The platform is great! Count me in. Contact me and I will help in ways that I can. After the first of the month I will be sending a contribution. I will spread the word.
Jane
Looks very promising. What do you mean by “implement public financing of all political campaigns”? Are you talking about using public funds to finance campaigns? Or are you talking about making campaign contributions more transparent? Maybe I just missed the mark all together?
I believe public funding of campaigns (with sensible rules about how a candidate can qualify*) would be cheaper than our current system of selling politicians to the highest bidder and then having laws passed that enrich the rich and impoverish the poor, while government contracts go to favored friends like Haliburton via no-bid deals.
We should also require broadcasters to provide time for qualified candidates, after all, we have given away the airwaves for free.
*For example in some municipalities/states that already use pubic financing, a candidate must first raise 100 or 1000 donations of $10 each to qualify.
It seems to me that if ANYTHING in this country ought to be financed purely (i.e. entirely, exclusively) with public money, it should be the process by which the constitutionally designated public representatives are selected. You’re making a powerful statement, here, Cecil! Perhaps it’s time for us, the people, to claim our power!
Instead of promoting a litany of traditional Democratic talking points that focus on one size fits all, top-down policies why not focus on newer models of grassroots localism with a focus on sustainability? That would be a refreshing change for a leftist candidate as opposed to rehashing talking points from the last 20 years. Fifty percent plus one of electorate has not and will not ever embrace points 2,3,4 or 7 that are on your list.
Very good point, Jeffrey, and while those bullet points I’ve posted may fit your description, the longer version of my platform will very specifically address ways to encourage and facilitate grassroots localism. I’ve learned through my previous campaigns the advantage of gathering many minds and networking for best results.
After reading your bio, I recall many of the initiatives you have been involved with. I don’t live in the district, but in the Triad. I spent many years living in Jackson Co. and have family in Macon. I look forward to your expanded platform.
Once upon a time, license fees were minimal and you didn’t pay to obtain a frequency to operate on. Nowadays, good luck at finding a frequency to operate on without paying through the nose to the incumbent user. Broadcast airwaves are not in any rational sense “free”, nor have they been for some time.
A simple Google search for “how much does a broadcast radio station license cost” revealed this:
“A new commercial FM station license is very expensive. The FCC puts them up for auction to the highest bidder, several in my state (Wyoming) went for over a million dollars. Even for a very small market you can expect to bid over $100,000. That is just to get permission to build a station. Once built, you have to pay spectrum fees to the FCC based on market size. You will also have to pay ASCAP and BMI fees for the use of music.”
Thank Al Gore for the concept of auctioning frequencies to the highest bidder.
Are you sure you are ready to play on the national stage?
Cecil, whether you are ready or not to play “on the national stage” don’t let it hinder you…a lot you will just have to learn after you take office. Just maintain a promise you will do everything possible to get the US out of foreign
nations and concentrate on our own problems here. Its going to be a tough course to follow, but someone needs to step up to the plate.
At minimum I have more government experience than the incumbent did when he ran. Also more years in business, making a living without the benefits that stardom confer. (Not taking anything away from his talent … but stardom does open doors.)
“We should also require broadcasters who use the public airwaves to provide free time to qualified candidates.”
What’s next? Requiring newspapers to provide free ads? Requiring printers to provide free flyers? Requiring caterers to provide free food at rallies? Perhaps we should require painters to paint your campaign headquarters for free, also.
Upon careful examination, there is no rational case for requiring broadcasters to provide free air time. The fact that they are federally licensed does not change the fact that you are appropriating the fruits of their labor and investment without compensation, not does it justify the practice.
While I understand your position on this, it is a legal obligation for station licensees to use the broadcast medium to serve the public interest. We are granting the use of our frequencies and can attach whatever strings we wish to the agreement. I think mandating some amount of time be given to qualified candidates is not an onerous appropriation of the “fruits of their labor”.
A newspaper or printer of any kind is entirely different. They have not come to us requesting the use of the commons to make a profit.
Newspapers or printers don’t use “the commons”? Just *how* do their products get delivered?
And what about airlines? The skies above us are not also a “commons”?
