Energy and environmental concerns have been a position of the left for a while. However, that does not mean that conservatives don't know or don't care about energy conservation and environmental concerns. We just don't buy into the liberal hype as much on issues such as global warming. Despite claims about the "consensus" about global warming, there is no consensus. However, that doesn't mean that things don't need to change along the energy and environmental fronts.
Global Warming
Given the outcry of innumerable scientists that there is not a consensus on global warming, and that similar warming trends are taking place on other planets, I am inclined to disagree that global warming on Earth is solely the fault of evil pollutants and corporations. While pollution does not help keep our planet in pristine shape, I fail to see where science has proven this without a doubt.
We should continue to monitor climate trends and the effects that human efforts and solar activity have on our climate. I believe we have not arrived at the true answers about global warming, at least not the most important ones.
Nonetheless, we all want cleaner air and water, it's simply healthier for us. So pursuing smart, sensible conservation efforts is a good thing.
Alternative Energy
Of course, pursuing cleaner and more efficient sources of energy is something worth looking into. Solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, biofuels, hydrogen-powered vehicles, ethanol...these are all worthy projects and should be further researched.
Federally-funded scientific research in the field of energy has already been pointed in the direction of the above-mentioned sources of energy. Continued research should be looked at in the future.
However, until we can make these alternative sources financially prudent for both the producer and consumer, we've got to provide power and electricity to keep ourselves going.
Until Alternatives Become Cost-Effective...
We are still quite a distance from the day that alternative energy sources can become reliable and/or cost-efficient. Until then, we have to focus on what we, as a nation, have at our disposal.
Clean-burning coal is an alternative that we should look at more seriously. In fact, the state of Virginia already has many large deposits of coal that can be used in the "clean-burning" process. Not only does this help on a national level, but also brings relevance and importance to the mining industry in our state.
Let's face it, we deal too much with nations that are hostile towards us when it comes to oil. What we need to do is focus on opening up further drilling in Alaska and other areas of the United States where we are legislatively limited to drill...despite the bounty of oil beneath these restricted grounds which would make us more self-reliant when it comes to oil. Also, with Brazil having recently discovered a new, rather large deposit of oil that they plan on opening up for drilling, it would be sensible to move our trade away from nations like Venezuela to one like Brazil, whose stance towards America is rather favorable.
Another way to reduce our oil dependency is to look towards nuclear energy. Several nations that have been lauded for "being green", like Japan and France, have a much higher percentage of nuclear-generated electricity than America does. 3 Mile Island was almost 29 years ago, and that incident was not only an example of what can go wrong with nuclear power...but also an example of how many safeguards are in place to prevent a nuclear meltdown. It's time to move on and move towards greater use of this efficient and effective form of power.
In fact, by going to clean-burning coal and nuclear power, our oil dependency lessens dramatically...basically for use in automobiles and a minority of households for heating purposes.
Conservative Conservation
For those who doubt the connection of conservatives and conservation, see this exchange between an unnamed southern governor and President Reagan as noted in Edmund Morris' Dutch.
Governor: Mister President, I want to know why a bear needs more fresh air than a human being?
Reagan: Well, Governor, have you ever smelled a bear?
Admittedly, that quote is a bit light and humorous, but Reagan was a fan of sensible conservation of forests and open land. Conservatives, especially the ones who like to claim the mantle of Reagan, would be wise to keep this in mind. As much as we Americans like our clusters of new development making life convenient for us, we also like wide open spaces and lush green forests. While growth in inevitable in a nation such as ours, we could help conserve our wildlands a great deal with smart, conservative conservationism.
I expressed in the Podium Positions regarding the economy, I believe we should begin a new focus on agriculture. Not only would this provide positive economic results, but would also help with creating results from conserving farmland.
Overview
While alternative sources of energy and fuel are undoubtedly the future, they have not been cost-effective for the consumer. Until we can make these products cheap and widely available for public consumption, we still need to power our nation. Clean-burning coal, domestic oil, and especially nuclear power would not only reduce our need for foreign oil, but the clean-burning coal and nuclear power would lessen our need for oil in general.
We must be smart about the protection of wildlands, but neither overly careful nor overly careless. Our nation has always reserved a general love for the wilderness. It's part of our heritage as a country. Agricultural growth will provide dividends both economically and environmentally, as well.
