What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

Palomar · 2003-09-13 11:24:33

Here's something some of you may want to ponder...
Anyone on here familiar with Huey Long ("The Kingfish,") who was the Governor of Louisana in the late 1920's and was elected Senator in the early 1930's? ...
He was a truly radical politician who sought to revitalize the nation's depressed economy by confiscating the monies of the super-wealthy and major corporations and redistributing it among the rest of the population in the form of a "reverse income tax." However, as he was making a bid for President in 1935, he was gunned down in Baton Rouge by his hard-core enemies. His plan was called "Share the Wealth," and it would have guaranteed an annual income for every American.
I have often wondered what this country would have been like if he had succeeded Roosevelt as President of the U.S. Would he have been able to carry out his Utopian plan, providing all of America's citizens access to this nation's vast natural wealth, or would he have driven this country into total ruin like so people accused him of doing?
...In this day and age, when something like the top 5% owns close to 80% of the nation's wealth, it does give one pause, doesn't it?

*Another terrific post from you, Byron. I'm vaguely familiar with Huey Long. You make excellent points, as usual.

This nation was founded for the benefit of the American aristocrats of the Colonies. I'm reading a book entitled _Tom Paine: America's Godfather_ by W.E. Woodward, a very scholarly fellow and, inasmuch as I can discern, objective and fair.

After the Revolutionary War, the aristocrats in control of America worked to keep the middle- and working-classes under their thumb. Thomas Paine was admired for his pre-Revolutionary writings, but he was dismissed by most of the aristocrats (snobs) because he was the son of a staymaker; despite his genius ala political philosophy, he was considered as nothing more than "one of the mob" by snob circles. These people grew to despise Paine for his adamant insistence on "all men are created equal" being APPLIED to everyone, in everyday life.

Thomas Jefferson believed in the common people and the truest expression of democracy. And though he was well-to-do, his views got him ostracized from Philadelphia social circles -- while he was Vice President of the U.S., no less!

The aristocrats are still in control, still reaping the benefits. F*ck them.

And anyone who bucks the system or attempts to overthrow the "elite", if capable of generating enough "waves," are certain to face character assassination (Thomas Paine) or concrete shoes.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-09-13 11:39:24

This nation was founded for the benefit of the American aristocrats of the Colonies. I'm reading a book entitled _Tom Paine: America's Godfather_ by W.E. Woodward, a very scholarly fellow and, inasmuch as I can discern, objective and fair.
After the Revolutionary War, the aristocrats in control of America worked to keep the middle- and working-classes under their thumb. Thomas Paine was admired for his pre-Revolutionary writings, but he was dismissed by most of the aristocrats (snobs) because he was the son of a staymaker; despite his genius ala political philosophy, he was considered as nothing more than "one of the mob" by snob circles. These people grew to despise Paine for his adamant insistence on "all men are created equal" being APPLIED to everyone, in everyday life.
Thomas Jefferson believed in the common people and the truest expression of democracy. And though he was well-to-do, his views got him ostracized from Philadelphia social circles -- while he was Vice President of the U.S., no less!
The aristocrats are still in control, still reaping the benefits. F*ck them.
And anyone who bucks the system or attempts to overthrow the "elite", if capable of generating enough "waves," are certain to face character assassination (Thomas Paine) or concrete shoes.
--Cindy

Hmm...that's a pretty interesting snippet of American history, Cindy...thank you. It's always nice to learn something new.

Those who have the wealth (I'm talking BIG wealth here, of course,) do have the power, and they will do whatever it within their ability to make sure that they stay at the top.

The ONLY way this system will ever change if the American people (I'm talking about Joe Common Man on the street,) takes an active interest in how this country is governed...and use their collective strength to do something about it.

After all, there's a whole lot more of "us" than "them"....

In case you're wondering, my favorite period of American history is the 1930's....while I know this was a very "depressing" (please excuse the pun) period in our country's history, it was also a time of great promise and hope. It was also the best time ever to be a SF writer (gosh, if only I could have been alive then!), not to mention the wonderful Art Deco architecture, which I'm a huge fan of. It was also a time in which we came within a hair's breath of creating a truly Utopian society...I honestly believe this, deep down in my heart. If things had just been just a little bit worse, a tiny bit more dire...the entire "aristrocratic" structure of this nation (and likely the whole world over) would have likely collasped, providing humanity with a fresh, new start...

I dream too much, don't I...

