Ask NorthSideSox72 - candidate forum

[NorthSideSox72]

I am blatantly copying PA's idea here. One of the keys to great leadership is knowing what you do not know, and surrounding yourself with smart people to fill in those blanks. This is a great idea.

 

Feel free to ask me anything you'd like about my campaign, my views, the North-South party or the election. I'll give you a direct, honest, whole answer.

[Gregory Pratt]

Same as I asked PA:

 

I am interested in my candidates as human beings, and I think that one's answer to the following can be quite telling:

 

What is the worst thing you've ever done, in your opinion, to another human being, that you regret? How about: what's the worst thing you've ever done that you don't regret?

 

What's, in your opinion, the best thing to happen to you? (And please note: "White Sox winning the World Series doesn't count. )

 

If you choose to say, "these are unpolitical questions," I understand fully, let me say, but I do hope that you answer them and feel comfortable answering.

[Texsox]

You've expressed that the US should do more for the Native Americans. What exactly would you do and who would pay for it?

[Soxy]

With recent standardized test scores showing that students in urban areas are out performed by their peers and the opinion that US students are falling behind in science, what do you think the role of federal government should be in support of strengthening our country's (obvious) floundering in teaching science? Do you support increasing funding to national organizations (Like the National Science Foundation and the National Instutute of Health) or do you believe this is a state's issue? If it is a state's issue, how would you recommend they address this issue?

[NorthSideSox72]

Same as I asked PA:

 

I am interested in my candidates as human beings, and I think that one's answer to the following can be quite telling:

 

What is the worst thing you've ever done, in your opinion, to another human being, that you regret? How about: what's the worst thing you've ever done that you don't regret?

 

What's, in your opinion, the best thing to happen to you? (And please note: "White Sox winning the World Series doesn't count. )

 

If you choose to say, "these are unpolitical questions," I understand fully, let me say, but I do hope that you answer them and feel comfortable answering.

I'll answer these to the best of my ability, but I'll tell you right now that I won't get into names or details out here on the web for all to see (this is where my "candidacy" ends and the real me begins).

 

The worst thing I've ever done was violate the trust of a significant other. I'll leave it at that. If this was a real election and I was out there in public, I'd be willing to be more specific.

 

The best thing that has ever happened to me is my wife. She has helped me become a much more complete person in every important way.

[Gregory Pratt]

I'll answer these to the best of my ability, but I'll tell you right now that I won't get into names or details out here on the web for all to see (this is where my "candidacy" ends and the real me begins).

 

The worst thing I've ever done was violate the trust of a significant other. I'll leave it at that. If this was a real election and I was out there in public, I'd be willing to be more specific.

 

The best thing that has ever happened to me is my wife. She has helped me become a much more complete person in every important way.

 

Well, I wasn't asking for names.

 

But thank you for the answer.

 

Have you ever been in a fistfight with someone not a relative?

[NorthSideSox72]

You've expressed that the US should do more for the Native Americans. What exactly would you do and who would pay for it?

Throwing money at the problem won't fix it - the BIA would eat most of it up anyway. Allowing more casinos or other loosening of laws ultimately helps only a few. Welfare and half-hearted attempts at medical care do not make their lives what they should be.

 

At this point, the best thing the government can do for the American Indians is to release them from bondage. Take 3 years' worth of BIA budget, split it down by capita, and hand the money to the tribal authorities in place directly. For those reservations too small for tribal authorities, issue checks to the individuals. Recognize the existing land plots within the federal reserves as regular land to the state, belonging to the residents (if no plots exist, the tribal authority can work with mediators to split up the land). Negotiate with the states and localities as to jurisdictional concerns, and assure that any existing protections under the law are recognized by those governments (no regression in protection under law), and give then another 2 years' forward of the BIA budget to handle the influx against services and provide links to employment. For larger reservations, the tribal authorities may actually convert to counties or municipalities themselves. And from there, pull the federal government out of their matters entirely.

 

There may need to be a small commission of lawyers and mediators at the federal level for a few years, to ensure the states and localities are not doing anything they shouldn't. But otherwise, you can pretty much just kill off the BIA, and unwind the other federal agencies from the reservation system (the abomination of the Dawes Act). After 5 years, the American Indians will be recognized and protected as citizens of the United States in every sense of the word. And as a nice side benefit, the government will save a lot of money.

