|
|
|
Another Solution
Jim Sullivan Here's another solution to campaign finance reform. Do away with the political campaign entirely, at least the one for U.S. president. Yes, it's hard to imagine, but it could happen. All the proposed campaign reforms and the attendant non changes about presidential elections that Americans have come to dislike, indeed, to loathe, like never-ending campaigning, interminable fund raising, uncoordinated primaries, and all the rest of it could be eliminated some might even say exterminated. And as a result, many citizens might just be motivated to return to the polling booths to, once again, vote. However, where the presidency is concerned, that might no longer be necessary because the new concept wouldn't require it. The proposed solution is to privatize presidential selection. After the last election, the country was halfway there anyway. The one with the most votes didn't win. What's more, the U.S. Supreme Court virtually said who the president was going to be. Privatizing would mean amending the U.S. Constitution, but that could be done. The new provision would allow the Federal government, specifically congress, to contract out to a private U.S. based corporation, like, say, Enron, Global Crossing, or Arthur Andersen. That firm would be responsible for appointing the U.S. president every four years. Candidate status, primaries, money raising, and campaigning itself could and would be eliminated once and for all. Let the company that has the contract to choose the chief executive do so, and keep the general public away from the process entirely. Naturally, the person chosen would be required to conform to the U.S. Constitution's rules concerning eligible potential presidents: a minimum age of 35 and being a U.S. born citizen. Other than those two requirements, all that would have to be done is to select a suitable and capable individual to fill the job. That would include, but not be limited to (it is to be hoped) someone who is healthy, highly intelligent, well educated, speaks one or more foreign languages, studies history, understands science, knows economics, has an appreciation of the arts and letters, comprehends theology, and is aware of humanitarian and environmental world goals. Oh, and possess ethics and morals, too. The president's membership in any particular political party would be immaterial. The U.S. government would pay for this presidential selection. The contracted firm could be compensated with a pre-set fee, say, one hundred million dollars for providing the president. If the president proved worthy, another four-year term (with a two-term limit) could be bestowed upon that person. The firm that had selected the president could be rewarded by a grateful American population with, perhaps, another one hundred million dollar payment. This would still be a bargain for Americans. If, on the other hand, that firm didn't provide a first-rate president, he or she could be terminated from the job at any time by a simple majority of congress. And the firm that had selected such a person would have to pay back half its fee. Moreover, that firm would lose its contract to supply future presidents. Of course, the president would have to deal with congress, both major political parties, and the supreme court, not to mention government bureaucracy. The chief executive would also need to handle all matters that the currently elected president faces: war and peace, justice for all, prudent fiscal policies, budgeting, and what have you. But the president would not have to work on getting elected or having to make disingenuous, promise-the-moon pledges to constituents in exchange for votes. In short, this person would not owe anything to anyone, not even to the firm that hired him for the president's position. Moreover, he would be compensated annually as are most corporate CEOs, handsomely and in the millions of dollars. Could this new method of getting a U.S. president be any worse or more haphazard than the method now in use? Just look at chief executives this country has elected. It's difficult to see any new method and end result that could be more disastrous than the present one. So, let's consider privatizing the job, avoiding campaign rhetoric and hoopla. No TV sitcom or soap opera would have to be preempted. Checks are accepted only by prior arrangement. Please inquire.
|
Stray Thoughts
Sam Aurelius Milam III Presidential Gaffe If I said vigenar instead of vinegar, people would criticize my pronunciation. So, why does the President get away with saying nucular, instead of nuclear? A White Man's Notes
Letters to the Editor
Sharon; Amherst, Nova Scotia
I didn't have any convenient place to spend the Canadian dollars, so someone took it to the bank to exchange it for me. The thief at the bank gave her $14.39 in U.S. dollars and then withheld a $5 "miscellaneous fee" for the exchange yet another example of why I claim that banks are dens of thieves. The body politic is the people of a politically organized nation, considered as a group. An injury to an individual usually doesn't harm the body politic. An injury to the body politic, by definition, harms the members of the body politic. That should be the distinguishing feature of something deemed a crime that it harms not just one or a few people, but that it harms all members of the body politic. Notice that when a crime is prosecuted, it is always "The People" vs. somebody. The named party isn't an individual, but "The People", that is, the body politic. When a crime is prosecuted, the resources of the body politic are used to fund the prosecution. That is, the people all pay for the prosecution through taxes. That's proper if the body politic is the party alleging injury. However, if the injury was to one person or to a few people, not to the body politic, then there isn't any justification for funding the prosecution out of tax dollars. The prosecution should be funded by the person or people alleging injury. Think how nice it would be if all of those victimless crimes were to become victimless civil violations, and could be prosecuted only by the victims, and not by the government. editor
Re: inmate; Jamestown, California Despite being off topic, the point is valid. To answer inmate's question, social pressure is the difference. Women now have privileges undreamed of in the days of inmate's examples. Social pressure gave women greater power even though most would mistakenly call it equality. The consequence is that the woman now must be considered an adult before legally making any major decisions, like having sex. That is why it is called 'statutory rape' when the woman has yet to be emancipated. Sir James the Bold
Checks are accepted only by prior arrangement. Please inquire.
|
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth Dear Buck Do you have any experience at fly fishing? Novice
Acknowledgments
editor
Frontiersman Cancellations If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me. Back Issues Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request. Reprint Policy Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material. Submissions I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise. Payment This newsletter isnt for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash, U.S. postage stamps, prepaid telephone cards, and so forth. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. Please inquire. I dont accept anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea. Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
Checks are accepted only by prior arrangement. Please inquire.
|
|
|