the Lincoln bedroom for free!
>
> Woohoo!
>
>>During my first state of the union address I'd let Congress know
>>that I think it is filled with vote-whores who'd sell their own
>>mothers for another term in office. I'd veto bills with pork
>>barrel riders attached to them.
>>
>>And I would tell the citizens of the nation, in blunt terms,
>>exactly why I was vetoing those bills.
>
> You know, don't you, that they attach that pork to bills they
> think the public wants quite a lot, or that are seen as
> essential.
>
> You've got guts, I'll tell you that.
>
Not since Harry S Truman has a man occupied the White House who
wasn't mealy mouthed or wishy-washy. As much as people admired JFK
I'm pretty sure he wasn't as plain-spoken as Truman.
Harry wasn't the most polished speaker in the country and he wasn't
the handsomest of men, either. But he had balls and said what he
meant instead of trying to cater to every group that had a
contribution to make to his campaigns.
Character does count. A man who makes a mistake and admits it, who
never repeats a mistake, who speaks plainly and acts honorably is
all too rare.
It bears repeating - what works for individuals also works for
nations. Unfortunately, you can not count on nations to be
honorable. You can't assume they aren't until they act
dishonorably.
>>I'd want the stingiest, meanest tightwads I could find in my
>>cabinet. I'd find people who know how to do without. I'd find
>>men and women who have raised families on $400/week to fill all
>>the important cabinet posts. Penny pinching people would be a
>>refreshing change, don't you think?
>
> Yes, it would!
> People who know how to get from point A to point B, *without*
> using the limo.
>
> Thanks, Dale.
>
> There are several things coming clear from this thread, and one
> of them is a real desire for someone honest, who will speak
> plainly to the American people, and do the hard stuff, even if
> it's unpopular.
>
> The question is, would we actually *vote* for such a person?
>
>
Yes, that's a good question. We're so jaded and suspicious of
politicians these days. Very few of them prove trustworthy.
The ones that are honest are usually appointees rather than
elected.
I feel it is essential that the USA re-establish its credibility.
Putting the government's finances in order and correcting obvious
mistakes of the past would go far in this effort.
The millionaires we elect, and the powers-that-be behind them, are
screwing the pooch.
--
Dale.
aa #1969
"Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.", Mark Twain.
There's an extra "r" in my email address.
J Forbes
>
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 07:48:47 -0700, J Forbes <jfor...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >stillsunny wrote:
> >>
-snip-
> >> How do you feel about eliminating part of the shield incorporation
> >> provides, so that directors can be *criminally* prosecuted in some
> >> cases (say, if they know their cars blow up, and sell them anyway).
> >
> >Well....perhaps put a big sticker on the dashboard of cop cars,
> >that says: "don't park on the freeway"
> >
> >Manufacturers are not responsible for *all* the things that
> >stupid people can do with their products.
>
> I know that.
> I'm not really talking about that.
> I'm talking about direct criminal culpability, when a company _knows_
> its product is a hazard (is it the Pinto I'm thinking of, that blew
> up?) and the number crunchers decide it's cheaper to pay off the
> damage claims for deaths than to recall and/or adjust the assembly
> lines.
In the case of the Pinto, it appears that Ford execs knew about
the $0.50 per car (or whatever it was) that it would have cost
to provide a bit of protection from that panhard bar mounting
stud...because full size Ford cars from the early 70s had that
extra plastic cap on that very same stud to prevent the gas tank
getting ruptured. (I worked in a wrecking yard when these cars
were being scrapped at a high rate, so I done seen it).
When evidence of this type if thing is found, there should be a
way to prosecute people, not just allow corporations to make
settlements. I agree with you.
But there also seems to be a glut of lawsuits where the
"victims" did something really stupid, and I don't think it's
right to have us pay for this as higher prices for items that
the settling corporation sells.
> >
> >> >"civilized" nation on Earth, Federally recognize gay marriage,
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >> Anybody should be able to enter into a legal contract who chooses to.
> >> Making it illegal is stupid.
> >
> >Of course we'll have to also be willing to allow
> >polygamy.....think about it. Not that I object :)
>
> That's an interesting idea.
> Do you mind if I mull that over?
> It's not that I have a moral or ethical exception to it.
> It's just that it does seem there must be some rough legal definition
> of what constitutes marriage, contractually or otherwise.
> If you allow polygamy, you could theoretically then allow "marriage"
> between whole towns.
>
> Or maybe not. I'm going to think about that one.
Yeah, it's a neat concept! I read an editorial in a newspaper
about a year or two or three ago...it changed my mind on the
polygamy issue. The 1 man 1 woman marraige seems to be
something that some religions promulgate, while other religions
(mostly in other countries) allow more than one man or more than
one woman marraiges. If the polygamy law is based on certain
religious traditions, it may violate the first amendment.
What about those hippie communes 20-25 yrs ago where there was
free love among all the people? That might be like the whole
town marrying you are thinking of...but I think it doesn't work
after the dope wears off and the people sober up....
-snip-
> >> I agree with ending dependence on foreign oil.