 

Will this result in some rough spots during the transition? Absolutely. But in the long run, they will be decidedly better off than they are now.

 

 

Have you ever been in a fistfight with someone not a relative?

 

I used to work in law enforcement. I've been in a few tussles.

[Texsox]

Throwing money at the problem won't fix it - the BIA would eat most of it up anyway. Allowing more casinos or other loosening of laws ultimately helps only a few. Welfare and half-hearted attempts at medical care do not make their lives what they should be.

 

At this point, the best thing the government can do for the American Indians is to release them from bondage. Take 3 years' worth of BIA budget, split it down by capita, and hand the money to the tribal authorities in place directly. For those reservations too small for tribal authorities, issue checks to the individuals. Recognize the existing land plots within the federal reserves as regular land to the state, belonging to the residents (if no plots exist, the tribal authority can work with mediators to split up the land). Negotiate with the states and localities as to jurisdictional concerns, and assure that any existing protections under the law are recognized by those governments (no regression in protection under law), and give then another 2 years' forward of the BIA budget to handle the influx against services and provide links to employment. For larger reservations, the tribal authorities may actually convert to counties or municipalities themselves. And from there, pull the federal government out of their matters entirely.

 

There may need to be a small commission of lawyers and mediators at the federal level for a few years, to ensure the states and localities are not doing anything they shouldn't. But otherwise, you can pretty much just kill off the BIA, and unwind the other federal agencies from the reservation system (the abomination of the Dawes Act). After 5 years, the American Indians will be recognized and protected as citizens of the United States in every sense of the word. And as a nice side benefit, the government will save a lot of money.

 

Will this result in some rough spots during the transition? Absolutely. But in the long run, they will be decidedly better off than they are now.

 

Please compare two groups that were basically screwed over when white Europeans immigrated, the Blacks and Native Americans, where they started from and where they are today. Any lessons we can learn?

[Balta1701]

I'll give you the question that both Dick Cheney and John Edwards totally ducked in 2004.

 

What will you do to deal with the rise of AIDS in the African American community in America?

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll give you the question that both Dick Cheney and John Edwards totally ducked in 2004.

 

What will you do to deal with the rise of AIDS in the African American community in America?

Two seperate things.

 

One, in matters of prevention, its about education. All schools regardless of race, but particularly schools in areas where AIDS is a major threat, we need to educate on the realities of AIDS, Hepititus and other diseases, and for that matter about sex and its consequences generally. The idea of teaching abstinence as the only option is absurd and unrealistic. Abstinence is the most effective method certainly, and that should be taught. But we also need to include real, hard-hitting, non-condescending (adult) information about these things.

 

Two, and this is indeed a federal issue because its a national health issue, we need to make sure our science and research funding has an emphasis on practical application. Searching for vaccines, treatments or even cures for these diseases should be one of the key drives of the scientific community.

[Texsox]

Two, and this is indeed a federal issue because its a national health issue, we need to make sure our science and research funding has an emphasis on practical application. Searching for vaccines, treatments or even cures for these diseases should be one of the key drives of the scientific community.

 

What is the appropraite level of federal funding in this area? To keep it simple, more, less, or the same as currently?

[NorthSideSox72]

What is the appropraite level of federal funding in this area? To keep it simple, more, less, or the same as currently?

I honestly don't know what the current level is, so that is difficult for me to say. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

[Texsox]

I honestly don't know what the current level is, so that is difficult for me to say. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

 

Here is where any level of funding becomes interesting. Let's say that government funding resulted in a cure. How should the technology be handled? Sold to highest bidder (repays tax payers), or given for free with a promise of lower medicine prices (great for patients). Isn't any government funding directly competing with private industry? An AIDS cure or vaccine would be worth billions, isn't that enough incentive for private industry to work on AIDS and perhaps government funding should be reserved for less profitable cures?

[sox4lifeinPA]

With all of the political discussion, I'd like to know if you have any ideas for making soxtalk.com a more exciting and engaging place?