Radio and television stations already have a mandate to serve the public interest. They must prove that they do so at every license renewal. To require them to provide additional no-cost airtime deprives them of revenue, just as mandating any business provide free product or service does.
Screwing a person or organization just because “it’s in the public interest” is still screwing them.
It seems that many want to discriminate based on how the product gets delivered. Because some radio and television programming products are delivered via radio waves over the air, using equipment, supplies, and a frequency allocation paid for by the station operator, some feel justified in further allocation of the station owner’s resources “for the public good”.
On the other hand, cable-only TV networks and internet radio stations get a pass.
This rationale made sense 40 years ago, when a handful of national networks dominated television and the timely delivery of news. Wake up guys, it’s 2011 and this “logic” no longer holds water.
I don’t know that this is the place for a discussion of this type, but exclusivity is very relevant. It is the reason that broadcast licenses are different than driving on a public road or flying in public space etc. We are allowing exclusive use of a frequency by one party. If no one else could use the roads because a newspaper company was granted exclusive rights, you would have a point. The fact that “it is the only way things work” is the point because it is not the only way things work with the other examples you cited. The RF spectrum is ours collectively, and we can attach whatever we deem necessary to an exclusive license to use a portion of it. The licensees will simply have to take those requirements into account when planning their business.
I’m done taking up comment space with this discussion, so this will be my last comment on this matter.
I would place far more value (as you appear to) on the exclusivity characteristic if it was not the only way things can work. We *can* share the road, we *can* share airspace, but tow radio or TV stations *cannot* share a frequency in the same geographic area. Making a big deal out “exclusivity” in this context is just ignoring reality, in my opinion.
“The licensees will simply have to take those requirements into account when planning their business.”
They have already done so. Now, you and Cecil and others want to change the rules. How might we expect this to work?
By decreeing that a certain amount of additional services must be provided to certain people or organizations at no charge, you have reduced the revenue generated by a broadcast outlet. You have not in any way reduced what they must pay for office space, electricity, personnel, or license fees. Faced with such a drop in revenue, what are they most likely to do? Raise rates for their paying customers to make up the shortfall. Who winds up paying for that? We all do.
I am only 49 years old an remember when this was a requirement. Every candidate got equal time and it was all free. Politicians were not bought and sold on the open market by corporations like they are today. Of course that all ended at some point in time and when it did Corporate America not People America was in charge in this country. Everything my ancestors came here and fought for in the revolution in this country went down the drain and this was no longer the country they helped to form. I want their country back. I have a right to live in it and I, like them, are ready to fight for it. I hope that only means on a political front but I really don’t care how I have to fight. I am sick of living in this broken country and want the country, for which my ancestors fought and died, back and I want it back NOW! Cecil I believe in you! You can do this.
“Every candidate got equal time and it was all free. ”
And there were only three television networks, period. End of story.
Todays much broader opportunities for communication and distribution of news make the “fairness doctrine” an idea whose time has come – and gone.
“Everything my ancestors came here and fought for in the revolution in this country went down the drain and this was no longer the country they helped to form. ”
I agree. However, I can’t see how telling a private business owner what they can do with their resources is something the founders fought for.
Newspapers publication is not a limited resource… anyone with money, a printing press and the will can create one of their own design and choosing. Broadcasting, however, is done within a limited spectrum of electromagnetics. Even with auction fees, this is still a privilege conferred by the government to an individual or corporation, and mandating public information/political advertising should be an additional fee which is charged for that privilege.
And while we’re on the subject, political ads would serve us best if they were in the form of longer, reasoned information. It may be difficult to find content neutral rules to do this, but we should strive to end the era of the “sound bite.” Think of what the Lincoln/Douglas debates did for the country vs. “Morning in America” (Reagan’s famous ad). I think a five-minute minimum program, a static camera and indoor set would be good places to start, but I’m sure the very suggestion will raise howls about “First Amendment” violations.
How about requiring broadcasters to show both sides of an issue then. You may be too young to remember when this was required of broadcasters. Requiring air time to both sides kept the baiting and outright lies to a minimum or at least required broadcasters to allow rebuttal. This policy would have put the brakes on Bad News Fox.