> >
> >I don't. If we didn't depend on foreign oil, then we'd be using
> >up OUR oil! where would that put us in the long term?
>
> Using something else.
> Market pressures produce amazing things sometimes.
>
> >But the president ought to go ahead and tell us that oil is a
> >very big part of all mideast foreign policy...instead of
> >pretending it's not important.
>
> There you go.
>
> >I even heard a rumor that as soon as we had some control over
> >Afghanistan, we started working on building that long needed
> >pipeline from the Caspian sea out to the ocean.
>
> I don't trust rumors :-)
> Though I don't know if that pipeline is being planned for or not, and
> it wouldn't surprise me if it was.
> The thing about that particular rumor, which I take exception to, is
> that it's usually used to "prove" that the US went to Afghanistan
> *only* to help large oil companies, which often leads to the
> conclusion that the entire attack on the Pentagon and towers was
> either planned by the US, or known about beforehand.
> After a while, it gets out of hand.
I think it is more likely the case that having the terrorists
working out of Afghanistan turned out to be a lucky coincidence
for resolving some issues.
Americans are opportunists, we make the best out of bad
situations.
That does sound likely.
Whatever, it's a very complicated situation, and deserves very
careful, deliberate thinking/debate/action.
Jim
EAC Mideast Tiger Team
Matten
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:54:30 GMT, "Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
> >news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com...
> >> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
> >>
> >> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
> >>
> >> What do you do?
> >
>
> <whack!>
I'm confused...
Was that the cute intern slapping his face?
Or President Sunny slapping her forehead and saying "why didn't *I* think of that?"
Matten
J Forbes
The 200 mpg carburetor is an urban legend...it's even in "The
Big Book of Urban Legends"!
I'm a mechanical engineer, I've worked with cars for 25 some
years, and I know how much energy it takes to move a vehicle,
and how much energy is in a gallon of gasoline. We're doing
very well with modern cars, of course the main problem is that
we want them big, comfy, etc, so they get lousy mileage. My
wife's 99 Chevy truck gets twice the mileage of my old trucks.
That's a lot of progress in 20 years!
My senior project in college almost 20 yrs ago was working on a
high mileage car...ours got 472 mpg, the winner in the contest
got over 1500. But it's not something you would feel safe in
even on a sidewalk...3 bicycle tires, not manueverable, average
15 mph, no cargo room, only room for one (small) driver. I'd
rather ride a bicycle. But it does show how we could
drastically change our fuel use by changing our ideas of what
transportation really requires, vs what we like it to be.
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2/hmc/hmc.html
has more info.
Jim
EAC Disinformation White Paper Review Committee
Therion Ware
-0400, stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> brought the total lines of
text written about "Re: OT: You are President of the US..." to 51. I
decided to observe the following about them:
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 07:58:27 -0700, J Forbes <jfor...@yahoo.com>
Hummm.... Stories like this are very common. Another popular one is
the car that runs on water. Or the poodle in the microwave.
Still, it wouldn't be too difficult to run the story down, and find
the patient, and the newspaper stories, if one wanted to, but this
sounds like one of them urban legends to me.
Reverend Lovejoy
> >seat belt laws, laws against suicide, etc. should be removed. The only
> >person who's life you're endangering by not buckling up is your own,
>
> That's not actually true. Stick someone in the seat behind the driver
> or passenger with no seatbelt and, crash, and you get a body hurtling
> into the driver or front seat passenger at 70 miles an hour (bloody
> inertia). This is usually very messy and not infrequently fatal to the
> person in front.
Hmmm, you're probably right. Still doesn't excuse a law against suicide
though
Therion Ware
GMT, "Reverend Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com>
brought the total lines of text written about "Re: You are President
>> >2) Removal of government restrictions due to safety concerns. Things like
>> >seat belt laws, laws against suicide, etc. should be removed. The only
>> >person who's life you're endangering by not buckling up is your own,
>>
>> That's not actually true. Stick someone in the seat behind the driver
>> or passenger with no seatbelt and, crash, and you get a body hurtling
>> into the driver or front seat passenger at 70 miles an hour (bloody
>> inertia). This is usually very messy and not infrequently fatal to the
>> person in front.
>
>
>Hmmm, you're probably right. Still doesn't excuse a law against suicide
>though
True. <thinks>How about a law that makes a failed suicide bid a
capital offence? </thinks>
Reverend Lovejoy
> >polygamy.....think about it. Not that I object :)
>
> That's an interesting idea.
> Do you mind if I mull that over?
> It's not that I have a moral or ethical exception to it.
> It's just that it does seem there must be some rough legal definition
> of what constitutes marriage, contractually or otherwise.
> If you allow polygamy, you could theoretically then allow "marriage"
> between whole towns.
>
> Or maybe not. I'm going to think about that one.
My understanding of marriage, in the legal sense, is that it allows for two
people to share certain tax and insurance benefits, essntially two people
act legally as one. I won't pretend to know or understand the details of it,
but I suspect that "marriage" is probably defined by the IRS. As such, it
might simply not make sense to allow more than two people to legally marry.
