Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (102024) | |||
Home > OTChat | |||
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
Posted by JPC on Mon Feb 27 18:03:15 2006, in response to Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by aem7ac on Mon Feb 27 09:45:15 2006. Stem Cell Yes, absolutely. Cloning (human or animal), for therapeutic and for reproduction as well. I see no inherent problem with it (although problems could be raised by the development of said fetuses, this is better dealt with as a research/medical ethics issue than a legislative one - I don't want politicians dictating my own research, so I don't want them dictating any of my colleagues' research).Gun Control No. Gun control means you can hit your target. Gun education is key, and groups like the NRA should be commended for their efforts toward this end (e.g. Eddie Eagle). Automatic weapons, yes, those should be restricted (they have been since 1934), as should rocket launchers, hand grenades, nuclear bombs, and things of that sort - anything you'd see Arnold Schwarzenegger or Rambo running around with probably isn't a legitimate civilian device for self defense or food acquisition. As far as handguns/rifles/shotguns, any federal legislation is blatantly unconstitutional vis a vis the 2nd Amendment. At state and local level it's a little tricky. I have no problem with registration, as long as it's local and pretty disorganized (organized and efficient registration is the penultimate step to confiscation). Carry permits should be issued on a "shall issue" basis - that means you get one *unless* there is a specific reason not to (past suicide attempts, past criminal record or history of violent mental illness, etc. I have no problem with, and am in fact in favor of, requiring a gun safety class and passage of a practical firearms test for receipt of a carry permit.) Discretionary systems (as in NYC and most big cities) are rife with corruption and racist discrimination (I can cite examples) and it is imperative that every one of them be abolished. Abortion Choice Yes, with limitations, as we have discussed here. No late-term abortion on demand unless sufficient medical cause exists to necessitate termination. Federal Healthcare In general, no. I have no problem with the government paying for healthcare for the destitute, or with taking over payment in cases of catastrophic loss not covered by insurance (that almost certainly would be defaulted anyway), but the primary system of health care payment would ideally be private health savings accounts (HSAs) to cover routine costs, backed up by private insurance pools (pay a small amount now so that on the off chance you incur a large expense later it will be covered), then finally backed up by state and local governments (NOT federal). Port Sale What's the problem? So they're Arabs. Isn't the UAE one of the "good" countries? Soc. Sec. Reform Yes. The system should be shifted to private savings accounts similar to the system in Chile. I don't have a problem with *requiring* workers to pay in a given percentage, since when this system fails (i.e. people outlive their money, or catastrophe strikes, or the severely disabled/institutionalized), state and local governments would take over, and it is in the interest of the rest of the taxpayers that you pay your fair share into your retirement before living off of everyone else. Public assistance should be only for the destitute, and those who are in this situation because of circumstances beyond their control. Otherwise you are better served by your own money (even if it takes a little coaxing to get you to save your own money). Morning After Yes, absolutely. EC and available access to conventional contraception is one of the surest ways to reduce demand for late term elective abortion. Gay Marriage Yes, absolutely. It is an absolute disgrace that gays do not have the same marriage rights and protections as heterosexuals. It is one of the greatest faults of this era, akin to the Jim Crow laws of decades past. There are no second class citizens, only citizens. And they're not likely to have abortions either :) Public Smoking Ban N ot in general. On private property the decision should be up to the owner (or his/her designee). This includes private homes, apartment buldings/condos, bars, restaurants, etc. At most it could be required that a sign be posted at the entrance indicating whether smoking is allowed at a given establishment. On public property, in publically accessible areas, I have no problem with limiting smoking, although I'd like to see designated smoking areas are provided. Patriot Act - As far as the more provocative proposals, no, absolutely. They're right up there with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Sedition and Espionage Acts of 1917 and 1918, and a number of other despicable pieces of legislation passed throughout our history. The rest of it is mostly harmless window dressing (small technical changes to procedure, etc.), and nobody talks about that stuff. Creation in Schools Public schools, in science class, absolutely not. Creationism/ID/whatever you call it is not science. Let me say it again. Creationism/ID/whatever you call it is not science. And as such it does not belong in science class. In a comparative religion or philosophy class, maybe - if it can be integrated into a meaningful curriculum, sure. Private schools, being private, can do what they want, but if they're going to teach non-science in science class, then their accreditation should be pulled. Sure, they can still operate, but that diploma isn't going to mean squat. Motorcycle Helmet Req In principle, no. There should be no law to protect a head too willfully stupid to protect itself. But since these jackasses ride around and put a strain on EMS and police resources when they make organ donors of themselves... screw em, still no. Ride around all you want, dumbasses - I might need a liver someday. Yours will do quite nicely, and Mr. Darwin is on my side here. And I'll throw in one more: Drug Legalisation Yes. |