“Essentials of a Sane, Quality Future”

by Marc Pezzell 6/3/03

Hello everyone. Now that we are almost halfway through 2003, a very important time will soon be upon us. This is the general election of 2004, when we will choose, in theory, our next, president and several members of Congress. When such a time comes around, some of us are filled with hope that we can make a difference, that we can change things, that we can defeat the massive problems that this nation, and this world faces. For myself, I am hoping beyond hope that we can rid ourselves of the present occupier of the chief executive office, Mr. Bush. Notice that I didn’t say “President” Bush.

However, there is another hope that I am struggling with that goes beyond this. This is the hope that any result in the upcoming 2004 election will make any real, meaningful difference whatsoever. Believe me, I have my doubts. Have we heard any really good ideas coming from our presidential candidates lately? Have we ever heard any really good ideas in the last generation or two? It’s always the same old, same old. I’d like to make a reference to Dean Hartwell’s book, Truth Matters. We just keep getting bland, egocentric candidates that care more about being elected than making any real positive difference. Of course, those that would try would have to face a voting populace that seems largely gullible, narrow minded, short-sighted, apathetic, and would find any ideas or proposed solutions with any real meat to them, or that would ask them to put out more effort than scratch their heads, to be too racy and risky.

So let’s say that the Democrats are successful and oust Bush from office. So what? What will happen then? There’ll be a slight tweak upward in education. Oh really? There’ll be a modest effort to strengthen environmental laws. Whoop dee doo! There’ll be something about getting rid of the tax cuts and trying to reduce the debt. I’m still waiting to be impressed here! There’ll probably be a little something about the welfare of the poor, medical insurance, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH! It won’t really matter. The moment the Democratic President is out, or the majority shifts away from the Democrats in Congress, any pathetically modest or half-hearted gains they have made will be brutally raped by the next Republican President and/or Congress and we’ll slip a few extra steps backward to boot. I would be somewhat gracious and say that I don’t think all Republicans are trying really hard to destroy the fabric and health of this country, but if any moderate GOPs are out there, they are silent, inactive, or impotent, which is really what the Democrats are doing now, also.

Now let me say this. I’m a Democrat. I have always felt proud to be one. I have always been of the opinion that the general philosophy of the party was that of vision, good sense, and compassion. However, I’m not interested in these quaint little token issues that the Democrats have picked up over the years. I agree with what they’re trying to do or supposedly trying to do, but they’re essentially meaningless when taken in the larger picture, because when all is said and done, nothing will really change for the better anyway. I’m looking for real issues here. I’m looking for issues that would result, if taken to a successful conclusion, in real lasting positive change. So let’s try on a few right now, shall we?

Here’s one. How about making Instant Runoff Voting the law of the land? Some of us have heard this one before. While voting in an election, one would select his/her first, second, and third choice, if more than two are running. When the votes are tallied, the first choices are looked at first. If no candidate wins a clear majority, then the one who did the worst is taken out of the race. Those that selected the worst candidate will have their second choices tallied and added to those that remain. If there is clear majority then, you have a winner. If not, repeat the process. For more information on this, refer to Truth Matters by Hartwell. This system will help to open up our elections to a broader range of candidates and ideas than the restricted two-party system. The voters will have the freedom to choose a candidate that they really like without fear that their choice will help an undesirable candidate to win office. No longer will voters feel they have to vote for a bad candidate because that candidate will have the best chance of beating an even worse candidate. I cannot stress enough how important an issue this is. It is an essential element in a democracy, the freedom to choose.