 

thanks in advance.

[EvilMonkey]

Despite our many discussions on here, your platform interests me. I am really interested in your answer to Tex's question above, and have a rather odd one myself.

 

Organ donation. Right now, it is illegal to sell your organs. All transplant patients are placed on a list, and assessed risk values and such, and usually first come, first serve. The doctors make money off this every step of the way, but the insurance companies lose, and the the actual donors get nothing. With the serious shortage of donated organs, many people die while on the waiting lists. I have a proposal, that will take some work to get the insurance companies to go along, but may increase the available organs. You start by creating regional districts across the country to serve the transplant lists. Not too practical to ferry a heart from California to Florida. Second, you have insurance companies pay the deceased's estate a fixed amount for various organs that they donate. These are paid by the transplant recipient's insurance. It is optional to donate, not manditory. The amounts are also not too large, to prevent someone from killing a spouse for some quick cash. Say, $2000 for a heart, $1000 for a kidney, etc. Enough organs can cover the cost of a good funeral, and help a family in thier time of need. It also would increase the flow of available organs into the system. Insurance companies may balk at first, but $1000 for a new kidney is cheaper than dialysis for a year. The placement on the donor lists remains the same, so having moeny doesn't (or shouldn't!) put you to the front of the list, like it currently is. Doctors balk at the prospect of donors making money for their organs, but have no problems making money transplanting them. Would you favor, or be open to the idea, of some sort of program to increase the availability of organs that compensated the donors in a small way? I realize that there are more details needed in my plan, but it is a start.

[NorthSideSox72]

With recent standardized test scores showing that students in urban areas are out performed by their peers and the opinion that US students are falling behind in science, what do you think the role of federal government should be in support of strengthening our country's (obvious) floundering in teaching science? Do you support increasing funding to national organizations (Like the National Science Foundation and the National Instutute of Health) or do you believe this is a state's issue? If it is a state's issue, how would you recommend they address this issue?

It is my strong personal belief that one of the keys to this country's future, economically and otherwise, is that we move forward and stay on the front edge of global business. That means we invent, design, create, and improve products, technologies, services and ideas. That is where success lies - not in futile attempts to protect low-paying manufacturing jobs that simply make sense to go elsewhere.

 

That being the case, it is imperitive that we have some of the best education facilities in the world. Currently, at the primary and secondary levels, that is clearly not the case. So I am in favor of not only increasing state and local funding of schools, but also of a federal-level corporate grant/tax system. I do still believe that education needs to be handled at the state and local level, because schools cannot be identical throughout our very large country - they need to be adapted to local conditions. But we also need new ideas to bring money to the schools without an undue added burden on the federal budget. Here, I suggest we put a plan in place to encourage more corporate grant money (like Microsoft's recent huge donations) be sent to the schools, incentivized by not only charitable donation tax deductions, but also granting of contracts to said businesses. For example - Motorola gives 10 million to the federal school grant program, they get the tax write-off, and the federal government gives Motorola favored status in contracts for buying radios and other electronics for federal agencies. By doing these things, costs are minimal to the federal government, but we maximize funding and align the success of schools and businesses.

 

Then there is the issue of balance between areas of discipline in our schools. As you point out, it seems we are falling behind in math and science. And I have to agree that we need to spend a little more time on those disciplines, along with other skills that lead more directly to future career success. But, written and spoken language for example is just as key for the same reasons. In order to achieve these goals and not short-change any existing areas, we may have to try to push science and math to younger aged children (pre-High School) more effectively. As I personally wouldn't know how exactly to accomplish that, perhaps you or others in the education field could help me understand how.

 

 

Please compare two groups that were basically screwed over when white Europeans immigrated, the Blacks and Native Americans, where they started from and where they are today. Any lessons we can learn?

That's a tough one. There is so much history there, so much blame to lay, and so much to cringe at... but I will try to be brief.

 

To me, there are two themes in both cases that stick out - progress and fear. In both cases, groups of people got in the way of what was considered "progress". The actions taken to use or abuse those groups were different, but the aim was the same - to create a new country and use any means necessary to achieve that. I think as we grow as a society, we need to be responsible enough to see that no economic gain is ever worth "any means necessary". Progress needs to be seen as more than economic. And progress of any kind always needs to be balanced with fairness and temperance.