(Though there's probably no harm in allowing recognition of a marriage
between three or more people, and only allowing the tax benefits for the
primary two).
However, as I'm looking on google, I can't find a legal definition of
marriage. If you could find one, it would probably answer the question of
whether or not legal polygamous marriages make sense.
*nemo*
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:48:03 GMT, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahooNOSPM.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
> >news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com...
> >> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
> >>
> >> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
> >
> >shortly anyhow.
>
> Poot.
> I didn't think of that.
>
See, you have to think of such things when you're prez.
<sanip>
> >> What are your priorities?
> >
> >1) Re-establishing an operational First Amendment and dismantling this
> >"faith-based initiatives" business.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
I thought so.
>
> >2) Reviving the Kyoto Protocols
>
> Nemo, do *you* know the specifics as to why the US refused to sign on?
I've not heard the specifics - if Dubya has enunciated specifics, NPR hasn't
passed them on to me. I heard that "it would harm our economy." IOW, the
big businesses that do the lion's share of polluting and putting millions of
SUV's on the road can't be bothered to help clean up their acts.
> Frankly, I don't have the time to wade through mounds of spin
> documents. Everyone seems to think we *should* have signed on;
> everyone thinks we're bad for *not* signing on; but no one knows (that
> I know of) what the specifics of the Kyoto treaty said, or what of
> those specifics the US objected to.
>
Here's the text of the treaty:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
I'm no good at reading legalese, but I think part of this point in my agenda
would also come up under the "fairness" item below.
<snip>
> >3) Making the US a fair player in the international community
>
> How?
>
> I don't mean to pigeonhole you (well, yeah I do :-)
>
Pigeonhole? You mean that as to categorize me??
> "Fair" is an ambiguous word. It sounds good, but it's sort of like
> "family values."
>
> What unfairness or inequity do you see, and how would you approach
> fixing it? And what result would that have on the nation, as a whole?
>
Here are my points for this one:
A) Act as a member of equal standing in all international venues - the World
Court, the UN General Assembly, etc. IOW, obey the orders of those bodies as
we expect all other nations to. A second part of this would be to join in
with all the other nations that support the permanent War Crimes Tribunal.
We have no business claiming to be above the law in that regard.
B) Work to restore and maintain the flow of our membership dues in the UN
C) Keep Our Noses out of everyone else's business - including South America,
Central America, Cuba, the Carribbean, and so forth. Any changes we want to
make in those places can be made using our economic carrot rather than our
military and/or CIA sticks.
> >4) Solving the Mid-East quagmire permanently.
>
> Yer an ambitious one, aren't ya?
Hey, I feel like I ought to earn my quarter-mil paycheck some how. {;-)
> Shall I take it, you'll be sending some of our abundant nuclear
> arsenal to effect that solution? ;-)
>
Ummmm. No. I'd prefer to disarm as far as possible and scale back all
nuclear programs until further notice, but that's another problem to worry
with.
> Otherwise, how would you solve it, and could you solve it without the
> active participation and cooperation of the players themselves?
>
On an emotional level, I'd like to wall off the whole area, seal off the air
space and let them figure it out from there. {;-)
Failing that, I'd think it'd be a neat thing to create a homeland for
Palestinians. Somewhere far more prosperous and congenial than their present
digs - like Texas. I'll bet there's a good chunk of land in Texas that could
comfortably hold a Palestinian State, that would be a *nice* new home for
them and allow them to trade peacefully with neighbors (the US and Mexico)
that they don't hate.
OK... I know it's a fantasy.
More realistically, I'd cut back hard on the economic and political aid
given to Israel. I wouldn't cut them off, but I'd do enough to weaken their
base significantly. I'd also work to assist the Palestinians to establish an
infrastructure capable of growing a genuine state. And I think I'd push
*very hard* to make Jerusalem an *open* city that is *no one's* bloody
capital.
> >> Who will be in your cabinet?
> >
> >I dunno - but I'd love to have Walter Cronkite for a press secretary.
{;-)
>
> That's _perfect_!
>
> I do wonder sometimes how press secretaries are chosen.
>
They draw staws?
> >> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
> >> discussion, too
> >Or something in between, eh?
>
> Yep :-)
>
> This is turning out to be a fun thread.
> There are a _lot_ of smart people here.
>
Wish I could be one of them. I never even dreamed of the DEA stuff... {;-)
> Sunny
>
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Quotemeister since March 2002
**************************************************
Mike Ruskai
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 05:32:28 -0400 (EDT), "Mike Ruskai"
><spammoc.r...@begoneynnaht.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:06:27 -0400, stillsunny wrote:
>>
>>>....as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>>
>>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>>
>>>What do you do?
>>>What are your priorities?
>>
>>Repair the damage done by Shrub, including environmental policy (Kyoto
>>being one of the big ones), civil liberties, religion-based policy (e.g.
>>denying foreign medical aid that might go towards birth control), etc.
>
>Do *you* know why the US didn't sign the Kyoto treaty?
