Jane Lake Makes a Mistake

Thirsty for something new in your life.

http://www.coke.com/

bya2:

Thanks for your support. I will continue to try to brighten your day.

Anon:

I am not a big soda person!

hmm pro life is a personal choice but not a govermental one

death penalty is a good thing when used

how much more gun control are you wanting to have

everyone wants peace the question is how to get it

Mark your colander Jane, for today we mostly agree. I also think the two party system is outdated, and I’d even agree with all but the first goal of your party. I also think the priorities are messed up. Talking about abortion though, why illegalize it. I have no argument that it is a terrible thing but again, why illegalize it? I mean people are still going to get abortions. The people who can afford to go internationally for them. So you will really only be affecting the lower middle class and the poor. I think there should be anti-abortion education in school, coupled with good health and safe sex education. I think condoms should be freely distributed and available to all teenagers. I think that there should be a strong emphasis on safe sex in our culture. Like I think the teenage shows should have their characters choose sex here and there, but make sure they show them buying condoms, for instance.
I agree with your stance on the death penalty gun control (probably) and anti war.
I’d say we are most likely to disagree on gun control because it is a complex issue. I think there should be a ban on the production and distribution of concealable and automatic weapons. By concealable I mean handguns primarily but also small riffles and sawed off shot-guns. Though I recognize that sawing a shotgun is an after factory modification and this would still happen, but I think the penalties for carrying such weapons should be high. I recognize the need for police to be armed, and therefore there should be one handgun manufactured for the police forces. By automatic weapons I mean anything that is designed or can be easily modified to fire more then one round per trigger pull. I thing modification to fully automatic weapons should be highly punishable. Also the carry capacity for all such rifles limited to 5. Internal. Thereby there should be no possible way to have an external clip that could be modified to hold more bullets.

My primary concern for my political party would be the economy. America’s economy is so screwed up right now. We’ve switched to a serviced based economy. This is a very weak economy, because how long will waiters work for waiters. Essentially service industry jobs are not paid well enough to use their own services. How would I combat these problems. I’d establish a minimum wage and a living wage. If you are claimed as a dependant you can make the minimum however if you are not claimed as a dependant you must make the living wage, which is determined by how many dependants you have. After I’d established these two principals, and I recognize they are vastly more complicated then I’ve illustrated, I’d establish a severe import tax on any products produced with labor at a wage bellow those standards. The tax would be severe enough that it would be 1.5X the labor costs here, so it would reduce the profit of the companies making the products over seas with abused labor. They also would be paying shipping therefore reducing the profit. Currently these companies are making money because transportation is cheaper then labor costs, I see this as the way of the past. This will force 2 things to happen. 1 the world’s labor force will be empowered with more money per person, and 2 there will be more factories opened in America to reduce travel costs and increase profits. I also recognize that many companies will fire their 3rd world employees. When this happens we as Americans should invest in their countries as they have invested in ours and help create a global fair trade economy in which everyone is respected equally.

Have a nice day
Pat
P.S. I promised myself this would be a short post…crap

I just happened to see this link in a ton of ads on CL, and today decided to click it. I'm certainly glad I did. You've got quite a fascinating blog here.

On to the subject at hand, politics.

While I enjoy your opinions on the matter, I've simply got to disagree with all of them on some account or another. So I wouldn't vote for you ;)

But, in the spirit of the post, I'd like to know a few things:

A) What would you propose we do about Social Security?
B) Does the trade deficit bother you enough to do something about it? (unlike our buddy 'W'.)
C) In regards to terrorism, obviously, you are against warring nations. But what would you do to resolve the current Iraq/Lebanon scenarios. I will pre-argue that diplomacy is highly unlikely to help anything at this moment.

I'd like to know your thinking on these. You might just swing a vote or two.

First all, love your blogs... secondly... the guy Pat that posted concerning guns has no idea what he is talking about.

I think starting your party is a cool thing. Who's bring the drinks and food? is it going to be a pool party or house party?

is it clothing optional?

Anon:

Prolife is not a choice at all. It is the core of all humanity.

Legalizing abortions increased their numbers dramatically. It's a no-brainer.