How about Campaign Finance Reform? I’m not referring to the brutally disemboweled McCain/Feingold bill. I’m referring to huge and radical changes in how our campaigns are financed. As it is now, the rich and the powerful, corporate interests in particular, have a stranglehold on our democracy. They are able to donate, through various means, a virtually unlimited amount of money to the campaigns of those they have influence, or control, over. If the powerful and wealthy bought political office in a foreign country, we would call that country corrupt. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I call it as I see it. We live in a corrupt system. How can anyone refer to the U.S. as a democracy under these conditions? Excuse me you big powerful corporate interests. Could we please have our country back now? Until we can substantially limit the amount of money that can be donated to campaigns, we will never have a democratic system. There should be laws against anyone except individual U.S. citizens from making donations. Not organizations, not special interest groups, not companies, not corporations, not labor unions, not foreign organizations or nationals, no one except individual people who are U.S. citizens. The amount donated, per person, should be limited. The exact amount could be debatable, but $50 wouldn’t be bad, or $100, or $200, but no more. There should be a cap on the total amount that any one campaign can receive. This way, if anyone who has the means uses other people as proxies, it wouldn’t matter in the long run. The total would still have a limit. This would also level the playing field among candidates. No one candidate, with more wealthy supporters, could dominate an election race. Since the financial field is level, it would all come down to ideas, not to money. This would also make it more likely that third party candidates, or fourth for that matter, could fairly compete. It’s all about freedom of choice.

How about Campaign Time Reform laws? As of now, a large part of any job a politician does relates to getting reelected. How about spending more time doing the job that he/she was elected/hired to do in the first place? What a concept! Perhaps there should be a standard as to how much campaigning can be done before an election. There’s no reason why one month shouldn’t work just fine. I mean, really. How much time does one really need to get the message out. All candidates will be equal. No one starts early. To keep everyone in line, if a candidate, or his/her campaigners “slip up”, then there will be a penalty. For example, if candidate “A” starts two days early, he/she would have an unfair advantage over candidate “B”. No excuses will be acceptable. Candidate “A” could be penalized two days during the month that he/she would have had. No campaigning or ads can air during that penalty phase. If the two day head start consists of flyers, posters, or anything that cannot be taken down with any practicality, for that two day period, then the penalty could be more severe. Perhaps we could have a four day “dead” period for airing ads over electronic media in this case for candidate “A”. I must confess that the Campaign Finance Reform would help with this also, but the more controls we have in place, the better, just in case neither reaches an ideal state, or some future candidate finds some unforeseen loophole. More controls would hold everyone in line and help ensure fairness and voter choice.

Here’s one I hear little about. Lobbying restrictions. As it is now, any powerful group or person can hire or enlist any number of lobbyists to push a particular agenda as many times over as they have wealth or influence. Also, that powerful person could be one who presently holds office! This is unacceptable. This is yet another way for those who have power can take the right of choice away from those who have less or none. Interest groups, corporations, unions, other organizations, etc., etc. should not be allowed to hire or enlist lobbyists in the same capacity that they should not be able to make campaign contributions. Only individual U.S. citizens should be able to do this. Even then, no one person should have the ability to magnify their voice beyond himself/herself. Therefore, a single person can only hire or enlist one lobbyist. This lobbyist, essentially, speaks on his/her behalf in the halls of government. If it is ever found that a person has more than one lobbyist working for him/her at the same time, then a penalty could be enacted. Perhaps that person is restricted from hiring any lobbyist for a period of time. This may seem restrictive to many, but laws must be devised to ensure fairness. That is what this is all about, after all. Without it, democracy is compromised. Of course, there are means to circumvent this. A person could use others as proxies to hire or enlist additional lobbyists. The leaders of an organization could simply ask all of its individual members to hire lobbyists to promote its interests. Still, it could limit the power of organizations anyway. For example here’s some simple logic. None of the people who support the gun lobby would be able to find other people outside that group to lobby for them, since anyone outside that group would not support it. A paradox. I don’t deny that there are still loopholes here, however. At least it’s a start.