B

dicktice · 2003-09-13 17:17:59

Byron: Yes--I believe that you do dream too much, about the past, that is. I grew up then and--talk about "ignorance is bliss"! The science fiction was fun, the fantasy even more so, with the "rocket ships" and and "spacemen" and "ray guns" not only called by non-readers "rubbish," they were, indeed, rubbish--written mostly by 20-year-olds for about 1-cent per word when they eventually got paid. No problem, because it was fun and they were young, with other work. The true pioneer writers of space exploration were academics, we know now, in pre-Soviet Russia, and post-World War I Germany. We dreamed of "heliocopters," "passenger airships," "streamlined" trains and automobiles. We didn't have a clue as to how spaceships would operate, take-off or land. (Spacemen were forever replacing "worn-out linings in their rocket tubes," and they used "rocket fuel," whatever that was.) Goddard was a mere experimental hobbiest, shown periodically blowing-up funny-looking things, in the Fox Movietone Newsreels of the time. My Dad read every "scientifiction" magazine published, and I looked at the illustrations and wondered what the heck they were all about. He never discussed them with me, and no-one else did either. I "discovered" science fiction when I happened to read my first, unforgettable story: "The Human Pets of Mars" in Amazing Stories magazine. Asimov later included in an anthology, so I was able to read it again a few years ago. Whew--what a stinker! Written by a woman, in itself a rarity, it introduced the idea of human "pets" being kidnapped from Earth, Wellsian style, and taken to Mars. When no longer wanted, to cuddle, enslave or race for sport, they were sent to be slaughtef for meat in exactly the same way that we do with cattle and hogs. That stayed with me--and I've been hooked on what is termed "hard-core" SF ever since. In fact, I've begun to write in the field myself: What knowledge and experience I have to drawn upon, today! But I'm afraid I won't live to watch the first humans on Mars. (That capability wasn't dreamed of, along with personal computers and word processing, by the way!) What with all the horrific events that keep on happening, thankfully mostly still elsewhere in the World--I can't help thinking, if everyone read a little science fiction on occasion, a lot of what the authorities tell their various populations that is absolute crap, wouldn't be believed--leaving those of us who believe in the importance of spacetravel, to just get on with it.

Byron · 2003-09-13 17:58:52

I can't help thinking, if everyone read a little science fiction on occasion, a lot of what the authorities tell their various populations that is absolute crap, wouldn't be believed--leaving those of us who believe in the importance of spacetravel, to just get on with it.

Cool post, Dicktice! I especially like that last line...lol.."to just get on with it." Indeed. Never a better time than now, right?

But I have to say I envy you just a *tad* for growing up in the '30's...I grew up in the '70's...when Carter was making those dreadful "malaise" speeches...lol. At least back then you had the cool streamlined cars and trains, not to mention magnificant skyscrapers thrusting towards the sky like the Empire State and the Chrysler Building. The writing, as awful as it sounds, would have been fun too...lol. Nothing like an Age of Dreams, I say.

You mentioned that you're writing some SF...have anything you've published? I'd love to see some of it..

B

dicktice · 2003-09-13 18:26:03

Byron: Not published--just completing 2nd draft. Should have 3rd draft done by year-end. Afraid to let anyone but my very trustworthy reader-lady see it, because it's a updated rewrite of an existing, well-known novel from the 1930's. I don't yet know how to go about it, but I suspect a private printing will be necessary to avoid publisher liability-worries. If you were here, no problem. It'd make a great screenplay, my (unpaid) reader keeps saying--what with today's digital effects for showing weightlessness against all manner of backgrounds. Good original stories are what's missing. (See the last two, about Mars--ugh!) But, so many terrific plots have already been published in the past . . . it's a shame not to update them, get me? So I intend to write about space travel in the not to far future, since I'm going to be too dad-blamed old to experience it firsthand. But, for us oldtimers, remote presence should figure large, if we only "get on with it"! Thanks Byron, you and Shaun and Cindy are my favourites.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-13 21:11:52

You can read what is essentially a biography of Hughey Long's career in All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren. Though Warren did all he could to dismiss the claims that it referred to the famous politico, it most certainly did, and is quite an intriguing novel.

But I'm afraid I won't live to watch the first humans on Mars.

Nonsense! Give it a decade. Be patient. Unless your committing suicide (godforbid), you shall indeed see Martians.

dicktice · 2003-09-14 10:08:09

Byron: Okay, I'll hold out for a decade. And maybe in the interim, I'll be able to write some stuff to help hustle it along, eh?

alokmohan · 2003-09-26 04:14:12

i WILL TOUR MOON ,MARS.

Palomar · 2003-09-26 09:06:23

It's cr*p like this...

