"The Balance of Power" is a specialized column where national, and sometimes international issues will be discussed. Most of the content here will focus on politics and the precarious balance between our two main political parties, hence the name"The Balance of Power." Each week, 3 general topics will be addressed and objectively discussed. Additionally, we will have a "current events issue" in which we poll you, the readers, to send us your opinion. This week, our "current events issue" is the medical ban of marijuana in the state of California.
The Debate Over Debates
As Labor Day draws near, the presidential campaigns gear up for debate season... But not in the way you would imagine. The candidates just cannot seem to agree on how to go about conducting the debates. Ralph Nader, the Green party candidate and a consumer advocate, believes that he should be allowed to participate in the debates. Traditionally, only the major parties, i.e. Republican and Democratic, have been allowed to participate in national debates. During the last two elections, Reform Party candidate Ross Perot was permitted to share the stage with Clinton, Bush and Bob Dole. In both cases, Perot represented the minority. After the elections, the Republicans cried foul, saying that Perot siphoned conservative votes away, causing them to lose both elections.
This is, of course, a moot point. Quite frankly, whether or not Perot caused the Republicans to lose is of minor consequence in this election. Nevertheless, it is interesting so see that although the Democrats never showed much opposition to Perot's participation in the debates, they are, nonetheless, having fits about Ralph Nader. Nader appeals to liberal voters, the same voters that typically go Democratic. If more liberals support Nader, he will end up having the same effect on the Democrats that Perot had on the Republicans in '92 and '96.
No doubt most of you have seen Ralph Nader's "priceless" ad, which seems suspiciously similar to MasterCard ads. They tag "discovering the truth" as priceless. The ad is supposed to send a message that it would be in the country's interests to let him participate in the debates. Well, if the ad seems similar to MasterCard's ad, it's because it's also meant to be a spoof off of MasterCard's ads. Recently, MasterCard sued Nader 2000 for several million dollars for copying their idea. What a mess.
Nevertheless, the debates are an integral part of the electoral process. Certainly, it should be the duty of every American to view at least one of the debates, even if they only showcase Bush and Gore. All debates will be aired on prime time.
Death and Taxes
On Thursday, our ever-so-esteemed president vetoed the Estate Tax repeal. Basically this bill said that if you died and had valuable assets, the government could take a healthy portion of it. Interesting. Certainly we all know what a will is. What is the point of a will if the government can move in and systematically pillage a deceased person's assets without remorse? Clinton has mentioned that only the elite upper class with multi-million dollar assets would benefit from this bill. Well, if that's the case, then we must all be elitists! Nowadays, by the time a person dies, he/she has assets worth quite a bit; in many cases, these assets can exceed one million dollars. Most people, in fact, become millionaires the minute they die. Why? Because, even though they may not have been so well-off in life, they probably had a house, some land, a car, some jewelry, and maybe even an expensive doll collection, who knows. That pure-bred Australian Shepherd could probably go for a couple of grand. In such cases, the IRS could just swoop in and take a third of a family's possessions, just like the carrion-feeding vultures they are. In fact, terminally ill patients actually have to fill out a tax form so that the IRS has an even easier time collecting assets. The tax can be especially brutal on farmers, whose assets are based almost entirely on the vast tracts of land that they own. A farming family can be put out business by death tax in such a case. And last I checked, not many farmers were elitists.
People need to realize that in vetoing the death tax, Clinton is not acting as a champion of the people. Rather, he is denying the American family the opportunity to build a legacy in their lifetimes to pass down to their children. It is time to end this cycle of deception and hypocrisy. The death tax is an immoral levy. People should be allowed to leave this world unmolested by the IRS.
The Politics of Deception
Here in Massachusetts, we're not subjected to too many mud-slinging political ads, simply because neither candidate campaigns here. Mass is Gore territory, flat and simple. However, the Republican National Committee has been greasing their palms lately, putting together a particularly vicious ad highlighting some of Gore's less glamorous moments. Chief among these will be his illegal Buddhist Temple fundraiser back in '96. Another highlight will be Gore's insolent statement several months back that he "invented the internet." Anyone with half a brain cell knows darn well that Gore never lifted a finger in the creation or even the innovation of the internet. In fact, it is the Republicans that imposed a moratorium on internet taxes. That moratorium helped considerably the advancement of the internet revolution.
All of this, and more, centers around a computer monitor showing a fake website lovingly titled Gore_Will_Say_Anything.Com. Look for it to debut in the networks next week.
Grass-Burning Verdict
In the latest Supreme Court ruling, the high court overturned a 1996 California state law which allowed for the medical use of marijuana. The high court cited scientific evidence of Marijuana's harmful effects in their opinion as the basis of their ruling. Marijuana defenders in California stated that cannabis, a chemical in marijuana, can lessen pain and ease nausea in cancer patients. However, recent scientific evidence says otherwise. A recent UCLA study confirmed that cannabis creates an increased risk for head and neck cancers. Furthermore, marijuana smoke is more deadly than cigarette smoke in terms of causing lung cancer.
Interestingly, the very people who advocate the legalization of marijuana also happen to be the same people who starkly oppose the tobacco industry and cigarette smoking.
This case could set the precedent for a nation-wide ban on medical marijuana. Is this good or bad? Is the government oppressively intruding in our lives, or are they taking care of us?
Tell us what you think, and we'll follow it up on the next issue. Send your opinion to technews@wpi.edu, and make yourself heard! Please note that your response may be quoted in the next issue.