-(~)

1. Do you think that you might come out against spanking in schools? I feel that most people probably don’t even know that it goes on, but kids are being spanked in public schools in 23 states as of 2002. In the 1997-98 school year, 360,000 kids were spanked in U.S. public schools a Dept of Ed survey reports.

This is from USA Today 8/22/2002: “In some cases, children are forced to grab their ankles and then are struck three or more times on their backsides with a half-inch-thick board 21/2 feet long”

Dept of Ed statistics show African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as kids of other races. Poor children also are struck more often.

How long has it been since spanking was determined to be “cruel and unusual punishment” for adults who have been convicted of crimes against society? Why are we still allowing this atrocity to be visited upon our most helpless and voiceless citizens? I realize that schools are under local control, but an individual in the national limelight who brings the attention of the public to this could be greatly influential in diminishing the number of little kids bending over to accept a humiliating beating each day.

2. I know that you would like to help labor unions, but I wonder if you might address labor issues for everyone, regardless of the type of work they do. What I am talking about is the way we have moved away from 9 to 5 work days to 8 to 5. With all of the new technology we have to aid our work, why has this happened? My dad worked 9 to 5 until his retirement, why does my husband work 8 to 5? Whatever happened to the dream of a 4-day work week? Why is it that in Europe entry-level jobs come with at least a 4-week vacation, and my husband is still only getting 2 weeks off every year? What the Republicans have to offer Americans, is some money back from the tax man, even if that money is inequitably distributed and has bad long-term consequences. What has a Democrat offered to change in Washington that will reward pretty much every American? I think you would have Republicans changing parties if they thought, instead of $400 in their pockets, they could look forward to legislation that would lead toward a return to 9 to 5 and more vacation time for all.

–Catherine

PS I’m hoping we will soon be seeing you karaoke and polka at Polka Parties and Oktoberfests.

Kucinich on the Issues: Reproductive Rights
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_rightsreproductive.htm

Hope that helps.

As far as his reasoning for the flag desecration votes, though, I have no clue. It’s something I’ve wondered about, too.

Although it will always be suspect, I can accept your claim that your switch from being a Right-To-Life poster boy to promoting women’s rights has been a long time coming. It is plausible to me that as women in your life come of age and expose you to different scenarios, you would re-evaluate your accepted thinking. It might even be considered a political asset to be able to make such a dramatic switch in policy based on the input you receive from others, reconciling divergent issues into a common belief system. And the conclusion you seem to have drawn is that abortion is bad, but it can be addressed is ways that do not restrict freedom for women to choose a path.

That brings us to Issue #2, for which I have yet to hear a rationalization. First in 1999 (as a law) and then 2001 (as a Constitutional amendment), you supported legislation to prohibit desecration of the U.S. Flag. In my opinion, there is no justification for deifying an object. We have fire codes and criminal laws to protect against free speech endangering others, so the only threat here is diverse opinion of what that flag represents. For some, it is the enduring drive for individual freedom and moral benevolence beamed to the rest of the world. For others, it symbolizes hypocrisy, greed and disconnection with the disadvantaged. Especially given your bent toward holistic politics — and in light of the reasons you give for your 180-degree turn on criminalizing abortion — I am very interested in hearing how you can fit this stance into your greater vision.

I have seen you on C-Span several times and am impressed with your passion and intelligence. You address the issues that concern all the people of the United States and you have solid and clear plans for addressing those issues.

We have formed a Baltimore Metro chapter to campaign for you in Maryland. We will work hard to get your message out and put you in the White House. Best wishes to you and your family.

Peggy

I have seen you on C-Span several times and am impressed with your passion and intelligence. You address the issues that concern all the people of the United States and you have solid and clear plans for addressing those issues.

We have formed a Baltimore Metro chapter to campaign for you in Maryland. We will work hard to get your message out and put you in the White House. Best wishes to you and your family.

Peggy

I am writing to discuss the plank of your platform that will be your energy policy.

While I am not an expert by profession, I have spent a great deal of time studying alternative fuels and energy in general. My interest peaked in 1999 upon learning of President Clinton’s Executive Order 13134: “Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy,” and I have invested a great deal of time and resources into learning all I could about these topics.

I have examined The Kucinich Platform Ten Key Issues carefully and you have my full support on every one of these important issues, with the exception of three critical things.

1) Hydrogen is NOT a renewable energy source, and as an ‘alternative’ energy carrier a very strong argument can be readily made that it is not a viable choice neither for near or long-term. The problems range from the energy balance (amount of energy required to make it are greater or near what one can get out of it), the lack of infrastructure (natural gas system is unlikely able to safely and efficiently transport hydrogen due to higher pressures, metal embrittlement, leakage and capacity), lack of vehicles and equipment that is developed technology and the controversial methods of manufacturing it (Nuclear, Hydro, Coal). At best the science is decades away from fully mature technologies and infrastructure. I feel it is important we are realistic about the technologies that will transport us and provide electricity and heat for the next 20 years or so, and those will be the internal combustion engine, coal and natural gas. Fuel cells will come into the picture, but gradually as manufacturers re-tool and extract the life cycle profits they need to justify investments that have already been made or committed to. Do you support an investment into this technology with so many valid arguments against it? I have accumulated a good number of articles regarding the proposed “New Apollo Project” and the concept of a “Hydrogen Economy” that make a very strong case to not pursue it as the answer to our energy needs. (www.drive55.org) Are you in favor of building more nuclear power production plants? Will you veto an energy bill that includes nuclear power plant development?