>I mean, something close to the real reason, whatever it is?
>I don't.
Because George W. Bush does not believe global warming exists. Because he
gets a lot of campaign money from large energy companies (can anyone say
Enron?) which would be adversely affected by any policies designed to cut
down on greenhouse gas emissions.
There is no rational reason. It's purely politics, coupled with drastic
scientific ignorance.
Bill Clinton was no genius (though very smart in many ways), but he
obviously listened to the right people about most important issues.
Bush is listening to all the wrong people, and is incapable of formulating
his own considered opinions based on existing research. I mean that
literally - he's incapable.
>>Put together a group of people who know the issues to discuss all problems
>>that come up.
>
>I have to agree with that one.
>No one person can know everything. Having smart people, who are
>intimately familiar with the specifics, but who share your vision, is
>almost required.
>
>>Remove from posts all people who have a conflict of interest (i.e.
>>virtually every person Shrub has appointed).
>
>Who would you replace them with?
>
>This is just a local thing, but in my county, there's a planning
>commission which is an appointed body. Its purpose is to streamline
>the process to change zoning on properties, because county council is
>comprised of plain old citizens who aren't necessarily experts in how
>development works, or affects the community. It's also an unpaid
>position (which I haven't figured out yet). What they _want_ are
>experts, which means realtors and developers. In fact, they need
>them, because they have first hand experience. But the thing is,
>those same realtors are often those that profit, directly or
>indirectly, from the things they pass up to council for approval. I
>don't know how to get the expertise in any given area without running
>into conflicts of interest. Do you have an idea? Are you thinking,
>perhaps, of specific areas or people, or specific conflicts of
>interest?
That's a very salient point, and one that's not always easy to address.
The short answer, of course, is to require that anyone serving in such a
position not be allowed to benefit from any official decision. If it
comes to that, he/she must recuse his/herself and let someone else make
the decision. This is, in fact, how it's done most of the time (show me
where it isn't, and I'll show you were local political scandals arise).
Who do you hire to oversee energy policy? Certainly not someone from one
specific energy industry, as Bush has done. You appoint someone apprised
of energy in general, and let him/her hire underlings with appropriate
specific experience in each relevant industry. In other words, you
appoint an independent scientist, who has sense enough to get practical
information from those who used to do it for a living, but who are not in
a position to make money from any decisions that might be made. In other
words, one prerequisite for being on an energy commission might be holding
no stock in any energy companies.
>>>Who will be in your cabinet?
>>
>>A large number of scientists, of many disciplines.
>
>That almost sounds like a throwaway line, except it makes sense.
>You'd want people who could combine empathy or determination with a
>pragmatic approach, so that, for instance, someone concerned about the
>plight of urban minorities, with expertise in social or behavioral
>sciences, would be more likely to put together realistic expectations
>with some effective means of getting there.
That's pretty much the way I think of it, except that I don't think it's
particularly necessary for the issues to be brought up by members
themselves. There aren't enough posts for that. The problems become
known of their own accord, and it's up to those put in positions of
responsibility to address them, using skills appropriate for the task. So
yes, issues concerning urban minorities (who, indeed, are stuck in a
horrible self-sustaining cycle of poverty and ignorance, from which only
the lucky and especially talented or skilled manage to escape) would be
best addressed by a scientist studied in sociology, psychology, etc. This
studied person would be studied enough to hire help with the required
practical experience, for when theories must be put to the test.
Of course, with non-social issues, it's less complex in as much as there
are no subjective considerations. Global warming, for example, is not a
matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact, which must be substantiated or
refuted according to the information at hand. Someone who just touched
ground from their golden parachute in the energy industry is not going to
do objective studies, or objectively evaluate the results already
collected. They're going to selectively choose those studies which seem
to support the industry which is still paying him/her a handsome pension.
I don't consider myself qualified to be President, simply because there
are too many issues of which I'm ignorant. But I'm vastly more qualified
than Bush, if for no other reason than that I know the limits of my
knowledge, and know which direction I must go in order to expand them.
Of course, I can't even campaign for the position for another eight years.
Another double-edged sword is that age restriction - too little
experience versus too little flexibility.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
Nyarlathotep
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:37:53 GMT, "Nyarlathotep"
> <Nyarla...@great.old.ones.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
Actually the thought of Israel having nukes is something I hadn't
considered. So I guess I would have to amend my previous statement. I
would still let Palestine and Israel destroy each other if that was there
choice PROVIDED their fighting did not spill over their borders. The damage
to the environment caused by nukes would definitely be "spilling over". In
that case (or any other case of letting their conflict go outside of their
borders) the offending party gets stomped down hard and handed over to his
enemy.
As for whether the parties involved would fight over resources such as water
etc. I am positive they would. In fact I would count on it. My approach
may sound harsh but I don't think the Arabs or Israelis can be gotten
through to any other way. Isolate them from the rest of the world and let
them fight it out and one of three things will happen. They will either be
sickened by their own carnage and figure out a way to live together (the
best possible outcome), they will wipe each other out and take their nasty
little memes with them, or one side comes out clearly on top and the
conflict ends.
