http://www.kuow.org/programs/weekday.asp
per a : esser_lu@leg.wa.gov,alexhays@washingtonmainstream.org,lstickney@fpiw.org
data
03/01/2008 11:44
Dear Mr. Esser, Hays, and Stickney,
I am 24 year old Snohomish County resident who heard you speaking on KUOW today. I have some questions for you three:
1. What does the Republican party intend to do to protect citizens from the abuses of giant international corporations? (Such as water and air pollution, harmful chemicals found in toys and cosmetics, hormones and antibiotics in meat and milk, privatization of everything leaving poor citizens with no access, etc.)
2. What does the Republican party intend to do to make sure that poor citizens don't suffer from the patenting of plant and animal DNA?
3. Why does the Republican party feel that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would be the greatest threat to the family structure in America? I personally feel that glittery and pervasive advertising from big corporations, outrageous credit card interest rates, deceptive housing loan agreements, and the response of human greed to these things is a far greater threat to the American family structure. Would protecting American families against the destruction of material greed do more for our families than creating laws that will never actually be effective in stopping people of the same gender from having romantic relationships with each other?
I will post a copy of this email on my blog (http://windofourlittlewings.blogspot.com/), along with any responses you would like to give. Let's start a dialogue.
Thank you,
Loretta Fisher
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mr. Hays (alexhays@washingtonmainstream.org) has asked me to not post the email he sent to me, so I am posting my response to what he has written, with the quote from him asking me to not post his response. However, if he has not provided me with a response that he feels is worth posting by January 12th, I will post his original email here.
Dear Mr. Hays,
Thank you for your speedy reply, and thank you for forwarding the email to Mr. Esser's correct email address. The only part of your email that I will post on my blog is this:
"
Dear Loretta,
Thanks for the note. I’ll note that Luke’s e-mail address is no longer the Washington State Senate address you have above. I’ve cc’d him at the WSRP on my response.
I’d rather have my response be to you as an individual, not to be posted on your blog. In part because I haven’t proofed this item and have just jotted down a few thoughts for you. If you want an item for you blog I require more time to produce something more thoughtful and better written."
But please edit what you wrote to me so that you feel it is post-worthy, because I am seriously interested in posting the responses of the individuals and organizations I write letters to. I don't want to be Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. I just want to get to the bottom of things that are making me nervous in this world. I can understand various political stances, because I was raised by poor conservative Christian parents in a tiny town called Silt in Colorado. I moved to Seattle when I was 19 and I am now having the opportunity to go to college, which is something no one else in my family has been able to do. Living in an urban and progressive environment has obviously exposed me to a totally different political and social perspective than what I grew up with.
Just for the record, I'm not one of those Seattle kids that reads poetry at public readings about how George Bush is really mean. I spend more time reading websites on government census/demographic information, Supreme Court decisions, and current legislation in Congress than I do reading news sources from either side. Though I feel nearly forced to vote for one of the main two political parties, I am highly distrustful of both of them. Both sides seem to answer to the same lobbyists. It's just a matter of one lobbyist giving 60% of their campaign contributions to one side, and 40% to the other. I am quite disgruntled about the fact that alternative political parties don't get focused on by the media. I wish EVERY party's candidate was only allowed to receive a set amount of money from the government each (yes, I'd be willing to pay tax dollars for that equality), and that they would all be allowed to debate on the major networks up until election day in November. (And the same goes for Congress, state, and local candidates.) When I vote in November (and in every other state and local election), I will be casting my vote in high unconfidence, for three reasons. One, I think it is pretty much impossible to find any accurate information on any candidate when we live in a world of nasty campaign attacks and TV stations that would rather air melodrama than useful information. Two, I know that all the giant corporations I mistrust more than I do our main two political parties will be donating to both parties. Three, the best I can do is try to vote for the party that seems to be receiving less donations from the corporations I mistrust the most. Sure, I could vote for an alternative party, but the way the past two presidential elections have gone, the vote has been SO close, and I can say (while gritting my teeth) that I'd rather have the party that isn't taking quite so much money from the corporations I distrust than have the party that is taking more of the money from those corporations.
I hope you are right about Richard Nixon and other parties trying to push for clean air and water acts in the past. Obviously, I wasn't alive then, so I am trying to slowly fill in the gaps of my historical knowledge of what has happened in this country in the past. I can't say I've heard a lot about Republicans trying to do much for the environment in recent years. All I hear about is the Bush administration's friendliness toward oil companies. The first thing I've heard in the news that would support Republican environmentalism is the news about George Bush signing into effect what is now causing California to sue the EPA. I was happy to hear that our president had done something, but it didn't sound like enough to me. It didn't sound diverse enough in the way of multiple approaches to alternative energy. It didn't sound aggressive enough to make me feel like I could plan on a future that would make me start thinking about having children.