Jolly Green:

1) Social Security should be privatized. It will stimulate the economy and allow people to manage their own moneys. Going forward it should be an opt in benefit.

2) Trade deficits, budget deficits, etc swing like a pendulum depending on economies and demands. A big number doesn't bother me if there is economic common sense in play.

3)I didn't make this bed but you want me to lie in it! Fine.

In Iraq, we should pull out and let local politics take its course while promoting favourable outcomes through economic and political assistance.

In Lebanon, as I posted before, I believe certain regions in the middle east should become neutral territories governed by a world body.

Yeah, definitely smells like Dr. Life in here. That whole pro-life/anti death penalty bit gave it away. Nice try, Doc!

“First all, love your blogs... secondly... the guy Pat that posted concerning guns has no idea what he is talking about.” - Posted by sammy | 4:00 PM

Wow, I’m glad I have no idea what I’m talking about….. how so? I mean really, disagree with me all you want, but at least have some basis for it.

What I originally said was
I’d say we are most likely to disagree on gun control because it is a complex issue. I think there should be a ban on the production and distribution of concealable and automatic weapons. By concealable I mean handguns primarily but also small riffles and sawed off shot-guns. Though I recognize that sawing a shotgun is an after factory modification and this would still happen, but I think the penalties for carrying such weapons should be high. [I think such after-factory modifications are currently illegal anyway, I am however not certain.] I recognize the need for police to be armed, and therefore there should be one handgun manufactured for the police forces. By automatic weapons I mean anything that is designed or can be easily modified to fire more then one round per trigger pull. I think modification to fully automatic weapons should be highly punishable. Also the carry capacity for all such rifles limited to 5 internal [rounds]. Thereby there should be no possible way to have an external clip that could be modified to hold more bullets.

What about that don’t I understand? No handguns ( the guns most likely to be used by criminals and in accidental shootings) and No automatic fire weapons (again because of their high probability of criminal use) I also said that there should be a ban on high capacity clips or ammunition feeding devices, an idea that people in the gun manufacturing business have put forward. “prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated.” William Ruger, owner of the Sturm, Ruger & Company source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger)

Good day
Pat

From A Canadian Perspective (tm) a third contender in any two-party system is good. It keeps the dealer honest, as they say in Vegas. Problem is, the Dem's and Rep's have gone so long trying to be everything to everybody (including prospective 3rd party voters) that it would be extremely difficult to launch an effective contender without a *huge* (and expensive) effort.
With the exception of Nader's Greens in 2000 and Ross Perot in '92, you almost need to reform the system which benefits the historic two parties in order to allow a third the chance to survive.

Jane,

This is the first time that I read your blog, and must say I enjoyed many of the ideas in your articles. However, I have to disagree with you about the two party system being outdated. The problem with our current political system is not that it is dominated by only two parties, but rather that these parties are controlled by the extreme zealots (be it left or right)of their membership. If one realistically wants to influence public policy in this country they have to realize the chances of a third party ever reaching prominance and being able to raise the funds necessary to effect change is highly, highly, unlikely. If you would really like to influence policy in this country you are better served by inspiring others around you who at present are politically apathetic to join one of the current parties and bring about a change. Change can be had within the system, but the moderate voices of this country must be given a voice.

www.bigworldsmallthoughs.blogspot.com

Who knew craigslist would lead me here? Very good advertising!

I enjoy your blog. I don't agree with everything you say, but you strike me as sensible, and you hold your ground. I imagine you must frustrate Democrats and Republicans alike. Good on ya!

How would you deal with the illegal immigration problem?

With all due respect to your Janelakian party, why have a party system at all? What's really the point? Democracy shouldn't be about voting for one party or the other. To me it's about voting for the person who views the majority of issues the same as you. It shouldn't be about voting for a guy, or woman, who doesn't even follow his/her own convictions because they're too worried about doing and voting for whatever they're respective party commands of them.

My 2 cents is that we should scrap the whole party system and vote for the person, not the party. Until we get away from the bipartisan BS, it's almost always going to be a battle between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum (see 2000 & 2004 Presidential elections) because the extremists in both parties seem to think they are what's best the country.

On another note, we also need to do away with ALL private and non-profit campaign contributions. But that's another completely separate issue, and I've written enough.