I haven't yet voted for a winning American president (my first chance was '84, I just missed on '80, but I would have voted - gladly - for John Anderson that year), and I'm getting so I intensly dislike both parties (although among the alternatives, the Reform Party is sounding better). Here's my stance on a bunch of issues. Yes, some of these are politically very "hot", if you wish to debate with me, let's agree beforehand to do it civilly. Who knows - I might change my opinion, you might change yours, we might just agree to disagree. If you're not able to discuss these issues civilly, don't discuss them with me at all.

Abortion: I wish it was illegal. I believe it is fairly close to murder, not through any profound religious beliefs, but rather that IMHO we can't define "human" well enough to be able to know the difference. And, even if you get me to agree that a zygote is not human, I'm still concerned about both its genetic uniqueness and its potential to become so. I hate the way most people bumper-stickerize this issue (on both sides), they leave no room for discussion.

Right-to-die: I believe that I have the right (not just the ability) to end my life if I choose. I might opt for this if I was significantly older, and dying of some wasting disease that would end up robbing me of what little dignity I have. I own my life.

Clinton: Stinks. But hey, man, the economy is good, so I guess he's not guilty. MHO: Clinton has done more to damage the reputation of his office than any president before him, period.

Guns: Man, I'd like to bring the Founding Fathers of America forward in time about 200 years, and then send them back to write the Constitution. An individual's rights are constrained by the number of other individuals; if there are 100 people in the world and I want to burn a few thousand square miles of forest, what the heck - but if there are 6 billion, it should be illegal. The same thinking applies to guns: The laws that seemed reasonable and just a couple of centuries ago (when guns were a necessity on the frontier) are crazy now. I like the current "cooling off" period, and I think assult and rapid-fire weapons should be banned outright. Deep down, I wish guns didn't exist at all - too often they combine with testosterone and stupidity to produce tragic results.

[the above was written before the shooting tragedy at Columbine High in Colorado, about 60 miles from where I live, the following is being written after] And if I hear "Guns don't kill people...." one more time, I'm going to puke. What would you say to a proposal that everyone carries a nuclear bomb with a detonator, so that at any time they can take out a city of half a million? Stupid idea, right? And yet, nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. The point of this is not to equate guns with nuclear weapons, it is to show that there is a limit to the amount of destructive power we want people to have instant access to. So now, we're just debating the limit, not arguing its existence. The limit moves downward with increasing population, and in my opinion it crossed the gun threshhold a while ago.

However - even if that's true, we are constrained by our current situation, and we'll never sucessfully take away something that has been permitted (see Prohibition). So - we're stuck with guns. But, we can put better controls on their distribution.

Freedom: Ahhh, the eternal debate! Freedom includes the freedom to do stupid things. There's a very fuzzy gray line here: We don't say you're free to take heroin (we evidentally think the safety and future good of society override the individual freedom on this case), but you are free to (say) gamble away your paycheck. I'm a big fan of making people experience the consequences of their decisions (don't even get me started on product liability suits). The troublesome area is: what if there are kids involved? What if someone gambles away their paycheck, and their kids go hungry as a result? I think we'd all agree that the person acted irresponsibly - but does society have a *right* to tell the person they can't do that? How would that right be enforced? Should society support the kids in some fashion? (IMHO: yes, it's not their fault that their parent is a jerk) And, if society does support the kids in some fashion, are we not then indirectly funding the gambling problem? What if they just bought 1 lotto ticket per month - is that OK? Where is the line? Beats me! It's in there somewhere... [hmmm, to my way of thinking, the difficulty of placing the line is close to a proof that gambling should be illegal]

Procreation: OK, I don't want to go very far at all with this, but here goes: You need a license to own a gun. You need a license to drive a car. You must be of a certain age to purchase alcohol and tobacco. But, any dick can have a kid. I wish we could sterilize everyone at birth, and reverse the process once they pass a test, hit a certain age, and demonstrate an ability to not require public assistence for the child. I know, I know, who gets to make the test? Me, of course! :-) Actually, there would be huge problems with a system like this. But, IMHO they would be less than the problems we face today.

Here's a change I'd like to see: If a single woman has a child on the public dole, she gets a tubal ligation immediately after delivery. In fact, tubal ligations should be free in general.

Fiscal Responsibility: I have to live within my budget. The gov'mint should have to live within theirs. But - this does not mean "no debt" - I have debt, you (probably) have debt. In fact, I currently have debt (a mortgage) in excess of my income. Acquiring debt to finance long-term capital purchases is sound financial management: people do it, corporations do it, and governments do it. Read http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/ for much more.

Race: In Dave's Perfect World, race is just like height: an externally obvious personal attribute that no one really cares all that much about. In this world, that is certainly not true, and unfortunately, we need programs like Affirmative Action (I'm caucasian). And, I don't buy the argument that AA allows unworthy "minorities" to get jobs over other qualified applicants. I've worked in various professional white-collar jobs since 1986, and I can say almost without exception that the non-white people I work with are very capable in their jobs - perhaps even more so than my white coworkers (and if any are reading this, no, I certainly don't mean *you* :-) ). If AA was promoting the hiring of unqualified applicants, I wouldn't see this. And yes, I would continue to support AA even if I or someone in my family personally felt victumized by it, although I'd really like to base AA-type decisions on socioeconomic status rather than race. So, in short: Yes, it stinks, and yes, we need it.

Drunk Driving: Quadruple the penalties. Then, pass a law like this: You are guilty of intentionally doing anything you "accidentally" do while drunk. If you kill someone, that's 2nd degree murder. If you knock over a mailbox, that's vandalism. In other words: You (and you alone) are actually responsible for your own actions - I know that's un-American, but it shouldn't be.

Automobile insurance: While I'm on the subject of driving, what would you say to an idea that would simplify auto insurance, eliminate the uninsured motorist, and lower insurance costs for everyone? It's so sensible that only lawyers and insurance salespeople would disagree with it: Roll the cost of insurance into the price of gas.