The recent Supreme Court decisison was just. First, certain corporations and groups were exempt from McCain-Fiengold. News and media organizations for instance. Why should other corporations be discriminated against?

Secondly, the specific supreme court case involved a movie about Hilary Clinton. McCain-Feingold didn’t allow it to be shown before the election. The question was asked by the court “If this movie had been a book, would it have been banned?” The government defense’s answer was “yes.”

So, if you disagree with the court’s decision, you are FOR book-banning.

Now corporations as well as unions can publish their opinions of candidates by name. To have not been able to do so was a definite infringement on free speech.

IMHO, the more information, the better. With the Internet, people can easily research truth claims on both sides. Limiting what one side can say puts limits on what WE need to make rational decisions. That is if humans CAN be rational. :) That’s a topic for another day.

I did a book report on this when I was in grade school. Hhmm, I wonder if this began my fascination with politics, and my wariness of Democrats?
:)

I am thrilled to see how much action you are getting with this post. Way to go.

To tilt the topic slightly, once people are elected, I would be most interested to see what would happen if there were to be a lottery for all those elected to federal government. Names would be drawn. The percentage of the population on welfare would be the percentage of legislators who received that monthly income, the percentage receiving old age pension, medicare, full medical benefits, living on student loans, paying back student loans on entry-level wages, those living the salaries from McJobs etc.

While no legislator in their right mind would allow such a provision to be imposed upon them, I do find it delicious to speculate on what might happen and wonder what bills might be introduced, if they could not repeal the “Salaries of the People for Legislators” amendment.

Keep up the great blogging. You have learned, thoughtful friends and family members.

Lorraine

Then look at people with the much stronger focus on money–the middle and upper classes–and watch their “what’s in it for me?” attitude any time new legislation is proposed.

I long since lost counts of the number of middle class people who have complained because they feel their medical care will suffer or they might have to pay a bit more if medical care is offered to everyone. I’m disgusted by the selfishness, frankly. (And having enjoyed socialized medicine for many years now, I have much reason to believe that their fears of their care getting WORSE are unfounded.)

In Alabama, any time someone even SUGGESTS raising land taxes ANY (and they have some of the lowest in the nation) so thy can pay for public schools through a dependable income instead of sucking off of city taxes and always falling short, everyone screams that the schools are FINE. Why? Because the schools their children go to are private (if you have ANY money in Alabama, and you care about your children’s education, you pay to get them that education). THIS is the “what’s in it for me?” mentality, and it stinks.

I don’t know that I’ve seen a similar thing from the poor, frankly.

d

d

So forget the poll tax. I’d say get rid of the electoral college and let the POPULAR vote be the decider in elections!!!

You remind me, I probably should go see Doc Lowe soon.

I agree that peer pressure is tremendous for all groups. I just don’t see a poll tax changing that or overriding it. All it really stands to do is further alienate the people who need, above all things, education.

I fear increased militarism, frankly, but yeah…I think the majority of uniformed people are conservative, too.

I’d say it’s “their” peers, since ours (that is, in the middle class) tend to be horrified at their peers efforts to keep them uneducated.

We truly are very different cultures, even though we live in the same land and abide by the same laws.

And from what I’ve seen, those who are able to pay the poll tax are just as subject to the “what’s in it for me?” motivation as their poorer brethren–maybe more so.

d

PD, leaving the poor with no voice is not, in general , a good idea. My thoughts are, that there would be adequate push from outside their community to reach the point where they could, and would have a voice, which in general, I think, create voices which would consider all sides of a question, rather than “What’s in it for me?”

Military service? I fear it would be lopsided in favor of conservatism,but either way, lopsidedness is not good.
Lunch was good, and Gary did a great job in adjusting my spine, in case anyone was really interested.