Now here’s a big one. Environmental Protection. There should be some environmental protection laws that are far more substantial than the ones we now have. In addition, they should be much harder to dismantle once put in place. For example, there could be an Environmental Protection amendment to the Constitution that makes it very hard to undo environmental protection laws by subsequent administrations or office holders. Part of this amendment would make it impossible to undo or water down a previous environmental law without voter approval. It could go to the voters in a general election, for example, requiring a 2/3 vote to dismantle. It should always be harder to undo a protection than put it in place. We need to err on the side of safety. This planet is all we have. We need to make sure that it is safe and healthy and safe and healthy for us to be here. Without it, all life on Earth, including us, is finished. I don’t hold any value to counter arguments here. Many go something like, “…but you can’t prove absolutely that it harms the environment.” Many factors have been proven to harm the environment. Even for those that don’t have absolute proof, is waiting for 100% proof really sensible here? Would these same people hold a gun to their head and say, “…you can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are actually bullets in this gun, so I’m just going to go ahead and pull this trigger.” Does that sound intelligent to you? I didn’t think so. Since the destruction of the environment means death, this analogy is quite accurate. Since the destruction of the environment means death for us all, nothing less than the strength of an amendment is really appropriate. In addition, a candidate should not only fight to keep up with the safeguards other countries are putting forth, such as the Kyoto accords, he/she should be upping the ante and lead the way, pushing for even stronger global environmental safety.

Related to this is the alternative energy issue. Fossil fuel utilization and consumption has no future in a world that cares about itself. We must change. This shouldn’t be some quaint little issue that a candidate brings up to the podium for show and tell in an attempt to convince us that he/she’s thinking about more than the poll numbers. He/she must really mean it and push it to the limit! We must build power plants that utilize renewable energy, such as wind power, solar power, or tidal power to produce energy that is clean and environmentally responsible. The fossil fuel electrical plants must be phased out sooner rather than later, even if well before their decommission date. The pollution they give off is reason enough to expedite their dismantling. I am not convinced that nuclear power is a viable form of energy production. Sure, it’s powerful. It’s comparably efficient when compared to fossil fuel plants. It produces energy cleanly, as long as nothing goes wrong. However, I feel that having material lying around that, if there was an accident or worse, a deliberate attack, could poison an entire geographical region is reckless and irresponsible. The potential for environmental disaster is horrifying. If the engineers of future interstellar spacecraft wish to use nuclear power for propulsion, I would at least be willing to listen to their arguments, but this material has no place on planet Earth.

Now about those fossil fuels. They can’t last forever. It’s about time we all realize that. How much time do we have left with our fossil fuel based transportation system, electrical system, and economy? Ten years? Five years? It’s only a matter of time and, although different authorities on the subject may disagree as to an exact figure, most agree that another decade or so is all that we can hope for. Even if we obtain new sources of petroleum reserves, i.e. destroying more natural habitat and/or going to war and killing hundreds of thousands of people, we can’t stop the inevitable. When the fuel runs low, their prices will climb. Gasoline prices will inevitably climb and will price this fossil fuel system of ours right out of the market. What then? Since we have no other energy or transportation system in place, or at least nothing nearly comparable, we could very well see a collapse of our way of life. Maybe we should start planning for this inevitability now. Does this seem obvious, or am I missing something? Why not start creating laws and a system to disfavor the use of fossil fuels. This could take more than one form. First, raise gasoline taxes. Yes, if there was ever an issue that would make a cowardly politician turn tail and run like Hell, this is it. I know, it’s a daunting issue. However, look at it this way. The true cost of fuel is much higher than we pay for now. There are many factors that contribute to this. If we paid the true price of gasoline, we would probably be paying at least $5.00 per gallon. Maybe much more. So, you see, the inefficient and destructive fuel based system has been getting a free ride all along. We need to make fuel use unattractive. We could phase in the tax, a little at first, and gradually increase it. Second, we need to create an infrastructure and transportation system that greatly reduces our demand upon energy.