“2. We must renegotiate global trade deals including NAFTA and CAFTA to include worker and environmental protection. ”
“5. We must no longer assume the role of the world’s policeman, and we must close all or most of our hundreds of military bases on foreign soil, including Iraq and Afghanistan.”
So, we should tell the other countries of the world how to act, but we shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. Does anyone else see an inconsistency here?
Paul, there’s no inconsistency. Being the world’s policeman involves sending our military to intervene in other people’s affairs.
Trade deals involve creating rules for those countries who want to do business with us. We aren’t telling them what to do, we are telling them that if they want to profit from dealing with us, they need to meet certain expectations. NAFTA already does that, for example, it just doesn’t include worker and environmental protection. And we need to include those to protect our own workers from unfair competition.
Paul,
It would seem that you are approaching Cecil’s platform solely from the prospective of profits at all cost. There aren’t foreign military bases all over our country and we do business with almost every other nation. We wouldn’t allow it. I personally don’t feel the obligation to protect American business interests in other countries. If there is a risk of doing business in certain areas of the world then either don’t do business there, or consider the cost of private protection as just part of the expense of doing business in that particular area of the globe. It’s insanity that American tax payers are made to pay for the cost of having their jobs moved overseas. I am sick to death of watching Americans going to war, families losing loved ones, and the collective coffers of our nation being raped all in the name of protecting “American business interests.” As far as the air waves are concerned, exclusivity or not, perhaps broadcasters can be compensated in the form of a tax deduction for their contribution to the cause. One thing is for sure, this country will not survive the model we presently use. A LOT of people are seriously angry with the course we are on and one way or the other, it will change. Let’s hope it will be from intelligent approaches to equity, rather than what we have seen in other parts of the world lately.
JHS, I believe you are dead wrong about fifty plus one ESPECIALLY on items 2 and 3.
Cecil, thank you for the sane approach to what has become a national disgrace “our government”, that probably 50 plus 1 percent don’t even want to have anything to do with. If you seem to some to be using 20 year old talking points I say, they’ve been a long time comin’ . . .bring ‘em on. Good luck to you sir.
Cecil, Im so glad that you are going to run as a Democratic. Im a total disable Veteran, and would be glad to help you in the election, just let me know. David Ward
Terrific platform especially the ending corporate personhood, implementing the public option on health care, and ending the war on drugs. The only thing that nicked me a bit was bring all “or most” of the troops home. What is that qualifier about. Would be interested to hear.
Very glad to see you running, I think you have some very good ideas. I am particularly excited about removing corporate person-hood, which I believe has allowed corporations to do many terrible things. I like the idea of regulation on corporations that requires public good, and lack of harm to continue operations, rather than the profit motive we have now. I might be wrong, but that seems like an easier method than ever stranger reams of regulations and licenses.
The ERA will not pass the required number of state legislatures and is a futile effort. The ERA is not needed anyway as any corporation foolish enough to pay women less than a man for the same job will find themselves in a civil lawsuit they cannot win. On average women in this country make less than men for a variety of reasons: first, they are over represented in lower paying jobs i.e. teachers, secretaries, receptionists, clerical, and care giving positions. Secondly, women especially those with children, are willing to work part time and often turn down or are not offered promotions because it requires them to be away from home too much.
That’s probably the case, Frank. But I think expressing support for the concept of an ERA is an easy shorthand expression of my position on the associated issues.
Hi Cecil – a couple weeks ago I saw on Mountainx.com that you were running against Shuler. Thank you, you have my vote. I agree that the war on drugs is a farce and needs to be re-evaluated (to say the least). I think it is incredibly important that hemp (which isn’t even a drug…) becomes legal as well. NC used to be the largest hemp producer in the states. We could beat the problems with our economy with hemp alone – textiles, oil, food, paper, crop rotation, etc. The jobs that could be created are far reaching and could re-create our middle class by giving the common man/woman decent jobs in manufacturing.
I look forward to receiving emails and observing your progress. Thank you.