As to our moral responsibility to these countries. I agree we (as par of
the UN) have created many of them, but the people running these countries
are full grown adults (despite how they may act) and are perfectly
responsible for their own actions. We are no more responsible for their
than a criminals parents are for his actions. Every atrocity requires
someone to make a conscious decision to commit it and it is on that person
(or groups) head.
--
Nyarlathotep
atheist#2075
Head of the Free Cthulu Committee
First Consort of She Who Leads The EAC
dummie
> 1) Breeding licenses. People should be licensed to have children. In
> addition to controlling population, its humanitarian. Licenses will only be
> given to people with stable home lives, who can financially afford a child,
> clean criminal records, has a certain level of intelligence/education, and
> can demonstrate that he/she has the motivation and time to put in the effort
> of raising the child.
Thats probably a bad idea IMNSHO, but something has to be done about
the population problem. I think educating people in the concepts
involved with fewer children is wise, and subsidies encouraging
families should be zapped dead. Having a child is a luxury you must
pay for, nobody else. If someone has a kid and its born into poverty
thats irreconcilable, and aid must be provided, the parents get no
s.s. or medical care benefits for themselves, even in old age, even
though they pay for health care in their taxes. Other than that I
don't know what can be done. Fighting human nature is like fighting a
nuclear fire. Its impossible. But hopefully one day we can avoid this
conflict, and stabilize our population at pre-industrial levels or
something.
Fred Stone
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 05:32:28 -0400 (EDT), "Mike Ruskai"
> <spammoc.r...@begoneynnaht.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:06:27 -0400, stillsunny wrote:
>>
>>
>>>....as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>>
>>>(Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>>
>>>What do you do?
>>>What are your priorities?
>>
>>Repair the damage done by Shrub, including environmental policy (Kyoto
>>being one of the big ones), civil liberties, religion-based policy (e.g.
>>denying foreign medical aid that might go towards birth control), etc.
>
>
> Do *you* know why the US didn't sign the Kyoto treaty?
> I mean, something close to the real reason, whatever it is?
> I don't.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html
"As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent
of the world, including major population centers such as China and
India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S.
economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus
that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing
global climate change concerns."
--
Fred Stone
"Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?"
aa # 1369; linux user # 254178; machine # 138214
Bored With the Bitch
It's bullshit, sunny. This story has been making the rounds at least since
the 1930's. I don't have my reference materials immediately available to me;
if I did, I'd work it out for you "back of the envelope" style. But the
bottom line is this. Given the kinds of cars we like to drive right now, we
are just about maxed out on mileage. Any improvements are going to be in the
areas of pollution reduction and reliability. As a matter of fact, there was
a spot on the CBS news this evening to the effect that some researchers in
California have perfected a near-zero [1] emissions internal combustion engine
that will appear IIRC, in Honda cars starting sometime next year.
[1] As close to "zero emissions" as an IC engine is likely to get. It will
need special low-sulfur gasoline that costs more to refine.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
======
Bored With the Bitch
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:11:18 +0200, MEow
><nik...@ichimusai.water_is_wet.org> wrote:
>
>>It was a dark and stormy night in alt.atheism. An owl was howling, the
>>moon was full and in a distance I heard stillsunny
>><sun...@tiredofspam.com> say:
>>
>>> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>>>
>>> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>>>
>>> What do you do?
>>
>>Renounce my position and run away screaming, wondering who on earth
>>has send me to USAmerica without my knowledge or consent...
>>
>>> What are your priorities?
>>
>>1) Renouncing
>>2) Running away screaming
>>3) Wondering
>>4) Going home.
>>
>>> Who will be in your cabinet?
>>>
>>No one, since I won't have one after I've renounced my position.
>>>
>>> who enjoys funny things, but is interested in some more serious
>>> discussion, too
>>
>>Oh. Sorry to disappoint you, then.
>
>You didn't at all, cutie :-)
>Okay, you don't have to be president.
>I need you in an advisory capacity.
>
>One of the things that's emerging from this thread is a growing call
>for universal health care. Truth is, I like the idea that anybody
>could just go to the doctor when they needed to, irrespective of
>finances, and could get the treatment they need, irrespective of
>insurance rules.
Some random thoughts:
I dunno. Sooner or later, we all die, and there's a decline prior to death.
For that end of things, we'd need a hospice system of some sort, so people
could die with a minimum of pain and a maximum of dignity.
There are not enough transplant organs to go around, so research needs to be
donw which will either increase the supply, decrease the need, or both.
Otherwise, you have no choice but to ration them somehow.
I think there would have to be some sort of co-payment system in place to cut
down on medically unnecessary trips to the doctor. Genuinely life-saving
procedures would not have a copayment, but stuff like cosmetic surgery would
be customer pays 100% (Exception -- persons born with deformities or who
sustain deformities as a result of disease or accident.) One could even use
this system to encourage healthier life-styles by taking into account a
person's habits. Smokers, drinkers, drug-users, overeaters, etc., would pay a
higher co-pay rate.
