I would like to propose a grass root campaign by members of America’s Debate. We all love to debate issues - that’s obvious, but do we DO anything about our cause?

We could start the process by voting on the subject. Let’s find one issue the majority of us agree on (I think legalizing marijuana may be a starter) and write our Congresspersons. I would be willing to draft a letter to our representatives, run it through a selected editing process and post it to AD for additional critiquing. I’ll supply a link to the address of your representatives and do any grunt work necessary so that members could simply copy the letter and email or snail mail it to your reps.

What say you?

The problem with a community like AD is that we're all spread out. While I preach political involvement to everyone I know, it would be silly for one person in a state to write a letter to a congressmen claiming to be part of this community.

I think it's an excellent idea. With our changing times, a community can be seen as a place where a group of people gather(even an online community) for a common goal.

Since AD is based out of Georgia it might be a good place to start.

Sounds like an excellent idea, most emails now have links for urls. You never know we might be able to generate some interest some kind of a town hall type of discussion that links to certain representatives homepages. All the polititions are into this kind of thing since setting up a web page is a lot cheaper then TV ads. I remember Ross Perot suggested this throughout his campaign. Probably a good place to start would be to find out who is the most active as advocates and opponents of marijuana law reform.

Cyber-activism An interesting concept!

It is definitely an interesting idea, Bela. However, I am a bit concerned about they way AD would be represented.

We can not allow anyone to say they speak on behalf of AD, because only Mike and I can truly do that (at this point in time). If, however, a bunch of you wanted to write to your representatives and say you are part of the AD community that is perfectly acceptable.

One of the goals of the forum is to maintain impartiality as far as issues go. We want people who come here to feel comfortable sharing their views. This is the reason AD can never specifically endorse any position.

This idea has a lot of potential, though, and Bela has been kind enough to offer her time to move this along. I encourage anyone interested to post their thoughts here.

UJ,

The letter wouldn't be from AD. That is something Jaime and Mike would have to approve. What I am suggesting is individual activism with us as a community becoming involved.

Edited to add: Jaime, we cross posted.

Bela, I think this is a very good idea. We have so many great minds on America's Debate that is seems natural for individual projects to be spawned from our interactions.

I was just trying to suggest sharing something from the boards. I certainly wouldn't expect AD to take sides. AD is a pretty good source for balanced debate on that sort of thing. I would never suggest that it should be used as a platform for political activism. I just wanted to clarify that.

Good idea ... how about a tax revolt?

I am so excited about the response!

I want to hear from others too and if we decide to proceed, I'll get with Jaime and Mike for advice on how to get this started. If you are interested in this project, go ahead and list what you would like to write Congress about and your suggestions on how the project should proceed. It has to be something a majority of us agree on which could be difficult, but not impossible.

Perhaps we could compile the list and vote on the top three? The one with the most votes could be our choice in the letter writing campaign.

You know, this project could allow AD members to negotiate our way to a final draft, just like Congress!!

Whoooooo hoooooo, I am stoked!

It might be an interesting effort. I tend to think we do not have much political clout with the small numbers we represent.

The effect on the guests will be the most important political effect AmericasDebate will have. I do think AmericasDebate is a superb source for people to get a fresh and multi-approach means to think about society problems.

The process we take to reach a consensus might be valuable. I do look forward to that.

How about a Readers Digest kind of a thing on marijuana laws. Some of the primary issues addressed and a some pointed exerpts pro and con. I think a good exposition of the high points might work. Then anyone interested in voicing an opinion to an elected offical could simply do a brief exposition. If you where going to poll the members I'd suggest something that asks what the three main points where and how they were made. Of course, you could just cite AD as the source of the discussion and if there was any question about the source being biased it wouldn't take a lot of effort to confirm it. I know I personally find that the views on here are pretty diverse, it might even help some official somewhere to make a complicated issue more comprehensive. Boiling it down to the essentials would be tough but its conceivable.

Kucinich has in his platform that college should be a guaranteed educational benefit, the same as K-12. Perhaps that is something that we might want to work towards as a common goal.

If I felt that a majority of America's Debate members favored Marijuana Reform laws, I would probably remove myself from membership. I have been too politically active for too long a period of time; I wouldn't want my Congressman to start dismissing me as a "pot head." I personally quit responding to a member with such conservative "values" as smuggling, making moonshine, and dealing crack. (Reason given: "I can't get my college paid for because I was born a white male in California.") I began to understand how he could stand so strongly in support of our acting President; while he can't find a decent job in this economy, he is still profiting from it. I can't imagine the serious employer who would hire someone who "worked his way through college" committing felonies. He's chosen a risky career path, that in my opinion, does not reflect his "Conservative Values." His decision, and his life... I won't even wish him luck!