Shawna Solito
Cecil
I think you have a ringer in your group. Remember that their are people hired to take up all the oxygen in the room. I am glad that you are willing to take on the sacred cow’s of the right. However, it is good to see the right’s opinions.
Bob
The Nobel Prize-winning (progressive) economist, Paul Krugman who writes a weekly column in the New York Times, has pointed out that the stimulus was far too small, and that is why the economy has been sluggish and unemployment has remained high. U.S. experience in the Great Depression is evidence of his point. (See “Freedom From Fear: the American People In Depression and War–1929-1945″ by Professor David M. Kennedy.) It was not until the massive build up starting with the hefty defense appropriation that FDR pushed thru in the 1940 that the economy turned around. It is “Keynesian Economics 101″: In times of depression/recession, borrow, spend, stimulate; then when the economy recovers, address the deficit. The budget cutters/program destroyers have it exactly backwards.
Great positions and I am ready to rock and roll with you on the campaign. Most of us will need three ideas to focus on and progressive conservative democrats who succeed typically focus on developing new business, education, and infrastructure. New business creates jobs, good education provides a trained workforce, infrastructure helps society and business. For us infrastructure means not only roads but also high speed internet.
I think that most country would rather that coercion came in the form of economic rather than military coercion, too, if it has to come at all.
Military coercion directly leads to deaths, destruction and disruption. Economic coercion might indirectly lead to it, but I’m quite sure that it’s nowhere near on the same scale.
Go Cecil!!!!
Let me know when you have a link for campaign donations.
Aaron
The platform is great! Count me in. Contact me and I will help in ways that I can. After the first of the month I will be sending a contribution. I will spread the word.
Jane
Pingback: In North Carolina, an Atheist Will Run for Congress in 2012 | Hating God - With due respect and all
Looks very promising. What do you mean by “implement public financing of all political campaigns”? Are you talking about using public funds to finance campaigns? Or are you talking about making campaign contributions more transparent? Maybe I just missed the mark all together?
Thanks.
I believe public funding of campaigns (with sensible rules about how a candidate can qualify*) would be cheaper than our current system of selling politicians to the highest bidder and then having laws passed that enrich the rich and impoverish the poor, while government contracts go to favored friends like Haliburton via no-bid deals.
We should also require broadcasters to provide time for qualified candidates, after all, we have given away the airwaves for free.
*For example in some municipalities/states that already use pubic financing, a candidate must first raise 100 or 1000 donations of $10 each to qualify.
It seems to me that if ANYTHING in this country ought to be financed purely (i.e. entirely, exclusively) with public money, it should be the process by which the constitutionally designated public representatives are selected. You’re making a powerful statement, here, Cecil! Perhaps it’s time for us, the people, to claim our power!
YES!!!! GO CECIL!!!
Instead of promoting a litany of traditional Democratic talking points that focus on one size fits all, top-down policies why not focus on newer models of grassroots localism with a focus on sustainability? That would be a refreshing change for a leftist candidate as opposed to rehashing talking points from the last 20 years. Fifty percent plus one of electorate has not and will not ever embrace points 2,3,4 or 7 that are on your list.
Very good point, Jeffrey, and while those bullet points I’ve posted may fit your description, the longer version of my platform will very specifically address ways to encourage and facilitate grassroots localism. I’ve learned through my previous campaigns the advantage of gathering many minds and networking for best results.
After reading your bio, I recall many of the initiatives you have been involved with. I don’t live in the district, but in the Triad. I spent many years living in Jackson Co. and have family in Macon. I look forward to your expanded platform.
“we have given away the airwaves for free.”
You need to research that one before you repeat it.
Will do. I believe that station licenses are rationed, but there is no fee for use.
Once upon a time, license fees were minimal and you didn’t pay to obtain a frequency to operate on. Nowadays, good luck at finding a frequency to operate on without paying through the nose to the incumbent user. Broadcast airwaves are not in any rational sense “free”, nor have they been for some time.