This brings me to the next issue, transportation reform. Aside from the damage done to human ecology and human social systems, the automobile dependent system is a beast that gulps fuel. A transportation system based upon compact, walkable urban centers or hubs, connected by rail would use much less energy than the present system. To take it a step farther, we could eliminate the need for cars in our urban centers altogether by adopting more human scaled communities and well developed trains and trolley systems. For more information, read Carfree Cities by J.H. Crawford. Reducing or eliminating our need for cars, in our cities in particular, may ultimately be the single most important factor in eliminating our need for fossil fuels for energy. Opponents of this view may argue that new sources of energy will save our hellish transportation system just in the nick of time. To quote James H. Kunstler, author of Geography of Nowhere, “Why would you want to?” Besides, Superman doesn’t come to save the day in the real world. Ultimately an efficient, well-run mass transit system will also be much cheaper to run and cheaper to use as well. Think about how much money goes into maintaining that beast in the garage, the repairs, the gasoline, the insurance. How about the cost to the individual and society as a whole from all of the injury and death? How many accidents will occur before we finally decide that we have an unsafe transportation system? How many disabled? How many will no longer work and, while we’re at it, pay taxes. So, there’s a economic cost as well as the more important human cost. While we’re at it, how many American sons and daughters have to die or become permanently disabled in the oil wars so that we can drive? Detractors may argue that it would cost too much money to create such a rail transit system. Oh really? We’ve been doing it for a very long time, especially before the post world war two era. As for the cost, just think of how many millions or even billions go into road and especially freeway construction in the U.S. There’s much information on the subject in Asphalt Nation by Jane Kay Holtz. All of that money for a system that cannot last much longer. What a waste. We could be spending that money to construct a really great “kick-ass” train system or systems all over this country, for both inter- and intra-city transportation. A little note here. We could use the extra money from the gasoline tax I mentioned earlier to help build a great rail transit system and to fix up, and in some cases rebuild, our civilization. You all caught that? I’ll talk more about our civilization in the next chapter. As it is now, a certain amount of federal funds is distributed to each state for transportation costs. There should be a change in the requirements for how that money should be used. Perhaps a lesser amount, say 20% could be used for discretionary projects, taking into account that a transition to rail based transportation wouldn’t be easy or overnight. The lion’s share, the other 80% should be for a rail based system, whether it be high speed rail, trolleys, etc. Politicians take note. This issue won’t die and supporting it will get easier. You would have more supporters than you may realize, if you fight for it and fight hard.

Now about our civilization. I say we need to rebuild our civilization, because as it is now our cities are too spread out to support true human communities. Loving that sprawl? Not only does that sprawl preclude compact, walkable, human scaled communities, it also eats up natural habitat like a cancer. How about all that time you spend driving instead of living? Does that make you proud of our civilization? How about the cheap, ugly, short lived buildings we have now? Does that make you proud? How about the dirt, the stink, the crumbling structures, the danger? How about those car accidents? How about the crime? If one has no meaningful contact with other members of the community, is there the chance to learn how to deal with other human beings? How about all that apathy from people being disassociated from each other, a breeding ground for antisocial behavior? There does seem to be a correlation between more sprawl and more car dependence over the past several decades with more crime. Of course, there is another factor that is at least as important on the crime issue that I’ll discuss later. Loving it? I didn’t think so. The physical environment that we have created for ourselves makes a Hell of a loud statement that we’re a civilization that doesn’t like itself too much. Sure, there are many who might say that we’ve never had it so good, that we have a better standard of living than anyone else in the world. How do they come by this opinion? Are they referring to having more material possessions? Having that new $1000K stereo won’t make you happy. Having that new car won’t make you happy. None of this really works if your spirit is empty. Even if we have it better, few can argue that what we have isn’t degrading, despite the advancement of technology. Some may say it’s because of it. Feeding yourself with a high fat, high cholesterol diet won’t make you happy. Breathing in the toxic fumes of a fossil fuel dependent society won’t make you happy either. How about our unprecedented level of consumption of materials and energy? How about the pollution we produce? Does this make a great civilization?

There should be open and serious discussion on a large scale about building cities and communities with people and natural habitat in mind. They should be beautiful. The buildings should be built with time honored architectural techniques, not the whim of an inept madman. They shouldn’t make you want to retreat into your home to watch a fantasy on your TV, because reality is too unpleasant. They should be built of strong and resilient materials that will last a long time without crumbling so fast. There should be community centers, such as plazas, public squares, or the open, pedestrian friendly street itself. All of the resident’s needs should be within a few minute’s walk of their homes, whether it be social contact, employment, entertainment, medical care, school, shopping, etc. In addition they should live within a short walk of a transit station. Although buses may be useful in some isolated or perhaps short term instances, the best future of transportation will come with rail. Open space should be present in large measure, whether it be well manicured city parks, corner parks, or wilderness areas. When a resident rarely has to get into a car again and has all of his/her needs met within easy reach, the energy, financial, and environmental costs will become much, much lower. Future or present politicians take note. Think about it! Think hard about it!

