In my state, Indiana, children can legally earn income at the age of 15. If a person under the age of 18 cannot vote, then they should retain 100 percent of their income. That means no federal, state, or local taxes and no sales tax. That's right, every time an under-18-year-old enters a checkout line and shows the sales person his I.D., he should get his goods tax free.
I believe that this country charges many of its government programs to The Next Generation VISA™. These non-voters are being taxed now and they will be paying for today's government spending for years to come! Though I am now free to vote (age 19), I fight on for those who are not free!
Subject:Slate's Death Wish
Re: " How Slatesters Voted"
From: Mike Barton
Date: Tue Nov 7 9:06 a.m. PT
It amazes me that the Slate staff strongly favors the candidate that wants to smash the company they work for to pieces. I would imagine that Slate will be one of the first parts of Microsoft shut down when the smaller Microsoft companies need to control spending a little more strictly. Hope that there is a big need in the industry for 20 out-of-work liberal journalists from Slate if Gore is elected. Oh, but I forgot—you are in favor of the welfare state, so you can always go on the public dollar. It will be nice to know that your bills are being paid for out of my high taxes.
Subject: Conspiracy, No. Bias, Yes
Re: " Readme: Gore Carries Slate"
From: Joseph Britt
Date: Tue Nov 7 9:06 a.m. PT
Michael Kinsley writes: "For the millionth time!—an opinion is not a bias! The fact that reporters tend to be liberal says nothing one way or another about their tendency to be biased. … Of course it is not easy to persuade folks of this, and many will never believe it."
They don't believe it because it isn't true. The key is in the "shared values" journalists have, which are not always the same as the values the rest of us have. Journalists, especially political journalists, talk, argue, and socialize mostly with each other. As a group, they are less likely to have been active churchgoers or to have served in the military, more likely to approve of loose mores, and much more likely to live in a few specific urban areas.
This doesn't mean the profession is one big liberal conspiracy. There are many important issues (e.g., trade, welfare reform, relations with the European Union), not immediately touching the lives either of the typical journalist or anyone he knows, about which liberty of thought and opinion is tolerated and even encouraged.
However, the nearly universal approval within the media of abortion, sex before if not outside marriage, homosexuality and (coincidentally) the Democratic Party, journalists' general unfamiliarity with rural life or the requirements of military discipline, and their pervasive cluelessness about what motivates religious people, do all find their way into the news. They are the foundation of the (accurate) public perception that the media are often biased as well as the (sometimes accurate) belief among Republicans that the media are biased against them.
In short, what the public sees as media bias is rooted not in all journalists' opinions, but in those of their opinions they never think to question.
Subject: Dubya Fights To Protect the Unborn
Re: " Frame Game: Clinton's Apprentice"
Date: Mon Nov 6 10:59 a.m. PT
William Saletan compares President Clinton's excuse for the Lewinsky cover-up (he didn't want to hurt his wife and daughter) with George W. Bush's similar excuse for hiding his 1976 DWI arrest (he wanted to protect his daughters from knowing about his past). But there is a difference: President Clinton's excuse is, however disingenuous, at least plausible. But in Dubya's case it is simply false: His public life began in 1978, when he ran for Congress. He had no children at the time, yet he still kept his arrest secret. So what was his excuse in 1978? Dubya? Bill Bennett? Anyone?
Subject: Live by the Electoral College, Die by the Electoral College
Re: " Forget Florida—Flip the Electors"
From: Noah Stone
Date: Fri Nov 10 2:10 p.m. PT
The idea of Al Gore offering a majority-rule appeal to the Republican electors has a nice ring of nobility. However, there are some problems with this idea. First, while there is pressure to do the right thing there is also pressure to toe the party line. Second, the campaigns were run with very specific strategies in order to win. A campaign by its very nature is not as concerned with the democratic process as it is to win. Gore didn't try to win the hearts and minds of people in Texas. He spent his time, effort, and money in other groups of states where he could get the most votes (electoral or popular) for the least amount of time, effort, or money. George W. Bush did the same. However, the idea to suddenly legitimize the intents of the candidates with a scholarly debate on majority rule seems tainted as best. Let's stick to the rules of the game. Whoever won in Florida should be awarded the electoral votes. The nation can revisit the Constitution later after the passion and rhetoric has died down.
Besides, changing the rules by which both candidates played seems unfair. If you had told both candidates that the race would have come down to this and that the popular vote was now the "thing" to win—each candidate's strategy would probably have been substantially different. Perhaps Gore won the popular vote by sheer chance when he was aiming for the electoral votes. Likewise, maybe Bush cooled his heels thinking he had Florida and a few other key states like Oregon won. Let's stick with the rules and not allow the pundits or campaign staffs to spin this into our next worst nightmare.
[To read an unedited version of this post, or to reply, click here.]