A simple Google search for “how much does a broadcast radio station license cost” revealed this:
“A new commercial FM station license is very expensive. The FCC puts them up for auction to the highest bidder, several in my state (Wyoming) went for over a million dollars. Even for a very small market you can expect to bid over $100,000. That is just to get permission to build a station. Once built, you have to pay spectrum fees to the FCC based on market size. You will also have to pay ASCAP and BMI fees for the use of music.”
Thank Al Gore for the concept of auctioning frequencies to the highest bidder.
Are you sure you are ready to play on the national stage?
And then there is the tremendous investment in physical plant that is required. Oh, and just a *little* payroll, too.
Congratulations, Cecil. This is definitely an audacious step. I would be interested in trying to help you develop some innovative campaign planks.
Best to you.
Cecil, whether you are ready or not to play “on the national stage” don’t let it hinder you…a lot you will just have to learn after you take office. Just maintain a promise you will do everything possible to get the US out of foreign
nations and concentrate on our own problems here. Its going to be a tough course to follow, but someone needs to step up to the plate.
At minimum I have more government experience than the incumbent did when he ran. Also more years in business, making a living without the benefits that stardom confer. (Not taking anything away from his talent … but stardom does open doors.)
I have been wrong before and it’s great that modern networking helps correct errors so quickly. The wiki model.
“We should also require broadcasters who use the public airwaves to provide free time to qualified candidates.”
What’s next? Requiring newspapers to provide free ads? Requiring printers to provide free flyers? Requiring caterers to provide free food at rallies? Perhaps we should require painters to paint your campaign headquarters for free, also.
Upon careful examination, there is no rational case for requiring broadcasters to provide free air time. The fact that they are federally licensed does not change the fact that you are appropriating the fruits of their labor and investment without compensation, not does it justify the practice.
While I understand your position on this, it is a legal obligation for station licensees to use the broadcast medium to serve the public interest. We are granting the use of our frequencies and can attach whatever strings we wish to the agreement. I think mandating some amount of time be given to qualified candidates is not an onerous appropriation of the “fruits of their labor”.
A newspaper or printer of any kind is entirely different. They have not come to us requesting the use of the commons to make a profit.
Newspapers or printers don’t use “the commons”? Just *how* do their products get delivered?
And what about airlines? The skies above us are not also a “commons”?
Radio and television stations already have a mandate to serve the public interest. They must prove that they do so at every license renewal. To require them to provide additional no-cost airtime deprives them of revenue, just as mandating any business provide free product or service does.
Screwing a person or organization just because “it’s in the public interest” is still screwing them.
It seems that many want to discriminate based on how the product gets delivered. Because some radio and television programming products are delivered via radio waves over the air, using equipment, supplies, and a frequency allocation paid for by the station operator, some feel justified in further allocation of the station owner’s resources “for the public good”.
On the other hand, cable-only TV networks and internet radio stations get a pass.
This rationale made sense 40 years ago, when a handful of national networks dominated television and the timely delivery of news. Wake up guys, it’s 2011 and this “logic” no longer holds water.
Perhaps I should have said “They have not come to us requesting the EXCLUSIVE use of the commons to make a profit.
The exclusivity isn’t really relevant, since it is the only way things work. We can’t have two television stations using channel 13, for example.
I don’t know that this is the place for a discussion of this type, but exclusivity is very relevant. It is the reason that broadcast licenses are different than driving on a public road or flying in public space etc. We are allowing exclusive use of a frequency by one party. If no one else could use the roads because a newspaper company was granted exclusive rights, you would have a point. The fact that “it is the only way things work” is the point because it is not the only way things work with the other examples you cited. The RF spectrum is ours collectively, and we can attach whatever we deem necessary to an exclusive license to use a portion of it. The licensees will simply have to take those requirements into account when planning their business.
I’m done taking up comment space with this discussion, so this will be my last comment on this matter.
I would place far more value (as you appear to) on the exclusivity characteristic if it was not the only way things can work. We *can* share the road, we *can* share airspace, but tow radio or TV stations *cannot* share a frequency in the same geographic area. Making a big deal out “exclusivity” in this context is just ignoring reality, in my opinion.
“The licensees will simply have to take those requirements into account when planning their business.”