If you personally want to promote legalizing marijuana, I might recommend that you look into NORML. Most successful marijuana reform has been done on a local level though, rather than a national level.

One early success was in Ann Arbor, Michigan; students ran for city council and enacted legislation that made marijuana possession a $5.00 fine. I have read over the years of several efforts to make it a legal prescription drug. (I have visions of a doctor saying, "Go to the corner of Dark and Secluded about 2:00 AM, tell 'Shifty' that I sent you, and he'll fill this prescription for you.")

Smoking Marijuana Lowers Fertility in men, according to a recent study by the State University of New York in Buffalo, New York. I can envision the paternity case that would result if national marijuana reform law was passed. The accused father would take the stand and argue, "I couldn't be the father, I had to be really stoned before I ever had sex with that woman. Marijuana, etc." Your National Congressman will likely throw "family values" back at you as an insurmountable voter issue.

Most major employers already screen for illegal drugs. Even if marijuana was legalized, I suspect that they would continue to screen for it simply because they can. Some states allow discrimination in hiring based on weight. According to carrerjournal.com, a division of Wall Street Journal, average salaries still reflect both gender and height. My former employer routinely discriminated in hiring, firing, and disciplinary action for use of alcohol and tobacco, both of which are already legal substances.

Even a liberal Congressman is going to be aware of the fact that he will need conservative support to either hold onto his job, or pass legislation. Until such time that marijuana reform has become the de facto law of the land by being enacted in a majority of the states, I don't see the Federal Government trying to step in and legalize it under uniform national regulations. When I pick up a Trip Tik from AAA, it shows me that maximum speed laws, right turn on red laws, and even when I need my headlights on; varies from state to state. What would I expect if I wrote a letter to my Congressman that began, "Hears wye I think it shooed be leagle for me to get hi on marijjana." Rather than a letter thanking me for my informed view, and telling me why s/he agrees or disagrees; I would expect the message to be passed on to the FBI, who at a minimum, would refer it back to my local law enforcement agency.

Actually, I suspect that a great number of AD members already contact their legislators re: issues that are important to them.

I am currently reading Michael Moore's, Dude, Where's My Country?" Osama Bin Laden's brother, Salem, died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem was in Texas, in part, because he was in business with George W. Bush. Is it possible that Osama blames GWB for his brother's death, or George I for his father's death? Is there a clear line connecting the dots, that shows that we needed to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq in order to enforce oil and construction contracts for Halliburton? Are we planning to invade Saudi Arabia? If I am left with a lot of unanswered questions, I may throw them out here for examination and debate. If, as I am formulating the post, I see that a solid argument has been made why my Congressman should pick the book up and read it:
1) I'll open another Window, and access my e-mail account.
2) I will address an e-mail to "Congress," my mailing list for all three Congressmen representing me in the House and the Senate.
3) I will go back to my tentative post and press Ctrl-A, and then Ctrl-C.
4) I will return to the message portion of the e-mail and do a Ctrl-V.
5) I will edit the e-mail to specifically address the facts I want my Congressmen to consider.
6) I will send the e-mail.
This happens to perhaps 5 - 10% of my serious posts. My Congressmen respond. This acting President of ours usually did not, so I have quit trying to reach him. A while back the news reported that the White House e-mail system had been revised anyway, to reduce the amount of messages being received at the White House from American Citizens.


In Midland, Michigan, Dow Chemical and Consumers Power contracted to build a nuclear co-generation facility to provide steam and electricity to Dow Chemical. A few of us started to point out the problems with nuclear power. The local newspaper would publish one letter a month from an individual, and would not publish letters in consecutive months on the same issue from the same person. That is, I could hope to have the newspaper publish a maximum of 6 letters a year from me opposing nuclear power. With typically, an additional one letter a year in the Detroit Free Press on the subject, I was a general pariah in Dow Chemical for most of the thirty years that I worked there. When the power plant finally went on line burning natural gas, I called the person who had fought the hardest to keep it from being built. I asked her what had given her the courage to fight it so long and steadily. "Every time I was ready to give it all up because no one else cared, you would have a letter published in the paper. They usually gave me something new for ammunition. If you had quit writing letters, I probably would have quit the fight and moved to a different city."

Whether it's "Deep Throat," Monica Lewinsky, or Karl Rove; big changes are usually caused or directed by only a very few people. A state legislator once told me that a thousand "form letters" were generally viewed by him as a single opinion, while a single well thought out letter often held more weight. It was easier to read a few well formed words from an individual into the record, than from a form letter where everyone in the legislature had already received a copy of it, read it (or not), and formed their opinion on the arguments in the letter.