Showing posts with label Podium Positions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Podium Positions. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Monday, December 31, 2007
Podium Positions: Immigration
The immigration debate is one of rising importance in America. While most people are against a solution such as amnesty, the debate rages on about how we go about fixing the problems with immigration, putting an end to illegal immigration, and what would be a pragmatic solution to this problem.
Illegal Immigrants
Most estimates say we have 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Other estimates go as low as 7 million, others as high as 34 million. This is a lot of people, nonetheless. The reasons as to why people illegally immigrate to this country are fairly obvious. We are a great nation of promise and opportunity. However, we must keep in mind that illegal immigration is exactly that...illegal. It is a violation of American laws.
The focus, naturally, is on the border between the United States and Mexico. While the pro-amnesty/pro-legalization left claims that this focus is inherently racist in nature, it should be worth pointing out that, according to a 2005 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a combined 81% of all illegal immigrants come from either Mexico, Central America, or South America. 9% come from Asia, 6% from Europe, and 4% from everywhere else.
For the 81% coming from points south of the United States, I believe that we must look at stronger border security. This includes an effective fence and increased border patrol. For the 9% coming from Asia, many of which are Chinese laborers smuggled via ports into this country, we need better port security. We don't just border Canada and Mexico, you know, we also border the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans...as well as the Gulf of Mexico.
Not only that, but stronger border security prevents drug smuggling, as well as human smuggling and weapons trafficking. This is one area we should get a lot of assistance from the Mexican government, as Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been very tough on the drug cartels during his first year in office.
We must also punish the corporations that knowingly entice and employ illegal immigrants for the sake of exploiting cheap labor.
As For Illegals in America...
Now, the solutions above seem to be targeted at stopping the flow of illegal immigration into America...but what about the illegals here. What do we do with them?
Amnesty is not an option, and neither is attempting to round up every illegal immigrant and throw them out.
Now, illegal aliens who are convicted of another crime should be deported. They are already here illegally, committing another crime should be a ticket back to wherever they come from. However, the majority of the illegal immigrant population aren't breaking any other laws (as they really can't afford to, since they would be deported). How do we further reduce the population of illegals?
So we give them no reason to stay. There are 3 ways to do this.
- Dissolve the loopholes that allow them to receive entitlements such as welfare and Medicare (which many of them receive through false Social Security numbers and identities).
- Crack down on the corporations that hire illegals and landlords who house them.
- Create a penalty for "sanctuary cities", this penalty will be removed from the federal funding the city receives...and the longer the city keeps it's "sanctuary" status, the greater the penalties become.
This will undoubtedly create a reverse flow of these illegal aliens. In fact, this reverse flow is already starting to happen in the wake of increased enforcement (and the favorability of increased enforcement) of immigration laws.
Filling the Economic Hole, Visa Overstayers, and an Opportunity for Illegals
Of course, because the issue of illegal immigration has gone on relatively untouched in the way that it has gone, illegal immigrants hold a very sizable percentage of lower-income, manual labor jobs. To eliminate these workers would cause a problem for many corporations as they would attempt to fill these jobs, probably with limited success.
However, given that the unemployment rate in our country is very low, and those that remain unemployed are generally undesirable for one reason or another, the need for these laborers is high. So we make it clear and simple.
The number of visas, temporary and permanent, that are given out to foreigners needs to be increased fairly dramatically...plain and simple. The process for those looking to immigrate to this country legally needs to be made more accessible and easier for potential immigrants to manuver through.
Illegal immigrants who do not have a serious criminal history in America would be welcomed back, but they would have to get in line with everyone else...however, with a freer and faster flow of immigrants into America in a legal form, this would allow formerly illegal immigrants to come back to America legally much faster than they could under the current system.
Those with a serious criminal history, as is currently the law, will not be welcomed back...at least, not so easily.
The process of renewing visas needs to be made simpler and easier, as well. This way, we eliminate a large percentage of visa overstayers, who normally overstay their visa due to the lengthy renewal process or because they were not aware of their status.
This would allow for a larger flow of migrant workers for corporations that rely on this form of labor as well as bolster confidence in the immigration process by making the process more efficient.
Overview
By giving illegal aliens no reason to stay in America, as well as giving them the promise of an easier path to legal immigration if they return to their nation of origin, we give many of those who are simply looking for a better life a chance to actually achieve that goal. They will be able to achieve this goal without having to break laws and go to great lengths to conceal their existence.