 

That leads to the second theme - fear. People will often fear what they do not understand. It is one of the most basic of human instincts. We feared the "savages" occupying the continent, and later, we feared allowing the "lower race" into our day-to-day lives. I feel embarrassed when I think about that conduct. We need to move past this fear, and embrace open-mindedness. Our Constitution assures we allow people to be people - no matter what that means. And I think that if we all open our minds a little wider, we'll find that most of what we fear wasn't worth being afraid of at all.

 

 

With all of the political discussion, I'd like to know if you have any ideas for making soxtalk.com a more exciting and engaging place?

 

thanks in advance.

More cowbell.

 

 

Despite our many discussions on here, your platform interests me. I am really interested in your answer to Tex's question above, and have a rather odd one myself.

 

Organ donation. Right now, it is illegal to sell your organs. All transplant patients are placed on a list, and assessed risk values and such, and usually first come, first serve. The doctors make money off this every step of the way, but the insurance companies lose, and the the actual donors get nothing. With the serious shortage of donated organs, many people die while on the waiting lists. I have a proposal, that will take some work to get the insurance companies to go along, but may increase the available organs. You start by creating regional districts across the country to serve the transplant lists. Not too practical to ferry a heart from California to Florida. Second, you have insurance companies pay the deceased's estate a fixed amount for various organs that they donate. These are paid by the transplant recipient's insurance. It is optional to donate, not manditory. The amounts are also not too large, to prevent someone from killing a spouse for some quick cash. Say, $2000 for a heart, $1000 for a kidney, etc. Enough organs can cover the cost of a good funeral, and help a family in thier time of need. It also would increase the flow of available organs into the system. Insurance companies may balk at first, but $1000 for a new kidney is cheaper than dialysis for a year. The placement on the donor lists remains the same, so having moeny doesn't (or shouldn't!) put you to the front of the list, like it currently is. Doctors balk at the prospect of donors making money for their organs, but have no problems making money transplanting them. Would you favor, or be open to the idea, of some sort of program to increase the availability of organs that compensated the donors in a small way? I realize that there are more details needed in my plan, but it is a start.

 

That is an excellent question, and I must admit, I hadn't previously considered such an idea.

 

Instinctively, it seems difficult to put a price tag on something so human and basic. If I was a family member of someone who donated, would I feel unclean taking money from that? I am torn on the moral implications.

 

But more importantly, given how difficult it already is to get insurance companies to cover these surgeries, I'd hate to see us ask them for more money. Because ultimately, that would result either in raised premiums for all of us, or even worse, fewer people getting transplants. I see what you are saying about the incentivizing for donors increasing the pool, but, I think ultimately, people will donate or not donate regardless. Therefore, as much as I'd like to support your unique idea, I think I'd have to say no. Or at least, not the exact version of it that you mention. I am not 100% against the idea, if a way can be found to not jeapordize or increase the cost of health care.

[Gregory Pratt]

You used to work in law enforcement. Does that mean you were a police officer?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Ginger or Mary Ann?

 

Pete Seeger or Phil Ochs?

 

White or Wheat?

 

Toaster Streudel or Pop-Tarts?

[sox4lifeinPA]

Ginger or Mary Ann?

 

Pete Seeger or Phil Ochs?

 

White or Wheat?

 

Toaster Streudel or Pop-Tarts?

 

 

Can I answer?

 

Mary ann

 

Peter Gabriel

 

Whole Wheat not colored White

 

Eggo Waffles

[NorthSideSox72]

You used to work in law enforcement. Does that mean you were a police officer?

Yes.

 

 

Ginger or Mary Ann?

 

Pete Seeger or Phil Ochs?

 

White or Wheat?

 

Toaster Streudel or Pop-Tarts?

Ginger

 

I honestly don't know Phil Ochs, so, Seeger I guess (or Peter Gabriel - good call PA)

 

Wheat

 

Pop Tarts

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yes.