This post was NOT approved by Spell Check

Wait, should we start another thread to debate AD's stance towards these issues, or do it here? Great idea, btw, Bella!

CP

Curmudgeon, point taken. The reason I used that as an example was because it seemed that was one issue of which many, if not most members of AD seemed to agree.

It is not my intention to direct which topic is chosen but instead I desire a community approach.

Also remember, this effort isn't about AD's stance on the issue. AD will not be endorsing the letter we send to our Congresspersons. This is about our individual stance on issues. The project would only act as a conduit to an end product that we as individuals could use to communicate with our political leaders.

I also don’t see this as a project that will happen overnight. I think we will need a thread dedicated to the submission of issues. As a member sees a subject discussed where most members from both sides seem to agree in principle, that topic should be cited on the dedicated thread. When we have three topics we could vote for one and begin the process.

Listen, the above are just suggestions. I don’t have it all worked out and implore others to make suggestions. As we begin the process we will need volunteers to act as fact gatherers, correspondence reviewers, etc. I’ll do as much of the grunt work as possible, but it takes a village, know what I mean?

If we are looking for a universal theme that is broadly supported here I think that is great. but in these times I think focusing on legalization of drugs (unless they are foreign imports of prescription drugs at cheaper prices) to be a little too trivial.

I think one thing many of us agree on is fiscal responsibility. Why don't we use our energy to look for government waste and complain about it? Government doesn't stop doing these things until they get dragged into the light of day. Also some congressman somewhere might have a use for our messages as we complain about this stuff.

I think a related, but probably less universally agreed upon idea would be fiscal responsibility for federal proposals. I.e. $87 billion for Iraq may very well be worth it, but if we are going to vote for the money, we should also have to vote for how it is going to be funded. This is something I think many but not an overwhelming majority of ADers could agree on.

Please add my name to the list of those who do not want "grass" as the grass roots issue for AD. Fiscal responsibility sounds good. I too want this forum to be taken seriously.

Once again, please let me reiterate: Any issue chosen will not be chosen by AD nor will AD take any official positions. Members of AD may chose to band together in anyway you wish.
:::::::::::
Perhaps to help this along everyone should post three issues they would be willing to take a stand on and we can narrow it down from there? Just a thought.

I like the idea Bela! It does seem kind of daunting, coming to a consensus on any issue, though.

My three areas of concern (albeit broad)
-foreign policy
-Illegal immigration
-Government fiscal accountability

Government Fiscal Responsibility. THAT is a great idea!

Eeyore said:
Why don't we use our energy to look for government waste and complain about it?

I think this is brilliant! Pork has always been a pet peeve of mine, although I do enjoy it roasted over a pit. )

it IS a good idea if the majority decides on one issue.

gov't spending is a goody. since I'm 45 mins from the border it's all about the illegals for this SoCal. I'd be up for, FIXIN OUR BORDERS...or anything related.

Hopefully, this is certainly an issue that can be agreed upon. Unless anyone here is for government's fiscal irresponsibility? Any hands up? <didn't think so....>



This would eliminate a great many of the flaws in our current system (Eeyore--we'll make a conservative out of you yet!). In the current system, the costs of any program are completely hidden, making it appear that you can get something for nothing. If legislators were forced to state where the funding would come from, people would have a chance to view any legislation on its true merits. With the current cookie jar system, everyone wants to get their hands on something. What would naturally fall out of such a system would be a cost/benefit analysis, which is certainly something every single governmental program needs. I don't foresee this happening for a great many years, however (although Carter gave it a good try, with his zero based budgeting).

As most have probably already assumed, my name should be taken off the pot legalization list if that particular issue is to be considered. My list of things to work on are:
1. Fiscal Responsibility
2. Foreign Policy
3. Health Care for the Elderly [Which is the only issue I'm not conservative about, I'm not liberal about it either, so don't get your hopes up ]

CP

Curmudgeon:

That is because your Congressman represents a few hundred thousand people while the president is responsible for a few million people. Further, more people write the president than their congressman.

I'm curious to see that article about White House email revisions.

I can tell you, one of the big problems encountered by Congressmen is junk email, form letters, and form phone calls. When I worked in a representative’s office last year, we had a day that the entire staff spent answering phone calls from a teachers’ organization. It was literally one phone call after another all day. Everyone who would call would read exactly the same message. In all, we probably took 3 or 4 hundred phone calls with the exact same message.

The reason this skinks is that an organization doing something like this deprives everyone else in the district of their Congressional Staff. That day, nothing else happened even though work needed to be done for other constituents. Of course, they always have the right to do that, but sometime people don't think about the effects of their actions. The organization could have received the same attention from the office if they had written a petition and sent it in the mail.