Thus, these potential immigrants can choose the legal, lawful path towards working and living in America. By doing so, we ease racial tensions quite a bit and these immigrants can better assimilate into our society as law-abiding citizens who contribute to a better America without having to break the law to get here in the first place.
Illegal Immigrants
Most estimates say we have 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Other estimates go as low as 7 million, others as high as 34 million. This is a lot of people, nonetheless. The reasons as to why people illegally immigrate to this country are fairly obvious. We are a great nation of promise and opportunity. However, we must keep in mind that illegal immigration is exactly that...illegal. It is a violation of American laws.
The focus, naturally, is on the border between the United States and Mexico. While the pro-amnesty/pro-legalization left claims that this focus is inherently racist in nature, it should be worth pointing out that, according to a 2005 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a combined 81% of all illegal immigrants come from either Mexico, Central America, or South America. 9% come from Asia, 6% from Europe, and 4% from everywhere else.
For the 81% coming from points south of the United States, I believe that we must look at stronger border security. This includes an effective fence and increased border patrol. For the 9% coming from Asia, many of which are Chinese laborers smuggled via ports into this country, we need better port security. We don't just border Canada and Mexico, you know, we also border the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans...as well as the Gulf of Mexico.
Not only that, but stronger border security prevents drug smuggling, as well as human smuggling and weapons trafficking. This is one area we should get a lot of assistance from the Mexican government, as Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been very tough on the drug cartels during his first year in office.
We must also punish the corporations that knowingly entice and employ illegal immigrants for the sake of exploiting cheap labor.
As For Illegals in America...
Now, the solutions above seem to be targeted at stopping the flow of illegal immigration into America...but what about the illegals here. What do we do with them?
Amnesty is not an option, and neither is attempting to round up every illegal immigrant and throw them out.
Now, illegal aliens who are convicted of another crime should be deported. They are already here illegally, committing another crime should be a ticket back to wherever they come from. However, the majority of the illegal immigrant population aren't breaking any other laws (as they really can't afford to, since they would be deported). How do we further reduce the population of illegals?
So we give them no reason to stay. There are 3 ways to do this.
- Dissolve the loopholes that allow them to receive entitlements such as welfare and Medicare (which many of them receive through false Social Security numbers and identities).
- Crack down on the corporations that hire illegals and landlords who house them.
- Create a penalty for "sanctuary cities", this penalty will be removed from the federal funding the city receives...and the longer the city keeps it's "sanctuary" status, the greater the penalties become.
This will undoubtedly create a reverse flow of these illegal aliens. In fact, this reverse flow is already starting to happen in the wake of increased enforcement (and the favorability of increased enforcement) of immigration laws.
Filling the Economic Hole, Visa Overstayers, and an Opportunity for Illegals
Of course, because the issue of illegal immigration has gone on relatively untouched in the way that it has gone, illegal immigrants hold a very sizable percentage of lower-income, manual labor jobs. To eliminate these workers would cause a problem for many corporations as they would attempt to fill these jobs, probably with limited success.
However, given that the unemployment rate in our country is very low, and those that remain unemployed are generally undesirable for one reason or another, the need for these laborers is high. So we make it clear and simple.
The number of visas, temporary and permanent, that are given out to foreigners needs to be increased fairly dramatically...plain and simple. The process for those looking to immigrate to this country legally needs to be made more accessible and easier for potential immigrants to manuver through.
Illegal immigrants who do not have a serious criminal history in America would be welcomed back, but they would have to get in line with everyone else...however, with a freer and faster flow of immigrants into America in a legal form, this would allow formerly illegal immigrants to come back to America legally much faster than they could under the current system.
Those with a serious criminal history, as is currently the law, will not be welcomed back...at least, not so easily.
The process of renewing visas needs to be made simpler and easier, as well. This way, we eliminate a large percentage of visa overstayers, who normally overstay their visa due to the lengthy renewal process or because they were not aware of their status.
This would allow for a larger flow of migrant workers for corporations that rely on this form of labor as well as bolster confidence in the immigration process by making the process more efficient.
Overview
By giving illegal aliens no reason to stay in America, as well as giving them the promise of an easier path to legal immigration if they return to their nation of origin, we give many of those who are simply looking for a better life a chance to actually achieve that goal. They will be able to achieve this goal without having to break laws and go to great lengths to conceal their existence.