Regarding major medical care: No matter what, there is going to be some form
of rationing. I don't know how to address that issue.
Vaccinations should be free and mandatory.
Medical information should be freely available in libraries and on the
internet.
Medical frauds of any kind (including faith-healers) should be prosecuted
vigorously and severely.
Food regulations more vigorously enforced. Cut down on the number and amount
of chemical crap that gets added to foods. For those concerned with the
composition of thier foods (for any reason), a complete, detailed analysis of
each food stuff (indexed by UPC number as well as brand and name.) should be
available to anyone with access to a computer or a library. More comments on
food and these are really directed at the medical establishment: Come on
guys, let's get it together as to what constitutes a healthy diet. Kick the
food company representatives off the advisory boards and lets get some serious
medical research going here. There's so much contradictory information
regarding diet going around that I've personally given up and ignore all of
it. Once the medical establishment gets its act together, perhaps some form
food-tax incentives could be enacted to encourage people to eat healthier
diets.
>I tend not to trust government to be very efficient at that, though,
>and I'm concerned about the inhibiting effect it will have on research
>and development. Trouble is, I don't have firsthand experience of
>what it's like to live in a country with socialized medicine. Do you
>mind a few questions?
>
>Do you think it's a good thing?
>What percent of the budget (if you know) goes toward it?
>How do people feel generally about how much money they have to pay in
>taxes to support it?
>How accessible are services, from basic, general practice sorts of
>things to the high tech, cutting edge sorts of things (like organ
>transplants or laser surgery)? In other words, can you get the
>service, and how long does it take to, for instance, schedule an
>appointment?
>Are there still newer and better procedures and so forth being
>developed in socialized countries?
>Are there things you can't get or have done, due to expense?
>
>Basically, the overall positives and negatives.
>
>Please?
>
>Sunny
Bored With the Bitch
wrote:
Make it easier to disband a corporation shown to have a history of marketing
defective and dangerous products in ddition to the above. Sell off all of its
assets, and in the case of "intellectual property", render -that- into the
public domain.
Now, on the flip side, even the safest products can be modified and misused in
dangerous ways. Let's stop rewarding people for thier own stupidity when they
hurt themself with a product known to be safe when correctly used. (if there
really is such a thing)
Bored With the Bitch
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:07:14 GMT, raven1
><psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote:
[===]
>>Me either, but if there's one thing that alcohol Prohibition back in
>>the 1920s and the "War on Drugs" have taught us, it's surely that the
>>cure is worse than the disease. Make booze illegal, and you wind up
>>with Al Capone. Make smack illegal, and you wind up with John Gotti's
>>crew. Treat addictions of any kind as a medical issue, not a criminal
>>one, and you're a good way towards helping to cure the problem.
>
>Probably right.
>There's a certain saturation point in a population of those that will
>use those drugs, irrespective of their legality or illegality.
>Maybe a look at some of the countries that *have* decriminalized it,
>to see what they've done, and what troubles they've run into (there
>have been some, I think, mostly in the way of junkies sort of openly
>lying around in public instead of hiding in crack houses)
>
>There's still the question of importation, though, and all the money,
>and all the violence all that money produces.
If the drugs are easily and legally available (they only cost pennies per kilo
to manufacture), the illegal trade will dry up. There is a down side to this:
The drug cartels, now deprived of thier easy revenue, might launch terrorist
attacks either of thier own or in conjunction with other organisations as an
act of revenge. We would have to be prepared for that.
@ ANTISPAM @ntlworld.com Jim the Bad
> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>
> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>
> What do you do?
> What are your priorities?
> Who will be in your cabinet?
>
> Sunny
>
Casually mention (in my first speach) that I am an atheist and a socialist,
that I think the legalisation of guns is madness and it's the woman's right
to choose, that america should withdraw militarily from, well, everywhere,
that the embargo on Cuba is immorral and that I intend to sign the Kyoto
agreement ASAP.
Then I would run for cover.
:)
--
I am not sure how the government allows this newsgroup, but I shall be
writing my congressman about it. ---Soldier Of God, AFJC
Jim the Bad
dummie
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:54:30 GMT, "Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com>
> >> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
> >>
> >> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
> >>
> >> What do you do?
> >
>
> <whack!>
NYAAAA HAAAHAAHAAHAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
heh heh heh.
You know, this is an interesting thread, it amuses me to see how many
people likewise feel the war on drugs has been the biggest flop ever.
I thought I was pretty much the only one that thunk it. Y'all are a
buncha dope fiends!
stillsunny
the Bitch") wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 15:16:49 -0400, stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com>
>wrote:
>>I remember following the story, and I remember that the patent was
>>purchased by either an auto manufacturer or an oil company, though I
>>can't recall which one.
>>
>>And I've not seen it *yet*.
>>
>>So it makes me wonder how many *other* innovations are out there,
>>bought up and sat on because somebody's assembly line is already in
>>place, and the car designs are there, and the marketing's running --
>>and it would be too expensive to change it, and the competition would
>>drive them out of business.
