I'll freely admit I'm a pretty stalwart leftist/liberal. I'm not sure how well I'd fit as a Democrat but it's a pretty big tent. Let me tell you a little of what I think and a little bit about why - I'm sure you care. You do care, don't you? Yes of course you do. You're a caring person!
I doubt the NRA's claim that an armed society is a polite society -- however I don't really beleive we ought to remove people's right to defend themselves. A gun in every hand would turn Virginia Tech into Just Another Double Homocide, but it would also have the potential to turn every domestic dispute, bad performance review and casual insult into a crime scene. Even if the crime rate doesn't go up, one has to consider that politeness and fear can look a lot alike from the right angle. A completely disarmed society, however, immorally tells the citizen that he is not allowed reasonable means to defend himself and really does nothing to stop the illegal posession of guns. Drugs are illegal pretty much everywhere in this country but I haven't noticed much of a shortage.
I'm a staunch supporter of the right of gays and pretty much anyone else to have consensual sex with whomever or whatever they want. Hell, I think you ought to be able to marry a turnip if that's what does it for you and you're totally in love or just need to get your mom off your back. Marraige is words on paper and words in the air; what makes it meaningful is the people and the work put into it, not how exclusive the club is.
Free speech should remain sacrosanct. Limits ought apply only in the most dire cases: incitement to riot, contracting to commit a crime by proxy, that sort of thing. As shown by the recent Digg "riot" (though, describing anything that happens on the internet as a "riot" pushes the bounds of beleivability and good taste), information age citizenry is already greviously disilussioned with the law of the land. So much so, that an attempt by a company to restrict information that could be argued by an honest man as a tool for piracy (not to mention a dire threat to its business) met with stiff resistance.
This is a people who already are hostile towards the current arbiters of law, and will become more so - especially if more attempts are made to dictate to it what it may say. Technology moves fast, and means of anonymity are already well sought after. It behooves those who champion the law to realize that a law freely trampled is not only useless but counterproductive. This holds doubly true when a law's very existence irks those whom with enforcement must ultimately co-operate to even understand the realm it wants to control.
It's also against the principles of the Consitution and the premise of our country, of course, but argument by appeal to tradition is kind of lame really so forget I brought it up.
I support government assistance for the needy, but think it should be focused on the idea that anyone who works full-time should be able to afford:
- the cost of living in modest, but safe quarters,
- reasonable utilities, and
- a reasonable amount of food for him/herself, or him her/self, a part-time working partner and a child,
- preventative healthcare,
- means of transportion (this does not mean that everybody ought to be able to afford a car in NYC) to and from work, and
- enough left over that with judicious saving and a a little consumer spending he or she should not have to work past retirement.
It's a tall order, and one the country is probably not willing to accept. But, I beleive that such a system, and government assistance that focuses on training and pushing people into this model, and sustinence only contingent on their participation, that much of the waste will be eliminated. People who do honest work for modest living also have much less incentive to become mired in a life of crime.
I beleive a well-funded militia^H^Hary is essential to the security of a free state. But as some other utter hack said it ought to also be well-regulated. The military in the time of powdered wigs and empowered Whigs tended to be micromanaged by the Congress at the time. One can reasonably blame the war hero Arnold's desertion and betrayal on a meddling congress that did its complete best to shunt him of his rightly deserved praise and promote his foes and their cronies without merit.
Today, though, we seem to have a complete reversal. The Commander-in-Cheif micromanages the political bent of his generals and insists any attempt by lawmakers to inject accountability to the law or the
people into the operation of the military is "meddling". This, of course, is just cynical balderdash spewed forth by a slowly backpedalling administration who knows the cute little doggy that is the public will fall for the ol' fake ball throw every single time. Problem is, some of the people that parrot and hear this rhetoric might actually beleive it beyond the two years we have to put up with it from these guys.
-------------
All them fancy words having been said, I'd rather a guy I think is a complete asshole get elected and make good decisions. We don't need another Bush fiasco. Politics aside, the guy's real failing was the seeming disregard for making sure his posts were filled with capable people instead of buddies he owed a favor that led to things like Katrina being a national crisis instead of a natural disaster.
As stated, I'm a leftist but I'd really, really prefer Iraq not be a complete mess and serve as a rallying point for the right and a calming force in the Middle East as the neo-cons thought it would, rather than the current situation of it being a disastrous fuckup conveniently (for some) forcing a disorganized, divided and frequently disengenous Democratic field victories seemingly against its will. Keep that in mind as you make your own choices: Politics is important, and shapes the makeup of our country, but choosing a lunkhead who happens to agree with you on most things leads everybody down the shitter.