Thus, these potential immigrants can choose the legal, lawful path towards working and living in America. By doing so, we ease racial tensions quite a bit and these immigrants can better assimilate into our society as law-abiding citizens who contribute to a better America without having to break the law to get here in the first place.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Podium Positions: Federal Budget
Budgetary Viewpoints from The Podium...
Military
Understandably, it's hard to reduce spending while fighting two separate military operations. However, as the situation continues to improve in Iraq, we can start projecting how we can save billions just by coming to a favorable end to our occupation of that nation. $145 billion has been allocated for the Global War on Terror, Iraq consumes a large part of that in and of itself. Once Iraq is done with and we wind things down a bit more in Afghanistan, we could cut the current budget deficit of $240 billion in half.
However, we must currently continue to create a favorable outcome in Iraq now, as future U.S.-involved conflict due to leaving Iraq in bad shape would mean future military operations there. To leave Iraq now would lead to more spending later.
Entitlements - Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP/Welfare/Unemployment
Until then, some trimming around the edges of other government programs will be necessary, we need to find a way to do this without hurting those who actually need government assistance.
The introduction of privatized Social Security (at least in an optional sense) would help. The U.S. federal budget will spend $608 billion dollars on Social Security for the fiscal year of 2008. It is the single-most expensive item of spending in our budget, and it gets more expensive each year.
$324 billion will be spent on welfare/unemployment, this can be cut down if we can stimulate job growth "from the ground up", so to speak.
The combined $595 billion spent on Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP could be made a lot cheaper if we opened up health insurance to the free markets just like car insurance, life insurance, et cetera. You, the individual, find the plan and the price that is right for you. In fact, we can probably even set up government-funded assistance for people who don't quite know what to look for when shopping around for insurance and still cut down on this price tag.
Also, by adopting a more federalist approach, we can defer funding for abortions to the state level, and there the states can decide whether or not they choose to provide funding and assistance for abortion practices on their own, thus removing financial responsibility from the federal government.
Taxes
With lowered spending comes less of a need for taxes. While I'm not calling for the dissolution of the IRS just yet, the combination of lower spending and a simpler tax code would lessen the need for any future tax increases, and may lead to a call for tax decreases.
Overview
Whether we're talking federal, state, or local levels, fiscal prudence will always be an appealing cornerstone for conservatives. The George W. Bush-style of budgeting money has not been fiscally prudent overall. While his tax cuts have kept money in the pockets of those who earned it, spending has continued to increase.
However, the reigning in of spending increases has occurred over the past few years. The federal budget deficit has gone from $390 billion (FY 2006) to about $240 billion (FY 2008). Continued reduction at this rate will lead to a balanced budget, or budget surplus, by Fiscal Year 2011.
We must continue on this track, and find ways to "trim the fat" from our budget.
Optional privatization of social security allows people to make a choice to invest their social security funds, which allows for less spending on social security itself. Lower taxes puts money back in the pockets of those who earned the money in the first place. Less federal spending makes our government less cumbersome and more nimble and flexible to foreign and domestic changes. Finally, the reduction and streamlining of entitlement programs increases the amount of independency American citizens have from the federal government.
Military
Understandably, it's hard to reduce spending while fighting two separate military operations. However, as the situation continues to improve in Iraq, we can start projecting how we can save billions just by coming to a favorable end to our occupation of that nation. $145 billion has been allocated for the Global War on Terror, Iraq consumes a large part of that in and of itself. Once Iraq is done with and we wind things down a bit more in Afghanistan, we could cut the current budget deficit of $240 billion in half.
However, we must currently continue to create a favorable outcome in Iraq now, as future U.S.-involved conflict due to leaving Iraq in bad shape would mean future military operations there. To leave Iraq now would lead to more spending later.
Entitlements - Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP/Welfare/Unemployment
Until then, some trimming around the edges of other government programs will be necessary, we need to find a way to do this without hurting those who actually need government assistance.
The introduction of privatized Social Security (at least in an optional sense) would help. The U.S. federal budget will spend $608 billion dollars on Social Security for the fiscal year of 2008. It is the single-most expensive item of spending in our budget, and it gets more expensive each year.
$324 billion will be spent on welfare/unemployment, this can be cut down if we can stimulate job growth "from the ground up", so to speak.
The combined $595 billion spent on Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP could be made a lot cheaper if we opened up health insurance to the free markets just like car insurance, life insurance, et cetera. You, the individual, find the plan and the price that is right for you. In fact, we can probably even set up government-funded assistance for people who don't quite know what to look for when shopping around for insurance and still cut down on this price tag.