>>
>>Sunny
>
>It's bullshit, sunny. This story has been making the rounds at least since
>the 1930's.
So I've been told :-)
This is the oddest thing.
I _remember_ watching the program, and remember digging in the papers
or watching the news for days afterwards, trying to find out more. I
can see the guy in my head, because it caught my attention
specifically because he was from near me.
Either my brain's gone kaflooey (possible)
or the TV reported something that wasn't true (no way!)
or it happened, and nobody believes me (maybe?...)
I'm wondering if I need to put on a tinfoil hat.
Where's Kansan when I need him?
I'm also wondering if it's worthwhile to go to the local paper and dig
through ten years worth of archives, trying to find the story.
Sunny
in tinfoil hat
dummie
> Karl E. Taylor <ktay...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > 3. Jobs. And first and foremost is to hire all those laid off IT folks
> > into a new government agency to make solar, wind, and other clean energy
> > sources work, and work cheaply.
>
> I'm hep, man. I can head the department of solar energy, no problem.
I'm curious, what do you know about solar energy? Or is there some
pun that whooshed over my head? I would be interested in knowing
about PV panels if you got the info.
stillsunny
This entire line of discussion is fascinating to me.
I can't quite come to grips with a mindset that says abortion is fine,
because it's the woman's choice -- but wants to somehow restrict their
right *to* have children, or limit that right to people the government
deems have all the bells and whistles, all their ducks in a row.
It can't be a population explosion of live births -- the birth rate's
gone down in the last ten years, to about 14.7 from 16.7, though the
infant mortality rate is down.
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part1.html
And then, if someone has the gall to have a child against government
approval, and take advantage of that universal health care system that
most everyone agrees we need, the parents who have their children *in*
poverty are sanctioned by being denied the same medical benefits
everyone else has.
I don't like kids in poverty, either, or kids abused, or kids being
raised by parent(s) that don't care. But I'm absolutely not going to
agree that the basic human right of procreation is something to be
parcelled out by the government as a reward for financial success.
Sunny
stillsunny
the Bitch") wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:34:23 -0400, stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com>
>wrote:
<snip>
Those are some _great_ ideas, and just the sort of thing I started
this thread for. Not just some vague dream, but some real thoughts
about what it would mean, and how to get there.
Sunny
who's beginning to wonder if universal health care _could_ work...
J Forbes
bingo!
> or it happened, and nobody believes me (maybe?...)
>
> I'm wondering if I need to put on a tinfoil hat.
> Where's Kansan when I need him?
>
> I'm also wondering if it's worthwhile to go to the local paper and dig
> through ten years worth of archives, trying to find the story.
>
> Sunny
> in tinfoil hat
jim
Reverend Lovejoy
news:mapfnu40pfp4hhbqo...@4ax.com...
> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Thu, 05 Sep 2002 22:19:04
> GMT, "Reverend Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com>
> brought the total lines of text written about "Re: You are President
> of the US..." to 25. I decided to observe the following about them:
>
> >> >2) Removal of government restrictions due to safety concerns. Things
like
> >> >seat belt laws, laws against suicide, etc. should be removed. The only
> >> >person who's life you're endangering by not buckling up is your own,
> >>
> >> That's not actually true. Stick someone in the seat behind the driver
> >> or passenger with no seatbelt and, crash, and you get a body hurtling
> >> into the driver or front seat passenger at 70 miles an hour (bloody
> >> inertia). This is usually very messy and not infrequently fatal to the
> >> person in front.
> >
> >
> >Hmmm, you're probably right. Still doesn't excuse a law against suicide
> >though
>
> True. <thinks>How about a law that makes a failed suicide bid a
> capital offence? </thinks>
Well, in NY state, the penalty for jumping off a building is death :)
stillsunny
wrote:
>"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
>news:bv1fnuk5ngrob2pc6...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:48:03 GMT, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahooNOSPM.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >"stillsunny" <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:eb4dnus1b10li4na6...@4ax.com...
>> >> ...as of twelve o'clock midnight, this day, September 4, 2002.
>> >>
>> >> (Don't ask how -- I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you)
>> >
>> >Yeah, well, now I have the CIA working for *me* so I'll get that info
>> >shortly anyhow.
>>
>> Poot.
>> I didn't think of that.
>>
>See, you have to think of such things when you're prez.
Good thing you're in charge then, Sir.
<snip>
>> >2) Reviving the Kyoto Protocols
>>
>> Nemo, do *you* know the specifics as to why the US refused to sign on?
>
>I've not heard the specifics - if Dubya has enunciated specifics, NPR hasn't
>passed them on to me. I heard that "it would harm our economy." IOW, the
>big businesses that do the lion's share of polluting and putting millions of
>SUV's on the road can't be bothered to help clean up their acts.
Do you mind if I ask an impertinent question?
How come everybody thinks we ought to sign it, but nobody knows what's
in it?