This next issue is a tough one to address. It’s one hell of a hot potato, but we cannot be afraid to address it and we cannot afford not to. Immigration Reform. Fact. The population of the U.S. is growing too much, too fast, plain and simple. Immigration has always been a part of our country. It has made us stronger, smarter, and better. However, we presently have a situation where it is happening too much, too fast, and for too long to provide adequate services for immigrants and non immigrants alike. It’s too much, too fast, and too long for them to assimilate into American culture and to assimilate the language. It’s too fast and too long for them to become fully contributing members of society and I’m not talking about unskilled jobs here. I’m talking about immigrants becoming professionals, teachers, doctors, businessmen and women. It can’t happen at the rate we’re going now. We have not given any serious thought to providing the resources and assistance to those who make the U.S. their new home to enable them to live up to the best of their potential. We can’t maintain the standard of living in this country for everyone, including the immigrants, at this rate. I, of all people, sympathize with the hardships they must face in their native lands, but we can’t save them all, at least not under the present circumstances. There will always be another million here, another ten million there, and so on. Where does it stop? This includes both legal and illegal immigration. Personally, I don’t buy it one bit that we can’t curb the tide. Personally, I think it’s powerful business interests that are influencing policy to obtain fodder for cheap, unskilled labor to maximize profits. Certainly, there are some who come to the U.S. as educated professionals but, at present, this is less common. We need to reduce the legal immigrants to a lower number, say, 150,000 per year, and stem the tide of illegal immigration. Perhaps, if we follow some of the other ideas I have outlined in this essay, the world may actually be a better place for everyone, thereby eliminating the need for such huge numbers to immigrate to the U.S. Besides, the United States won’t be in much of a position to truly help the rest of the world unless it gets itself in shape first. As a side note, if the issues in this essay are addressed and taken seriously, then maybe a higher quality of life in the rest of the world won’t result in global environmental degradation. Speaking of which, as Americans we consume more resources and create more pollution per person than any other society on Earth. Yet another reason to limit the growth of the American population. I’ll deal with global overpopulation in an upcoming essay. If our population increases, more than anyone else in the world, so does the consumption, the waste, and the pollution. So, it all ties together after all. This is an important issue here, and people need to wake up and realize the need to discuss it openly without fear of those who would wrongly and unfairly accuse them of being racist, anti-immigrant, etc. For more information on the subject, read How Many Americans? by Leon F. Bouvier and Lindsey Grant. This isn’t a liberal issue. This isn’t a conservative issue. It’s about good sense. Reforms would greatly benefit all Americans, whether they be native born or foreign born.

