Dear Mr. President,
The city of Seattle is contemplating a new law, proposed by one of our more conservative city councilmen, to create a $50 fine for aggressive panhandling. This idea is a poor one for several reasons, the most obvious of which being that those who beg for change on the streets don't exactly have the $50 to avoid jail. It punishes the poor for being poor and then helps to keep them poor. That a better way to mitigate the problem of homelessness might be an increase in assistance programs, shelters, police presence and other public services seems to escape the people who support this measure- many of whom also oppose existing social services and the taxes that fund them.
I'm not as compassionate as I ought to be. I don't give money to people on the street (be they homeless or the clip-board wielding WASHPIRG pests) and I generally don't enjoy being asked. (I, as the Lyndon LaRouche-supporting morons can attest, can often be impolite about this if caught in the wrong mood, especially by libertarians.) My vague annoyance, however, is not grounds for a fine. This law is designed to win the council favor with local business and encourage tourism (though, for the life of me, I can't imagine that there are a number of people who long to visit Seattle but don't because of the homeless.) When I worked at the downtown bookstore, homeless patrons were often problematic, however, if business owners don't want to deal with the inconvenience, than they ought to be willing to contribute to solving the larger problem, not just punishing its symptoms.
This whole debate contrasts sharply with the national debate about financial regulation. The role of the government, in my opinion, should be to protect the interests of the people, especially those who can't protect themselves. In regulating the financial industry, the government is doing just this; looking out for the people in the face of powerful organizations, companies and industries guided by self-interest. The city of Seattle, meanwhile, is trying to do the opposite; attempting through redundant and overly-broad legislation to protect the wealthy and powerful from the desperate and poor. Both homelessness and wall-street reform are important issues, and ones that will require us to determine where we want the government to intervene and who we really want it to protect us from.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Lyndon larouche. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lyndon larouche. Show all posts
Friday, April 16, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Day 47
Dear Mr. President,
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