Also, by adopting a more federalist approach, we can defer funding for abortions to the state level, and there the states can decide whether or not they choose to provide funding and assistance for abortion practices on their own, thus removing financial responsibility from the federal government.
Taxes
With lowered spending comes less of a need for taxes. While I'm not calling for the dissolution of the IRS just yet, the combination of lower spending and a simpler tax code would lessen the need for any future tax increases, and may lead to a call for tax decreases.
Overview
Whether we're talking federal, state, or local levels, fiscal prudence will always be an appealing cornerstone for conservatives. The George W. Bush-style of budgeting money has not been fiscally prudent overall. While his tax cuts have kept money in the pockets of those who earned it, spending has continued to increase.
However, the reigning in of spending increases has occurred over the past few years. The federal budget deficit has gone from $390 billion (FY 2006) to about $240 billion (FY 2008). Continued reduction at this rate will lead to a balanced budget, or budget surplus, by Fiscal Year 2011.
We must continue on this track, and find ways to "trim the fat" from our budget.
Optional privatization of social security allows people to make a choice to invest their social security funds, which allows for less spending on social security itself. Lower taxes puts money back in the pockets of those who earned the money in the first place. Less federal spending makes our government less cumbersome and more nimble and flexible to foreign and domestic changes. Finally, the reduction and streamlining of entitlement programs increases the amount of independency American citizens have from the federal government.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Podium Positions: Social Issues
My position on "social" issues.
Abortion
Two things need to happen. One...overturn Roe v. Wade, so we can go forward with the next step. That is step number two...place the legislative responsibility of this issue back in the hands of the states.
What this allows for is better representation of the people on such a bitterly divisive issue. For instance, a state like Massachusetts may allow abortion and provide funding for it and will have the support of the majority of the population. However, a state like Utah has a majority of anti-abortionists, so the will of the people in that state would be different and would probably lead to no practice of abortion within that state's borders. However, I would also not be opposed to allowing people to travel from a non-abortion state to a pro-abortion state to get an abortion if they so desire.
While I'm personally opposed to abortion, the only real federal actions I would approve of in this situation would be upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, as that is infanticide, in my opinion.
Gay Marriage
Again, this is a state-to-state issue. What may play in socially liberal states will not play in socially conservative states. Represent the population, but as with the abortion laws, state governments must also pay attention to opinion changes and demographic shifts to keep laws up-to-date with the mood of the populous.
Socially moderate/conservative states may want to at least allow civil unions with marriage-style rights. Let the actual term "marriage" be determined by the churches, not the state.
I personally do not oppose gay marriage or civil unions, and I think that some relaxation and/or compromise in this area would be good for Republicans, who probably don't realize how much of the vote they are losing in this demographic due to their current positions, anyway. However, given the anti-homosexual opinions of many social conservatives within the party, I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.
I also believe that we have not come to a scientific consensus on whether or not homosexuality is a result of "nature" or "nurture" (I believe that both of those are roots of homosexuality, as I've seen scientific research that supports both theories), but either way we should not discriminate based on this. I don't believe it to be very Christian to do so, to be honest.
Civil Rights/Discrimination
Basically, we need to move towards putting everyone on an equal plane of treatment. It should not matter whether you are White ,Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African, Male, Female, Transgendered, Straight, Gay, or Bisexual. "Hate Crimes" should cover crimes against any race/gender/orientation, with no extra or special punishment for crimes against certain groups.
In the workplace, we need to get to the point of hiring the best people for the job. We are in the 21st century, we do not need to place quotas based on race, gender, or orientation (though, I don't know of any place that says "you must hire X number of gays", but you get my point).
Understandably, this is not a goal that can be achieved overnight, but society needs to start moving in that direction, as it is not fair for someone to get special (or detrimental) treatment because of their race, gender, or orientation.
Overview
On a federal level, most of the social issues need to be deferred back to the states. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to their controversial and divisive manner, should have their legality and funding determined by the states. States whose populous support these issues can deem it legal in their state, and states whose populous do not support these issues do not have to make it legal.
We should also move anti-discrimination legislation to treat all people equally.
Handing social issues back to the states is a healthy, federalist approach to these issues that tend to be create bitterness and tension between people of different ideological standpoints. Also, it allows for smaller-scale experimentation with various types of legislation, which is a way for people to find out if certain legislative actions are feasible and functional before it gets introduced on a national level.