Ginger

 

I honestly don't know Phil Ochs, so, Seeger I guess (or Peter Gabriel - good call PA)

 

Wheat

 

Pop Tarts

Pfft, Pop-Tarts.

 

You just cost yourself a vote, Mister!

 

We need a Toaster Streudel Soxtalk Presidency!

[sox4lifeinPA]

Pfft, Pop-Tarts.

 

You just cost yourself a vote, Mister!

 

We need a Toaster Streudel Soxtalk Presidency!

 

 

racist...er, pastryist

[Gregory Pratt]

Did you ever witness police corruption?

Why did you leave law enforcement?

 

If you had witnessed law enforcement corruption -- say, in a close friend -- would you have reported them? Say, police corruption ala pocketing money or, worse, Police Torture of the 1980s corruption -- would you have reported that? Or are you a believer in the good-old-boys, gotta-stick-with-your-friends line of thought?

[NorthSideSox72]

Did you ever witness police corruption?

Why did you leave law enforcement?

 

If you had witnessed law enforcement corruption -- say, in a close friend -- would you have reported them? Say, police corruption ala pocketing money or, worse, Police Torture of the 1980s corruption -- would you have reported that? Or are you a believer in the good-old-boys, gotta-stick-with-your-friends line of thought?

I did not witness any significant police "corruption" in my brief time (2 years) in law enforcement.

 

I left, I thought temporarily, when I moved out of state. But in the process of getting a new police job in Illinois (which is not a short process), I happened upon a career opportunity that I could not pass up. I've been with the same company in the same field ever since.

 

I saw cops around me, sometimes in the same agency, do some things I didn't agree with. As long as no one was being put in mortal danger, I generally pulled them aside after the fact and talked with them about it. Usually, when their heads cooled, they agreed - and that was helpful in keeping them straight. One guy, though, I did almost get into a fight with over it. I never, ever saw anything I'd even remotely call "torture", nor did I see anyone steal from a subject.

 

I believe the thin blue line to be very, very thin - if I saw something, I attempted to address it. If I needed to, I would have gone up the chain (though it never did). I made it abundantly clear to the officers around me who I was and what I'd accept from a cop - which is very high standards. Every cop goes through that, though. You exude, in your demeanor, your expectations from your fellow officers. Its sort of weird, and I think, peculiar to law enforcement and maybe the military. I wasn't any tougher than any of the rest of them, just maybe had higher expectations.

[Balta1701]

Northside, in your tax policy post, you suggest switching to a national sales tax instead of using the income tax that we see today.

 

I have several issues to bring up with this concept. First and foremost is the size of the tax. Many different groups have done estimates of what sort of rate the country would wind up paying using some sort of sales tax proposal. The general numbers wind up being rates that would be calculated somewhere in the 30-40% range. This poses 2 potential problems, first, and its' something you do allude to, you're basically inflating the price of most goods by something like 40% (the more progressive you try to make the system, the higher the rate has to be). Do you believe this rate would be acceptable, or would it risk doing damage to the economy beyond what you're discussing?

 

You also say that some of the costs will be made up by reductions in the size of the IRS and Welfare, but first of all, even if welfare costs are cut, they will be made up for in lower tax amounts taken in because people still will be in poverty (perhaps moreso), and second, the cost of the IRS is virtually negligible when compared with the size of the government itself.

 

Secondly, with a true national sales tax, there is a high possibility of fraud, given that the goods sold are only taxed at one step, and there is a 40% cost benefit associated with skipping out on taxes through illegal activity. How would your plan deal with this potential problem?

 

Third, the 2005 President's advisory panel on tax reform looked into various sales tax options, and found that in virtually all cases, adding in a national sales tax had the net effect of reducing the tax burden for the very highest income earners, while increasing the burden on the middle class and the upper wage-earning classes. This happens because the super-rich simply do not buy enough to make up for the huge amounts they earn. Do you consider it a problem that a sales tax would give a gigantic tax cut to people with multi-million dollar incomes and a huge tax increase to people earning between about $50k-$1 million a year? If not, why do you feel the middle class should pay more taxes, and if so, can you offer a solution?

 

Edited November 30, 2006 by Balta1701