All those elderly people now in hospitals with burns and smoke inhalation. And 7 of them dead. NO SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THAT PORTION OF THE NURSING HOME! IN THE YEAR 2003?!

We can't afford to care for our elderly, huh? But we can pay out the kazoo for unnecessary wars, dump $6 billion on Egypt (which hates our guts), etc.

It sure is nice of the little people to work their fingers to the bone, only to end up in a condition like this, so rich #*&!)#@ like Bu$h and his oil friends can cart out the tax dollars and win the OIL WAR and better line their pockets.

The administration of that nursing home should be charged with criminal negligence. Hopefully they'll be taken before a court of law, found guilty, and get their keisters kicked into the can for a few years.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-09-26 09:57:57

It's cr*p like this...
All those elderly people now in hospitals with burns and smoke inhalation. And 7 of them dead. NO SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THAT PORTION OF THE NURSING HOME! IN THE YEAR 2003?!
We can't afford to care for our elderly, huh? But we can pay out the kazoo for unnecessary wars, dump $6 billion on Egypt (which hates our guts), etc.
It sure is nice of the little people to work their fingers to the bone, only to end up in a condition like this, so rich #*&!)#@ like Bu$h and his oil friends can cart out the tax dollars and win the OIL WAR and better line their pockets.
The administration of that nursing home should be charged with criminal negligence. Hopefully they'll be taken before a court of law, found guilty, and get their keisters kicked into the can for a few years.
--Cindy

Go get 'em Cindy!!

That's the kind of outrage we need to see in this country..I mean, come on....

Personally, I don't think the U.S. deserves to be No. 1 in the world today...as that is a position that has to be *earned*...in more ways than one. Instead, we're doing just like the late-age Romans did...let letting it all go to pot becuase of unrestrained greed and quest for power, not to mention that we no longer care about our own families.

Byron · 2003-09-26 10:12:32

Here's another reason why the U.S. doesn't deserve to be No.1 today:

Quote from Dow Jones news service -->

The second ruling, by U.S. District Court Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver, erects a far higher hurdle. Judge Nottingham said the registry was unconstitutional because the FTC allowed telemarketing calls from charities but not commercial enterprises, and violated the First Amendment.
Some 50 million phone numbers -- representing about one-third of the nation's households -- signed up since the list's June 28 debut. Telemarketers were to face fines of as much as $11,000 per call for dialing phone numbers on the list.
Now, telemarketers see not only a reprieve from rules they say will cripple their industry but also an opening to overturning do-not-call lists compiled by more than 30 states.

That last paragraph really burns me, as I depend on the state of Florida's "Do Not Call" list to prevent harrassment by telemarkers. I consider the telephone to be a *private instrument* and if I don't want people calling me, then I have that right to prevent unwanted people calling me. I can't abide being interuppted by some ***hole trying to sell me cr*p that I don't want at super-inflated prices.

I really have a hard time with salepeople in general, which is why I have furniture that's 15 years old (can't deal with furniture stores), I keep cars until they die (can't deal with car salesmen), and I only purchase things after peforming due diligence of comparing prices, quality, etc., which means I NEVER want ANYONE trying to get me to buy anything, ever...

To sum it up about the Do Not Call List, those stinkin' judges just need to get a grip on reality...and not to repress the will of 50,000,000 people.

Dang, I'm in a p*ssy mood today, huh? Must be the weather...

B

clark · 2003-09-26 10:17:05

so people selling altruism is okay, but people selling goods, is not?

Byron · 2003-09-26 10:27:40

so people selling altruism is okay, but people selling goods, is not?

Yup...you got it...

B

Byron · 2003-09-26 10:33:48

Actually, since I'm on the Florida "Do Not Call" list, the majority of charities do not call me as a courtesy...I really get very few calls from anyone these days, and if I do get one, I politely ask them to take my name off their list, which has proven to be quite effective...

But if the telemarkers have their way, I might as well as toss the phone altogether..lol..

B

clark · 2003-09-26 10:34:31

So you have a problem with what they are peddiling, but not that they are peddiling?

Strange.

Byron · 2003-09-26 10:48:55

So you have a problem with what they are peddiling, but not that they are peddiling?
Strange.

Actually, I do have a problem with anyone that I don't know calling me...but I'm perfectly willing to accept the *compromise* of allowing charities to call, especially since they will take your name off their own list quite willingly if you ask them to.

If I had my way, ALL sales calls would be banned, without exception, but I'll take what I can get...

B

clark · 2003-09-26 10:55:38

Well, I'm stumped.