How about education reform? I mean public education, not the Religious Right’s attempt to unduly influence new generations with religious doctrine through school vouchers. I hear a lot of talk by Democrats about being pro education. It seems to be one of their trademarks. Yawn. Nothing really exciting or innovative ever seems to get discussed, at least not loudly enough for me to hear it. How about paying teachers an impressive wage to compensate them for what often amounts to a hellish profession of stress and toil? Why not 50K a year minimum? How about 60K? How about strong financial incentives to attract advanced degree professionals, such as an extra 10K a year for having a masters in a relevant field or 20K extra for having a doctorate? Let’s make it worth their while, people! I hear all of this talk about raising standards for teachers higher and higher and all the while the profession is bleeding to death as qualified teachers run for the hills. If we want to increase the numbers of good teachers, then do something to attract them for goodness sake! I don’t remember hearing a peep about this from any Democratic candidate for office. How about smaller class sizes? I don’t mean under 40. I mean under 20. How about 15 students maximum? If we attract more teachers, this number is reasonable. How about every class having a teaching assistant that gets paid at least 25K per year? That seems a living wage at the present, doesn’t it? Those assistants could be given tuition breaks if they pursue teaching as their profession as an added incentive. It could be another great way to flesh out the ranks. How about after school programs, such as political discussion groups, art activities, science groups, creative writing, or book clubs? They could be quasi academic, tutorial, study hall time, or purely recreational in nature. It would stimulate students’ minds, keep them constructively occupied while their parents are at work, and may very well improve overall academic performance. I first got this idea from Dean Hartwell, author of Truth Matters. Of course, it never hurts to have all the books, supplies the schools could ever want as well as well as clean, comfortable, state of the art school facilities. Now, how to pay for this? Some would laugh and say the money isn’t there. Oh really? I see millions and billions of dollars thrown around all of the time on wasteful freeway projects, the mighty U.S. war machine, etc., etc., etc. What if even a small portion of that was spent upon future generations? Also, as I said earlier, a rail based transportation system is much cheaper to run and maintain than a road based system. How many millions could be saved? Billions? If a state was able to eliminate this huge drain on its coffers, it could divert the large, leftover funds to education. We could change the paltry sum school districts get to a substantial, awe-inspiring horde. I cannot stress this enough. Education needs to be given high priority. Until we start seeing some real innovation, nothing will change.

The next issue is another important one, that of keeping the budget balanced and the United States of America free of debt. It seems like a distant dream now, doesn’t it? Perhaps it’s a tragic hope, that one day we could have a country that is a fiscally healthy well oiled machine. My frustration is that every time we have a President or Congress that seems to be wearing down the debt, we have subsequent one that seems Hell bent on increasing it again. Case in point. Former President Clinton and Mr. Bush. During Clinton’s tenure, the debt was substantially reduced. Not that it did any good. As soon as Bush was in, he attacked those gains with a near maniacal glee. Now we are in some pretty sorry shape economically and he just got Congress to give him another huge tax cut. How will that help? It will help his rich buddies. That must be it. Either that or he is deliberately trying to wreck U.S. financial health or is shockingly stupid. All of these may be true. By the way, where were the Congressional Democrats during all of this? Didn’t they even try to stop the tax cut? I still can’t believe that they didn’t make the biggest stink over it! I know that the idea of a balanced budget amendment has come up before. It would be hard to do. I know. It would be even harder to make it practical. However, I am beginning to think that it should be done, or at least something equally good. There must be some way to protect the country against irresponsible fiscal policy. What factors would be included into such an amendment? Perhaps any tax cut above a certain size would need to go before the voters in a general election, subject to a 2/3 majority to approve it. This way a reckless president or congress would be unable to flush us all down the drain on a whim. It would force them to make a real case in favor of it, if they can. Another factor would be full disclosure of information regarding budget policy. No hiding the fine print anymore. Also, perhaps the same 2/3 majority would also be required to approve an increase in spending above a certain size. Perhaps the sizes of these amounts could vary, depending upon the economic output of the country at a given time or in a given year. These are just a few possibilities to protect us and future generations from bad fiscal policy and the burdens they pose.