They have already done so. Now, you and Cecil and others want to change the rules. How might we expect this to work?
By decreeing that a certain amount of additional services must be provided to certain people or organizations at no charge, you have reduced the revenue generated by a broadcast outlet. You have not in any way reduced what they must pay for office space, electricity, personnel, or license fees. Faced with such a drop in revenue, what are they most likely to do? Raise rates for their paying customers to make up the shortfall. Who winds up paying for that? We all do.
I am only 49 years old an remember when this was a requirement. Every candidate got equal time and it was all free. Politicians were not bought and sold on the open market by corporations like they are today. Of course that all ended at some point in time and when it did Corporate America not People America was in charge in this country. Everything my ancestors came here and fought for in the revolution in this country went down the drain and this was no longer the country they helped to form. I want their country back. I have a right to live in it and I, like them, are ready to fight for it. I hope that only means on a political front but I really don’t care how I have to fight. I am sick of living in this broken country and want the country, for which my ancestors fought and died, back and I want it back NOW! Cecil I believe in you! You can do this.
“Every candidate got equal time and it was all free. ”
And there were only three television networks, period. End of story.
Todays much broader opportunities for communication and distribution of news make the “fairness doctrine” an idea whose time has come – and gone.
“Everything my ancestors came here and fought for in the revolution in this country went down the drain and this was no longer the country they helped to form. ”
I agree. However, I can’t see how telling a private business owner what they can do with their resources is something the founders fought for.
Newspapers publication is not a limited resource… anyone with money, a printing press and the will can create one of their own design and choosing. Broadcasting, however, is done within a limited spectrum of electromagnetics. Even with auction fees, this is still a privilege conferred by the government to an individual or corporation, and mandating public information/political advertising should be an additional fee which is charged for that privilege.
And while we’re on the subject, political ads would serve us best if they were in the form of longer, reasoned information. It may be difficult to find content neutral rules to do this, but we should strive to end the era of the “sound bite.” Think of what the Lincoln/Douglas debates did for the country vs. “Morning in America” (Reagan’s famous ad). I think a five-minute minimum program, a static camera and indoor set would be good places to start, but I’m sure the very suggestion will raise howls about “First Amendment” violations.
How about requiring broadcasters to show both sides of an issue then. You may be too young to remember when this was required of broadcasters. Requiring air time to both sides kept the baiting and outright lies to a minimum or at least required broadcasters to allow rebuttal. This policy would have put the brakes on Bad News Fox.
Yeah! Not too young. This was one small part of making the media part of the solution instead of today’s “part of the problem.”
Hi Cecil! We are very excited to support you in your run – may it be successful!!
+1 for the donations link.
Top right on this page is a “DONATE” link.
“2. We must renegotiate global trade deals including NAFTA and CAFTA to include worker and environmental protection. ”
“5. We must no longer assume the role of the world’s policeman, and we must close all or most of our hundreds of military bases on foreign soil, including Iraq and Afghanistan.”
So, we should tell the other countries of the world how to act, but we shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. Does anyone else see an inconsistency here?
Paul, there’s no inconsistency. Being the world’s policeman involves sending our military to intervene in other people’s affairs.
Trade deals involve creating rules for those countries who want to do business with us. We aren’t telling them what to do, we are telling them that if they want to profit from dealing with us, they need to meet certain expectations. NAFTA already does that, for example, it just doesn’t include worker and environmental protection. And we need to include those to protect our own workers from unfair competition.
Paul,
It would seem that you are approaching Cecil’s platform solely from the prospective of profits at all cost. There aren’t foreign military bases all over our country and we do business with almost every other nation. We wouldn’t allow it. I personally don’t feel the obligation to protect American business interests in other countries. If there is a risk of doing business in certain areas of the world then either don’t do business there, or consider the cost of private protection as just part of the expense of doing business in that particular area of the globe. It’s insanity that American tax payers are made to pay for the cost of having their jobs moved overseas. I am sick to death of watching Americans going to war, families losing loved ones, and the collective coffers of our nation being raped all in the name of protecting “American business interests.” As far as the air waves are concerned, exclusivity or not, perhaps broadcasters can be compensated in the form of a tax deduction for their contribution to the cause. One thing is for sure, this country will not survive the model we presently use. A LOT of people are seriously angry with the course we are on and one way or the other, it will change. Let’s hope it will be from intelligent approaches to equity, rather than what we have seen in other parts of the world lately.
