Voting on holiday
Your recent column (“U.S. to blame: Government at fault for low voter turnout,” Nov. 26, 2015) about the lack of voter turnout missed, I think, an answer. Make Nov. 4 a federal holiday. Democracy, anyone?
Democrats will do more damage to drug laws
In her letter to the editor, (“‘Treat and street’ is no way to treat addicts” Dec. 17-23, 2015) Charlotte Burns seems to be blaming the Libertarian Party for the drug laws in Massachusetts. Many of the Libertarian candidates running for the legislature would have supported a clinic for those addicted to drugs. I emphasize those Libertarians running for the Legislature, not just someone grumbling over their beer calling himself a Libertarian. All of them would have supported abolishing the state’s drug laws. Do we owe addicts treatment? Whether we do or do not, it is cheaper to help someone get over their addiction than it is to not help them.
So, who did make the drug laws? The Democrats did, they have the majority in the Legislature. Talbert Swan II has it right in his article (“Blacks are ‘Junkies’ Whites have a ‘disease’, Why the changing face of heroin matters” Dec. 17-23, 2015), but like Burns, does not mention his own support of the political machine that made the drugs laws about which they are complaining.
Now the people who gave us run-away crime, under-achieving schools, and overpriced licenses for everything want to get into the medical diagnosis business. They will end up making life difficult for someone who really needs the drugs. Who needs the opioids? I do not know. Neither does the governor, and neither does the legislature. We have doctors to help patients make that decision. Their education is somewhat more rigorous than that of a politician.
But now that some rich kid took what some consider to be too many opioids, rather than address the individual problems, everyone in the state will be made to live under more red tape and expense.
Citizens united against Citizens United
America is supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave, a place were democracy rules and our elected officials are there to be held accountable to the people. But your government doesn’t give a shit about your interests.
Five years ago the Supreme Court passed the Citizens United ruling, which successfully threw out the longtime ban on corporate entities using their vast amounts of wealth to campaign for a particular candidate’s election or defeat. This ruling leaves elected officials beholden to corporate sugar mamas.
Although it is still illegal for corporations to give money directly to candidates for election, anyone can now donate any amount to a Super PAC, a nonprofit that supports a candidate or issue, but is supposedly not affiliated with a candidate.
This is an outrageous ruling for several reasons. 1.) The Supreme Court went out of its way to pass this ruling by overturning one of their previous cases. Makes you wonder who’s influencing these judges. 2.) These elected officials will be ever beholden to their wealthy corporate campaign supporters, this also leaves smaller business interests without such a powerful monetary voice. 3.) Our Founding Fathers placed heavy restrictions on corporate entities and despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the United States constitution never intended to protect the rights of these fake persons, these corporations.
The Citizens United ruling is a symptom that stems from the disease of corporate personhood. Corporations are not living people and as our Founding Fathers believed should not be endowed with the same rights as such.
All true, patriotic, freedom-loving Americans need to come together and help pass a constitutional amendment bashing corporate personhood and in turn dissolving the rights granted to them that our Founding Fathers never intended them to have.