2) This leads us to my second problem with Key Issue # 10 on the Platform: the lack of emphasis on conservation. Americans are so used to individual freedom and a lifestyle of over-consumption that it is not an easy sell to talk about conservation. Folks are used to being able to speed around town at 70 or 80 MPH, air conditioned buildings, cheap electricity and inexpensive travel. These consumption habits will all need to change in the coming years for a myriad of reasons, but chief among them are Pollution and our unhealthy Dependence on imported oil and gas. As you know, Congress has already begun seriously discussing nuclear energy as a real option and we are at war in the Middle East over energy. In most major cities there are days when the air is unfit to breathe and we are spending $1 or more for a gallon of clean drinking water. The crisis is real, it is now, and it can be solved. The answer is not MORE energy derived from fossil fuels — the real answer is a combination of many things, including alternative fuels, clean coal technology, and, most importantly, more efficient use of the energy we have. While your 10th Key Item does mention incentives for businesses that conserve energy, nothing is said about conservation by individuals, and the issue gets scant attention in an overall sense. It is my strong opinion that the Conversation must include Conservation in a much more significant manner. Will you support the Drive 55 Conservation Project? (www.drive55.org)

3) I have studied candidate Kerry’s energy plank and frankly it is far more detailed than yours at this point. Please look over his “New Manhattan Project” speech as a point of reference. (http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0613.html).
In your platform, I see little mention of bio-fuels and want to point out that ethanol and biodiesel are both carbon neutral, renewable fuels that can be used in the existing infrastructure with little to no modifications. For example, my research has revealed a little known NREL project that demonstrated a method to make biodiesel at the rate of 8000 gallons per acre, and that system could be located with a power production facility to sequester C02. Cellulosic ethanol can be made from yard wastes, forest thinnings and dedicated energy crops using enzymes that already exist for about $1.35 per gallon. How will you support a transition from the current fossil fuel based hydrocarbon economy to a sustainable carbohydrate economy?

I realize this is a rather large chunk to take on, I have hardly given the topic the attention it deserves in this wordy missive. From my perspective, with war raging worldwide over oil, and air and water that is often unfit to breathe due to pollution from fossil fuels, ENERGY should be our primary topic of discussion. I hope you will give it the attention it deserves soon because I really do like what I have heard from you so far and want to continue to work for your campaign.

Your comments and thoughts are thoughtful, insightful as usual. Your campaign has attracted many of us who truly believe a new paradigm in America is possible and that you are articulating and embodying the changes needed. Some of us also feel you, the campaign, needs to take a big leap, Dean is on the cover of magazines and many of us know that he is not what he is made out to be. Perhaps you need to do something extrordinary. Many issues that are so important are not discussed, such a global warming. It is obvious the weather is changing, you are the only canidate that can lead us from this brink of extinction. How about discussing how the white house just had the science changed about Global Warming on the most recent document published by the EPA, you can tie this in with new forms of energy already available. Speak to people about their children and grandchildren and their right to life. I have copied another concern below from one of our yahoo discussion groups.

Use your great compassion, humor, practicality and truthfullness to the utmost. Speak the truth of what is possible as you do, but what it also entails from us. Find unity with as many politicians as possible who are now agreeing with your views. (Which are the ones that will lead us back to sanity)

Thanks,

Suzanne Keehn
Quote from Yahoo below.

We are seeing SO much now on the misery of the troops in Iraq – and deservedly so. I think it is very important for Kucinich to make some strong statements about supporting our troops and supporting their families and that the cuts in the military budget that he would make would not cut benefits to the troops but that he would find a way to reinstate some of the cuts that have been made to these people. Perhaps he has made these statements, but all I’ve heard is how much he wants to cut the military budget. Failed weapons programs are one things. Military personnel are another. My two cents

Thank you for participating in this blog. I also hope to see you co-sponsor the Public Domain Enhancement Act (HR 2601) and I’d like to know what you think of the idea of either working on not extending the term of copyright again and/or repealing the previous CTEA.

Finally, I hope you’ll consider reading EFF’s summary of unintended consequences of the DMCA. I favor repealing the DMCA and compelling the public to work with industry to work on a more balanced approach to copyright enforcement (which may mean no additional laws required), but I would like to get your reaction on the DMCA and the weight you give to (what I think anyone would reasonably call) its misuse.