JHS, I believe you are dead wrong about fifty plus one ESPECIALLY on items 2 and 3.
Cecil, thank you for the sane approach to what has become a national disgrace “our government”, that probably 50 plus 1 percent don’t even want to have anything to do with. If you seem to some to be using 20 year old talking points I say, they’ve been a long time comin’ . . .bring ‘em on. Good luck to you sir.
Cecil, Im so glad that you are going to run as a Democratic. Im a total disable Veteran, and would be glad to help you in the election, just let me know. David Ward
Terrific platform especially the ending corporate personhood, implementing the public option on health care, and ending the war on drugs. The only thing that nicked me a bit was bring all “or most” of the troops home. What is that qualifier about. Would be interested to hear.
We probably need guards at most embassies.
Cecil,
Very glad to see you running, I think you have some very good ideas. I am particularly excited about removing corporate person-hood, which I believe has allowed corporations to do many terrible things. I like the idea of regulation on corporations that requires public good, and lack of harm to continue operations, rather than the profit motive we have now. I might be wrong, but that seems like an easier method than ever stranger reams of regulations and licenses.
Pingback: Um . . . | The Wild West
The ERA will not pass the required number of state legislatures and is a futile effort. The ERA is not needed anyway as any corporation foolish enough to pay women less than a man for the same job will find themselves in a civil lawsuit they cannot win. On average women in this country make less than men for a variety of reasons: first, they are over represented in lower paying jobs i.e. teachers, secretaries, receptionists, clerical, and care giving positions. Secondly, women especially those with children, are willing to work part time and often turn down or are not offered promotions because it requires them to be away from home too much.
That’s probably the case, Frank. But I think expressing support for the concept of an ERA is an easy shorthand expression of my position on the associated issues.
Hi Cecil – a couple weeks ago I saw on Mountainx.com that you were running against Shuler. Thank you, you have my vote. I agree that the war on drugs is a farce and needs to be re-evaluated (to say the least). I think it is incredibly important that hemp (which isn’t even a drug…) becomes legal as well. NC used to be the largest hemp producer in the states. We could beat the problems with our economy with hemp alone – textiles, oil, food, paper, crop rotation, etc. The jobs that could be created are far reaching and could re-create our middle class by giving the common man/woman decent jobs in manufacturing.
I look forward to receiving emails and observing your progress. Thank you.
Shawna Solito
Cecil
I think you have a ringer in your group. Remember that their are people hired to take up all the oxygen in the room. I am glad that you are willing to take on the sacred cow’s of the right. However, it is good to see the right’s opinions.
Bob
The Nobel Prize-winning (progressive) economist, Paul Krugman who writes a weekly column in the New York Times, has pointed out that the stimulus was far too small, and that is why the economy has been sluggish and unemployment has remained high. U.S. experience in the Great Depression is evidence of his point. (See “Freedom From Fear: the American People In Depression and War–1929-1945″ by Professor David M. Kennedy.) It was not until the massive build up starting with the hefty defense appropriation that FDR pushed thru in the 1940 that the economy turned around. It is “Keynesian Economics 101″: In times of depression/recession, borrow, spend, stimulate; then when the economy recovers, address the deficit. The budget cutters/program destroyers have it exactly backwards.
Edwin Shealy
Great positions and I am ready to rock and roll with you on the campaign. Most of us will need three ideas to focus on and progressive conservative democrats who succeed typically focus on developing new business, education, and infrastructure. New business creates jobs, good education provides a trained workforce, infrastructure helps society and business. For us infrastructure means not only roads but also high speed internet.
I think that most country would rather that coercion came in the form of economic rather than military coercion, too, if it has to come at all.
Military coercion directly leads to deaths, destruction and disruption. Economic coercion might indirectly lead to it, but I’m quite sure that it’s nowhere near on the same scale.