9.19.2004
At the risk of sounding repetitive, I don't under the anger.
Regarding the wage/walmart/drug testing thing, arnold vetoed a bill that in his estimation would have hurt the economy. He has good reason to think so. Minimum wage increases have dampening effects on economic growth, and are desirable to slow an economy that is exhibiting unsustainable growth. Interest rate increases are similar. The time to raise minimum wage rates is when things are going well, not when things are going/have gone poorly. Don't kick it when its down. I guess the thing about walmart is a nonissue. It simply comes down to competition. If they can provide a product or service at a lower rate than their competitors, and aren't creating barriers to competition, then they have every right to open a store wherever they please. I know it is very in vogue to hate walmart. "they are assimilating the planet, we hate corporations, nobody is going to tell me what to think, woohoo horay for us." But they are doing nothing overtly wrong. The are just outdoing the competition. It is the nature of our economy. If you don't like walmart, don't shop there. Nobody is forcing you to.
As for the drug testing thing, I have yet to hear a cogent reason for why it is bad. Society in general and schools in particular create boundaries to conduct in the interest of the general safety and wellbeing of the involved participants. Pot is illegal (again, if you don't like that, change the law) and as such is restricted. An analogy is guns or knives in school. They may be perfectly safe in and of themselves. I can bring a gun to school and not shoot anybody. But there are rules that ban guns from campuses because they can be misused. Schools do and should have the right to search people for guns and keep them off campus, because people have no reason for them to be there. If you want to participate in society, you have to play by the rules. If you have a problem with the rules, you can either change them or go participate in a society that has a different set of rules.
As for arnold himself smoking pot, if we take your argument, the response would be "who cares?". It would be as relevant as clinton smoking pot or anyone else. In a way you are taking ammunition out of your own gun by bringing it up. If it truly isn't a big deal, why are you making one of it?
Side request: Please make a defense of smoking pot. You have talked at various times about how ok it is, but never put it all together in a logical flow... I would just like to see it.
And finally, as per the constitutional amendment, I wouldn't worry about it. Constitutional amendments get proposed all the time and hardly any of them make it. It would have to pass two thirds of both the House and Senate, and be approved by the legislatures of 3/4's of the states. And if it for some reason does pass, it would be a case of a group of people not liking a rule and going and changing it, which I think is good.
I guess I don't see a problem per se with having people who have been citizens for 20 years being president. Arnold and republicans aside, do you have a problem with it? What would be the core of your disagreement with it? Is it merely because you disagree with arnold or republicans or are immigrants uniquely incapable of leading the nation?
Regarding the wage/walmart/drug testing thing, arnold vetoed a bill that in his estimation would have hurt the economy. He has good reason to think so. Minimum wage increases have dampening effects on economic growth, and are desirable to slow an economy that is exhibiting unsustainable growth. Interest rate increases are similar. The time to raise minimum wage rates is when things are going well, not when things are going/have gone poorly. Don't kick it when its down. I guess the thing about walmart is a nonissue. It simply comes down to competition. If they can provide a product or service at a lower rate than their competitors, and aren't creating barriers to competition, then they have every right to open a store wherever they please. I know it is very in vogue to hate walmart. "they are assimilating the planet, we hate corporations, nobody is going to tell me what to think, woohoo horay for us." But they are doing nothing overtly wrong. The are just outdoing the competition. It is the nature of our economy. If you don't like walmart, don't shop there. Nobody is forcing you to.
As for the drug testing thing, I have yet to hear a cogent reason for why it is bad. Society in general and schools in particular create boundaries to conduct in the interest of the general safety and wellbeing of the involved participants. Pot is illegal (again, if you don't like that, change the law) and as such is restricted. An analogy is guns or knives in school. They may be perfectly safe in and of themselves. I can bring a gun to school and not shoot anybody. But there are rules that ban guns from campuses because they can be misused. Schools do and should have the right to search people for guns and keep them off campus, because people have no reason for them to be there. If you want to participate in society, you have to play by the rules. If you have a problem with the rules, you can either change them or go participate in a society that has a different set of rules.
As for arnold himself smoking pot, if we take your argument, the response would be "who cares?". It would be as relevant as clinton smoking pot or anyone else. In a way you are taking ammunition out of your own gun by bringing it up. If it truly isn't a big deal, why are you making one of it?
Side request: Please make a defense of smoking pot. You have talked at various times about how ok it is, but never put it all together in a logical flow... I would just like to see it.
And finally, as per the constitutional amendment, I wouldn't worry about it. Constitutional amendments get proposed all the time and hardly any of them make it. It would have to pass two thirds of both the House and Senate, and be approved by the legislatures of 3/4's of the states. And if it for some reason does pass, it would be a case of a group of people not liking a rule and going and changing it, which I think is good.
I guess I don't see a problem per se with having people who have been citizens for 20 years being president. Arnold and republicans aside, do you have a problem with it? What would be the core of your disagreement with it? Is it merely because you disagree with arnold or republicans or are immigrants uniquely incapable of leading the nation?
< 21:23 >< /j >