>> Frankly, I don't have the time to wade through mounds of spin
>> documents. Everyone seems to think we *should* have signed on;
>> everyone thinks we're bad for *not* signing on; but no one knows (that
>> I know of) what the specifics of the Kyoto treaty said, or what of
>> those specifics the US objected to.
>>
>Here's the text of the treaty:
>
>http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
>
>I'm no good at reading legalese, but I think part of this point in my agenda
>would also come up under the "fairness" item below.
It's too late for me to absorb this. I'll read it tomorrow, and see
if I can sort it out.
But thank you for finding it.
><snip>
>> >3) Making the US a fair player in the international community
>>
>> How?
>>
>> I don't mean to pigeonhole you (well, yeah I do :-)
>>
>Pigeonhole? You mean that as to categorize me??
Buttonhole?
This has been an energetic thread. There are still some people I want
to respond to, and haven't gotten to yet.
>> "Fair" is an ambiguous word. It sounds good, but it's sort of like
>> "family values."
>>
>> What unfairness or inequity do you see, and how would you approach
>> fixing it? And what result would that have on the nation, as a whole?
>>
>Here are my points for this one:
>
>A) Act as a member of equal standing in all international venues - the World
>Court, the UN General Assembly, etc. IOW, obey the orders of those bodies as
>we expect all other nations to. A second part of this would be to join in
>with all the other nations that support the permanent War Crimes Tribunal.
>We have no business claiming to be above the law in that regard.
I'm sorry. <hugs Nemo, because I'm getting ready to disagree
vehemently>
I don't know what that entails, either, but I don't think I agree, and
won't until I know the details. Do you know the details?
Near as I can tell, membership in the UN is voluntary, as is
participation in all the stuff they think up.
I know there's trouble with the perception that the US expects
everybody *else* to do stuff we won't agree to, and I'm sorry about
that.
But the UN is *not* a non-partisan body, and sometimes the things
everybody else is signing onto, we already do, and better.
I know, I know. I'm an arrogant American, and may well get slammed
for this.
But how many other nations try their own soldiers for crimes in
combat?
Am I willing to turn a US citizen over to a world court, where his
rights and protections are not nearly so well preserved as in US law?
No, I'm not. Not until someone tells me some reason besides "it's
just fair."
I have a fairly basic distrust of world opinion, and world
organizations, although I do think they do a great deal of good, in
some cases.
>B) Work to restore and maintain the flow of our membership dues in the UN
Okay, I'm lazy -- what are the figures, and who's behind?
Didn't we catch up with all the bombs we used in Bosnia?
>C) Keep Our Noses out of everyone else's business - including South America,
>Central America, Cuba, the Carribbean, and so forth. Any changes we want to
>make in those places can be made using our economic carrot rather than our
>military and/or CIA sticks.
How about a specific set of guidelines as to when it's appropriate to
intervene, and when it's not?
No, that wouldn't work, would it?
Bearing in mind I'm aware of some of the things I wish we *hadn't*
done, how do you feel about letting, say, a Bosnia sort itself out?
>> >4) Solving the Mid-East quagmire permanently.
>>
>> Yer an ambitious one, aren't ya?
>
>Hey, I feel like I ought to earn my quarter-mil paycheck some how. {;-)
>> Shall I take it, you'll be sending some of our abundant nuclear
>> arsenal to effect that solution? ;-)
>>
>Ummmm. No. I'd prefer to disarm as far as possible and scale back all
>nuclear programs until further notice, but that's another problem to worry
>with.
>
>> Otherwise, how would you solve it, and could you solve it without the
>> active participation and cooperation of the players themselves?
>>
>On an emotional level, I'd like to wall off the whole area, seal off the air
>space and let them figure it out from there. {;-)
>
>Failing that, I'd think it'd be a neat thing to create a homeland for
>Palestinians. Somewhere far more prosperous and congenial than their present
>digs - like Texas. I'll bet there's a good chunk of land in Texas that could
>comfortably hold a Palestinian State, that would be a *nice* new home for
>them and allow them to trade peacefully with neighbors (the US and Mexico)
>that they don't hate.
How you gonna square that with your "Keep Our Nose Out" policy?
>OK... I know it's a fantasy.
Oh, okay. New, on Nintendo 64!
>More realistically, I'd cut back hard on the economic and political aid
>given to Israel. I wouldn't cut them off, but I'd do enough to weaken their
>base significantly. I'd also work to assist the Palestinians to establish an
>infrastructure capable of growing a genuine state. And I think I'd push
>*very hard* to make Jerusalem an *open* city that is *no one's* bloody
>capital.
What do you think would happen if you cut aid to Israel?
I don't just mean what would happen physically.
But what do you think that message would be conveyed to the rest of
the middle east, and what would be the result of that message?
<snip>
>> This is turning out to be a fun thread.
>> There are a _lot_ of smart people here.
>>
>Wish I could be one of them. I never even dreamed of the DEA stuff... {;-)
Everybody's got some interesting ideas, though I must confess, some of
the ideas aren't the province of the president, or even the federal
government, at all. Still, though, the conversation's great.
Sunny