Abortion
Two things need to happen. One...overturn Roe v. Wade, so we can go forward with the next step. That is step number two...place the legislative responsibility of this issue back in the hands of the states.
What this allows for is better representation of the people on such a bitterly divisive issue. For instance, a state like Massachusetts may allow abortion and provide funding for it and will have the support of the majority of the population. However, a state like Utah has a majority of anti-abortionists, so the will of the people in that state would be different and would probably lead to no practice of abortion within that state's borders. However, I would also not be opposed to allowing people to travel from a non-abortion state to a pro-abortion state to get an abortion if they so desire.
While I'm personally opposed to abortion, the only real federal actions I would approve of in this situation would be upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, as that is infanticide, in my opinion.
Gay Marriage
Again, this is a state-to-state issue. What may play in socially liberal states will not play in socially conservative states. Represent the population, but as with the abortion laws, state governments must also pay attention to opinion changes and demographic shifts to keep laws up-to-date with the mood of the populous.
Socially moderate/conservative states may want to at least allow civil unions with marriage-style rights. Let the actual term "marriage" be determined by the churches, not the state.
I personally do not oppose gay marriage or civil unions, and I think that some relaxation and/or compromise in this area would be good for Republicans, who probably don't realize how much of the vote they are losing in this demographic due to their current positions, anyway. However, given the anti-homosexual opinions of many social conservatives within the party, I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.
I also believe that we have not come to a scientific consensus on whether or not homosexuality is a result of "nature" or "nurture" (I believe that both of those are roots of homosexuality, as I've seen scientific research that supports both theories), but either way we should not discriminate based on this. I don't believe it to be very Christian to do so, to be honest.
Civil Rights/Discrimination
Basically, we need to move towards putting everyone on an equal plane of treatment. It should not matter whether you are White ,Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African, Male, Female, Transgendered, Straight, Gay, or Bisexual. "Hate Crimes" should cover crimes against any race/gender/orientation, with no extra or special punishment for crimes against certain groups.
In the workplace, we need to get to the point of hiring the best people for the job. We are in the 21st century, we do not need to place quotas based on race, gender, or orientation (though, I don't know of any place that says "you must hire X number of gays", but you get my point).
Understandably, this is not a goal that can be achieved overnight, but society needs to start moving in that direction, as it is not fair for someone to get special (or detrimental) treatment because of their race, gender, or orientation.
Overview
On a federal level, most of the social issues need to be deferred back to the states. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to their controversial and divisive manner, should have their legality and funding determined by the states. States whose populous support these issues can deem it legal in their state, and states whose populous do not support these issues do not have to make it legal.
We should also move anti-discrimination legislation to treat all people equally.
Handing social issues back to the states is a healthy, federalist approach to these issues that tend to be create bitterness and tension between people of different ideological standpoints. Also, it allows for smaller-scale experimentation with various types of legislation, which is a way for people to find out if certain legislative actions are feasible and functional before it gets introduced on a national level.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
An Upcoming Series, Inspired By Vivian J. Paige
Lately, I've seen that Norfolk blogger Vivian J. Paige has done a series of posts about her personal Legislative Agenda. Vivian has always been a bit of an inspiration to me as how I should go about blogging and presenting myself on my blog, even though she and I pretty much disagree ideologically.
Anyway, I figure that I should put my own positions out there in a clear, concise manner such as this. This feature will be called "Podium Positions".
Now, if a position needs to be updated or changed, I will go back and do so if necessary. Ideas, like people, sometimes change in their approach or way of thinking.
Maybe this way, I can give people a better sense of what I believe in, as it seems like I'm constantly repeating myself all over the blogosphere. Who knows, maybe I'll start up a conversation and someone can change, refine, or support my position.
A big thanks to Vivian for the inspiration.
Anyway, I figure that I should put my own positions out there in a clear, concise manner such as this. This feature will be called "Podium Positions".
Now, if a position needs to be updated or changed, I will go back and do so if necessary. Ideas, like people, sometimes change in their approach or way of thinking.
Maybe this way, I can give people a better sense of what I believe in, as it seems like I'm constantly repeating myself all over the blogosphere. Who knows, maybe I'll start up a conversation and someone can change, refine, or support my position.
A big thanks to Vivian for the inspiration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