Here’s another really big issue that should be picked up as soon as possible, in a big way. The Drug War. It should end and it should end now. Drugs should be legalized. Sound crazy? It shouldn’t. There’s already been so much death over this. So much misery. So much corruption, not just here at home, but all over the Western Hemisphere, and all over the world. No one ever stops to think that the drugs themselves aren’t the true cause. It is the “war” against them. Has it ever occurred to anyone, just how much crime and corruption is fueled by the underground drug market? It is because it is illegal that the prices are so high, therefore turning a profit for those who wish to bring it to the U.S. and sell it to our citizens, our children. These traffickers and the huge criminal network that surrounds them are fed by this war. Remember the horrifying strife that’s going on in Columbia? These drug lords don’t make their money in a vacuum, you know. Hasn’t anyone noticed how the crime rate in the U.S. has skyrocketed in the past century, especially in the past few decades? The harder we fight the drug “war”, the worse it gets. Cause in effect. It’s not rocket science, here. This is simple logic. A third grader could do it. How about Prohibition in the 30’s? Anyone notice how bad things became when the war against liquor started? I hear all of this meaningless talk about being “tough” on crime, but measures to deal with the root causes of it are almost completely absent from public discussion. If we want to be tough on crime, then let’s turn it off at the source. How many innocent people have to die or have their lives destroyed because of this? How many people have to be persecuted and ruined because they are addicted to a substance that they have no choice but to lie, cheat, and steal to obtain? How many of these people, by the hordes, could live perfectly normal and productive lives if they were allowed to have the drugs they are addicted to? They could be provided safe, regular doses, by well regulated offices. Oh, let’s not forget the taxes these people will pay by working instead of being supported by tax dollars for usually futile treatment and prison cells. By the way, the argument that anyone can get over their addiction to drugs is a myth. It can happen in some uncommon circumstances, perhaps. However, for the most part, people cannot just stop. One cannot legislate people off drugs. The only way to stop this beast is to stop fighting it. It is, in many ways, analogous to nuclear war. The only way to win the war is not to fight it. Let it bleed to death on our not fighting this “war”. When the drugs become legal, the black market will collapse. The prices will plummet and when the financial incentive is gone for producing, marketing and distributing them, we will have a huge reduction in the availability of these drugs on the streets. Perhaps they will soon be almost gone. Of course, I feel that, as with liquor, there should be restrictions on selling or giving drugs to minors. When a person reaches the age of consent, they decide for themselves. Before that time, the law must protect them. For more information on this subject, I recommend reading Drug Crazy, by Mike Gray. Few politicians would even dare to bring this issue up, since the brainwashing of America is so extensive that the moment the first words were uttered, he/she may be forced to resign from all of the sadly misplaced outrage. However, the drain on the welfare of this country is too much to ignore, not to mention its coffers. Billions are spent every year on this. What if a substantial portion of that were spent on education? Hint. Hint. So much waste. There must be some brave souls who are willing to take a risk to do what’s right and would step forward and try to end this madness. We need to think outside the box here and look at what’s going on. If our leaders won’t make changes, then we need to pressure them with public protest, or get new leaders.

Although there are other very important issues that I would like to discuss, I feel the ones mentioned here represent a good sample to start with, especially since making them work will help with many other issues not mentioned here and are likely essential prerequisites for them. It is important to mention that these issues work best when used in conjunction with each other. When working synergistically, their effects are optimized. I have always felt that most of these issues are more likely to be picked up by Democrats than Republicans. However, since this hasn’t happened yet in any meaningful sense and since these issues are so important, I would strongly consider voting for any candidate that would fight like hell to bring them out into the light, the more of these issues the better, even if that candidate happens to be a Republican. Gasp! Did I just say that? A candidate that’s really worth something will run on issues that matter, not on his/her party. If there is open public discussion about these issues, I’m not hearing them and I hear and see more than most. So if there is presently discussion about these now, it needs to be louder…a lot louder. If the Democrats are unable or unwilling to bring any of these ideas to the table, then I must conclude one of three things. One is that that they have reached a new level of timidity and cowardice. Two is that they are as blind, figuratively speaking, to the larger picture of what we need to accomplish and are just clueless. Three, there may be something really fishy going on here. Perhaps all three factors play a role. As for that last one, there could be factors at work here that many people don’t see and that play an even larger role in events, both U.S. and global, than the ones that we can. One thing is certain. Unless the Democrats get themselves into shape, there will be little chance that they can beat Bush in ’04 or solve any real problems even if they do. Further, we, the voters, must get into shape as well. We must open our eyes, get involved, and let those in power hear our cry. There are those who do not share the American values of freedom and democracy and who have too much power over us already. They are unlikely to relinquish it without a fight and fight we must. With our voices. With our numbers. Freedom and democracy is never a birthright. It must always be earned. We may have another chance in 2004. Let’s earn it this time.

Marc Pezzell

Back to Your Page