You say you are willing to accept phone calls from charities, especially since they will remove you from their lists.

Can't you do the same thing with tele-marketers who are trying to sell you goods and/or services?

Byron · 2003-09-26 11:16:04

Well, I'm stumped.
You say you are willing to accept phone calls from charities, especially since they will remove you from their lists.
Can't you do the same thing with tele-marketers who are trying to sell you goods and/or services?

I don't know why you're stumped... I said that I'm willing to accept (albeit reluctantly) calls from charities in the spirit of compromise, which is par for the course in this country.

The thing about charities is that they are simply asking for help with whatever, which I consider a good thing, along with Congress and millions of fellow Americans.

But as for people selling things for a profit, it really should be considered abuse. They are often aggressive, mean, obnoxious, and they simply will not take "no" for an answer. Also, the telemarketing industry is equivilent to the sweat shops of the 19th century...the employees are treated worse than almost any other type of worker in the U.S., they have to sell so many dollars / units an hour, or they get fired, and they can't even go to the bathroom without permission in most of these places. Little wonder why these people are so nasty when you try to cut them off at mid-sentence, because you're watching your fave TV show, or God forbid, eating dinner.

Yes, if you want things to be fair, all soliciting calls should be banned (for those on the List), I'll agree with that, and maybe that's what Congress will have to do in the end. But I just don't see why charities have to be treated exactly the same as for-profit telemarketers in order to satisfy the First Amendment...it's a voluntary list that people choose to be on. That's the key. If you had an *outright* ban on telemarketing calls and not charities, then yes, that would be a violation of the Constitution. But having a limit in the form of a Do Not Call list is a totally different creature, in my opinion (and Congress' as well.)

This is one of the few times that I'm firmly on the side of the pols...lol

B

clark · 2003-09-26 11:25:43

. If you had an *outright* ban on telemarketing calls and not charities, then yes, that would be a violation of the Constitution.

What if I wanted to create a Do-not-contact-list that held that I not be contacted by any people of a certain race, or perhaps belief? Violators, which would be anyone who fit the "do not contact" criteria would be fined 11,000 dollars for each offense.

Byron · 2003-09-26 11:43:18

. If you had an *outright* ban on telemarketing calls and not charities, then yes, that would be a violation of the Constitution.
What if I wanted to create a Do-not-contact-list that held that I not be contacted by any people of a certain race, or perhaps belief? Violators, which would be anyone who fit the "do not contact" criteria would be fined 11,000 dollars for each offense.

Forever searching for that fine line that's gotta be there somewhere, eh?....

But a Do Not Call list that limits sales calls, as opposed to banning people of a certain race are definitely on different sides of that fine line. If this thing has to go to the Supreme Court, so be it...I put my trust in them to make the right decision (and I'm confident that they will...)

B

clark · 2003-09-26 11:46:47

. If this thing has to go to the Supreme Court, so be it...I put my trust in them to make the right decision (and I'm confident that they will...)

Yeah, I heard they made some 'right' decisions in 2000 too.

Now, you avoided my point by deffering to the Supreme Court. What I want to know is if is is acceptable to instutite a system whereby people can disassociate themselves from interactions with others.

That's why the federal court ruled against this action, becuase it was seeking to define those who have the right to freely contact people regarding "something" and those who don't. That's what is going on in a legal sense.

My previous comment is to point out the where this slippery slope leads. People, voulantarily choosing to not hear from others based on whatever criteria they feel is acceptable. Afterall, the lists are voulantary

Now you and I can pretty much agreee that lists like I am suggesting are a bit absurd, and do more damage than help. Yet it would still be legitiamte under a ruling holding that we can distinguish between who does and does not get to speak to us.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-09-13 11:24:33

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#27 2003-09-13 11:39:24

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#28 2003-09-13 17:17:59

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#29 2003-09-13 17:58:52

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#30 2003-09-13 18:26:03

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#31 2003-09-13 21:11:52

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#32 2003-09-14 10:08:09

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#33 2003-09-26 04:14:12

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#34 2003-09-26 09:06:23

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#35 2003-09-26 09:57:57

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#36 2003-09-26 10:12:32

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#37 2003-09-26 10:17:05

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#38 2003-09-26 10:27:40

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#39 2003-09-26 10:33:48

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#40 2003-09-26 10:34:31

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#41 2003-09-26 10:48:55

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#42 2003-09-26 10:55:38

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#43 2003-09-26 11:16:04

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#44 2003-09-26 11:25:43

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#45 2003-09-26 11:43:18

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#46 2003-09-26 11:46:47

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

Board footer