I guess my point is that the White House’s email system was likely revised to help face this issue. I don’t know for sure, but I would like to see where you got that information. I bet the system is not just deleting emails from citizens like you imply.

Along the lines of what Beladonna said, might I suggest (if another thread isn't already up) that we continue to brainstorm here- for broad ideas that we might actually agree on- and put up a poll soon (like by next week) with the top suggestions? And then the posting area of the poll can be used to fine tune exactly what we'd push and how to so (as I'm certain people here can provide insight into different forms of activism). If we want to decide on a truly uniform message, we'll probably have to take another vote on specifics.

I like the broad fiscal responsibility ideas, especially about cutting pork, hopefully everyone can come to agree on what is or isn't warranted spending. I think a foreign policy topic would just generate a huge fight and the drug legalization thing would be a turn off for many.

I think you are all wonderful, bright, and interesting people, so please don't take this the wrong way, but...

Does anyone else think that this idea is absurd???

This is America's DEBATE. The whole premise is that we don't all agree.

Group political action from a group of people who argue with each other about politics is a very odd concept, no?

I didn't want to say it, but you had the nerve to PrismPaul! I agree, the government would be getting so many conflicting emails!

That's the beauty of it, the Gov't sees what individual everyday Americans want, that my friends, is true democracy.

CP

Oh I agree conservepat, it's just that we wouldn't have any cohesiveness and wouldn't be very productive and an entity.

The goal of the suggestion is to find a subject of which we are mostly in agreement. Members would contribute ideas to be placed in a letter that could be used by individuals here at AD to mail to their Congresspeople.

If nothing, it's an exercise in negotiation.

I think that rather than a group action on a particular subject, we can all commit to becoming more politically involved - writing and calling our congresspeople, et cetera. When I send letters to my Senators, for example, I do include a link to America's Debate.

How could we ever come to an agreement on fiscal responsibility - let alone anything else? Well, of course we all believe in it at a theoretical, vague level, but my idea of "fiscal responsibility" is likely quite different from ConservPat's.

I think the idea behind this is positive - I would also like to see this group of people who already have a propensity for political debate to take it to the next level. If we are only willing to talk about what's wrong, and not act to make it right, then all of our complaints are just that. I don't care that we are all saying the same thing - I would just like to see everyone here getting more involved in the actual process, doing things in the real world - be it letter writing, starting a newsletter, campaigning for a candidate, volunteering in a homeless shelter... awesome.

Let's rock!

I just want to add that while it's unlikely that the majority of people will ever agree on one issue, it is still possible to gather a group of like-minded America's Debators and create a side project with them.

Why would it not be feasible to have more than one group project active at the same time focused on different issues or maybe different sides of the same issue?

quark, Cyan - exactly!

The message here is "let's get involved." We can sit here all day and talk about issues with each other, but telling those who represent us how we feel is the ultimate goal.

This proposal may go NO where but if discussing the prospect inspires one person to start voicing their opinion to those that can do something about it, it's worth it.

If you write your Congressman, copy your letter to those of like minds, ask them to tweak it to their satisfaction and forward the letter to their Congressperson.

Let's just DO it!!!!!!

Not that anyone has suggested this, but seeing the turn this thread has taken I feel I should state that AD does not allow members to post "Hey come to www.somewebsite.com and sign the petition" threads. We consider it SPAM.

Thanks.

Speaking of SPAM - we all hate THAT, right? Hmmm....

I started looking through the clutter on my desk, but finally went to the Internet. The story was a bit older than I thought.

White House e-mail system becomes less user-friendly is a New York Times Article, dated Friday, July 18, 2003. which says in part:

Ok. I just went through the white house email system. This is a great improvement. Consider that in the old system, staff had to sort 15,000 emails per day by hand. This staff is paid with tax dollars. It is an expensive way to handle incoming mail.

In the new system, as best I can tell, a citizen is presented with a welcome screen, then asked what issue they are concerned with as well as their position on that issue. They then fill out a form with their name and address. Next they are presented with a text box for their message. Finally they are given an opportunity to check their message for errors.

This is improved customer service.

I used to sort constituent mail for a Congressman. I could sort and log about 300 letters in a day on a really good day. So in the old system, the white house had to use many 5 people just for the emails. At $25,000 per year that’s $125,000 saved in tax dollars. It's not much, but everything counts.

Oh, the other thing is, if you think any President will read your letter you are wrong. His job is to run the country and quite frankly he has better things to do than read 15,000 emails a day.

So far I have seen two issues of which I believe the majority of Aders agree.

1. Congresspersons missing votes.

2. Congress voting themselves a pay raise.

Oh, but it's just so absurd!