I don't remember Doug Sutherland's or Mike Cooper's names, though I probably have voted for or against them, biting my nails in frustration over not being able to find any reliable information on them. I'll go look them up now that you've mentioned them.
You tell me that certain politicians deserve my anger or my support. I think they probably deserve neither, but all politicians seem to be earning my distrust.
What is NIMBYism? Sorry, I'm a young voter, and not originally from this state, so you'll have to write to me as if I've never heard of these people or terms before.
You say that the Democrats in the Senate haven't supported the Kyoto Protocol. Where can I find information on that? I've heard only that it was the Bush Administration not supporting it.
I haven't read Kirkpatrick Sale or Jeremy Rifkin, but I'll look them up. I've been trying to find books written on the patenting of animal and plant DNA. Can you direct me to some books or websites that would talk about how Democrats have commodofied human life through their advocay for stem cell research? I thought it was all started with the Supreme Court decision in 1980 that allowed patents on living things (Diamond V. Chakrabarty): http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_136/ My fear on life being made a product has more to do with access to living things. If an agribusiness patents a seed that small farms are using, then those farmers have to deal with a patent barrier. If a pharmaceutical company patents some rainforest moss in Southeast Asia, the local indigenous doctors suddenly don't have access to the very plant they showed the pharmaceutical company how to use.
I am relieved to hear that you are pro-choice and pro-civil union for gays and lesbians. I just really feel these two issues are being tied to far more urgent issues that have to do with the survival of our world. Would you agree with me that there are two fields of "conservatism"... economic/personal freedom from government intervention vs. cultural conservatism, and the two have somehow become tied together?
You are definitely right... I would never want the government to regulate consumerism in a theocratic sort of way. I don't want to government to regulate individuals. I want the government to regulate corporations, which I feel should have never ever been given the status of human individuals. I think that 1886 decision we made was the most foolish decision we ever made.
I'll read up on the "pay day lenders" bill you say Senator Margarita Prentice killed. I hadn't heard about that. As a citizen who is still trying to learn all the history of my country and this world, it is really really difficult to keep up with all the legislation that is happening in both the national and state legislatures, as well as with the cases in the Supreme court, etc. That's why I think it's so hard to be well informed. Not even members of Congress have the time to read every piece of text of every piece of legislation they vote for. They at least have secretaries to do that for them. We the people don't. (I wouldn't call the modern press a very good secretary.)
I think the Republicans and the Democrats both operate like a pirate ship. You say trial lawyers and corporations can always buy what they need from the Democrats, but you and I both know that those parties contribute to both sides, so everyone is being bought, including the party you belong to.
You say the Republicans are true believers. What do you mean by that?
Yeah, most of my progressive friends also see Hillary Clinton as George Bush in a dress.
In my high school days, I only had one channel to watch news on, so all I remember about the Clinton administration is Monica Lewenski. I haven't researched the Clinton administration in depth yet. What I know is that administration's effect on the national debt and NAFTA. (Bittersweet tastes, as always come from all politicians.) Will you point me to sources that tell about the Clintons' (were they both president?) use of private investigators to discredit their political rivals. By the way, I heard something about a Watergate Scandal once... I guess both parties are really more similar than most people would like to admit.
Can you reccommend some places where I could find some real information on Sam Reed, Doug Sutherland, Rob McKenna, Dino Rossi, and Allan Martin? I'll decide who deserves my vote when I can find something besides the candidates' own websites or political parties websites to give me some reliable information about them.
This email has been too long, but I will write one more thing. I want a government that's going to protect our world from giant corporations. That is the single largest issue I will be voting on. If we're going to have free trade and free competition, let's really have it. I'm tired of watching my options get melted together in mergers and acquisitions. I want a diversity of opinions in my news. I want multiple future options of alternative energy. I want a government that is going to truly fight against monopolies. I want a government that regulates corporations, not individuals. However, I suspect that all world governments are losing their own power to protect their citizens from such things. I think corporations are out of control. The public doesn't even notice it, because all the media channels and candy bar companies retain their own individual names, while being merged into one company behind the scenes. Why has my government allowed that to happen? I feel very betrayed. If we lived in a world that had true free competition, companies wouldn't be able to grow to such a size as to acquire all the power they've amassed. However, even that makes me nervous, because how can you ever trust unregulated business to not exploit the environment and laborers? I predict you would see any regulation of business as a violation of individual freedom, am I correct? I think this is the issue discussed by John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty"? Should individuals be allowed to have freedom to such a degree that it treads on the freedom of others? Should business freedom be held so sacred that the well being of every other creature on this planet is taken away?
I am a student, and I go back to school on Monday, so I may not be able to write you this much in the future, but I'd really like to keep this dialogue going. Thank you again for your response!
Loretta Fisher
-- Loretta's Blog: http://ofeliaganimydsmith.blogspot.comLoretta's letters to government and private institutions:http://windofourlittlewings.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment