Start with the premise that every adult goes to college, gets a degree, stays healthy and fulfills the imagined expectations of the steps necessary to achieve the American dream. Every single adult. I know it is a far-fetched premise, but imagine it – or even a future where most adults enter the job market with great educations and equal footing to the job market. Our push toward more education, health and opportunities ultimately results in just such a scenario if we can ever come together and agree upon a common implementation for access to resources.

How do we decide who mops the floors, cooks and delivers the pizza, works at Subway, or digs the ditches? How do continue to pay them less than is needed to sustain themselves?

We could no longer justify a terrible minimum wage. No one would “deserve” it. If we are still able to choose our field of work, most people would choose to do the work that traditionally has been identified as more meaningful. (Some people tell themselves that others have earned or somehow deserve their lower economic place in life. I know you find that hard to believe – that someone could be so dumb, right? Maybe laziness is a factor for some people, but certainly not everyone?) Implicit in this context is the idea that we are demeaning those who do service jobs by assigning their functions to the column of “less important.”

Factor in that we have continued to automate manufacturing and other sectors to such a degree that labor is at a massive surplus. Throw in the idea that we will still have a large population, one which grows increasingly old as health care, diet and lifestyle make further significant inroads toward human longevity.

Since people live longer, they retire later, further minimizing the job pool for those earning their degrees and looking for a spot to work, regardless of pay. No one is to blame as younger adults have no method of earning a living in the way that our ancestors did.

How do we “pay” those who have no means of employment? If we don’t pay them and no jobs are available, how do we fund a system to sustain them?

For those who do work, why would we allow a system of pay that cannot sustain them in the economy? Again, someone has to perform the service jobs and other functions that can’t be done by machines. If people are allowed to choose careers, then we will undoubtedly have a role reversal toward those who are willing to do the service economy jobs that are currently looked down upon by many people. It is indeed a strange possibility to imagine that well-educated people could and would choose occupations that are otherwise considered lower class in our current system.

As an avowed liberal, it should come as no surprise that I am pro-choice.

Having said that, I don’t like the horrid labels of “pro-choice” or “pro-life.”

We are either for abortion (whether we are totally in agreement or not) or against it.

Stop clouding the subject with misleading political speech. Stop trying to control the negativity that comes with either opinion.

Abortion is a terrible choice. I find it hard to imagine that people take the choice lightly.

It’s easy to judge people, isn’t it?

I wish that the conservative crowd would also FUND an alternative whereby anyone who would forego an abortion would be provided for during their pregnancy, as well as having an adoption arranged. A true alternative, rather than rhetoric.

What I find most interesting is that absent a disaster, we will one day control every aspect of procreating. I’m convinced of it, based on an optimistic view of humanity’s ability to survive.

From the internet: “Abortion is another issue that gets conservatives all worked up. Look, no one likes abortion. I’m pro-choice but I’m not a fan of abortion. I am, however, a supporter of giving women the right to choose what it is they want to do with their own body. Would God agree with abortion? I sure as heck don’t know. But guess what? Neither do Republicans. There’s not a single person on this planet with a direct link to God, getting play-by-play analysis of what is and isn’t right.”

By way of introduction, I have never been one to criticize those who choose to not vote. A decision to not vote is not necessarily a dumb one and anyone who criticizes those who don’t vote is guilty of a horrible intellectual mistake.

Then again, even a cursory examination of my choices in life proves that I don’t have a clue about what in blazes I’m doing.

We have all heard the refrain all of our lives: “If you don’t vote, you don’t have a right to your opinion.” Please add this to the list of goofy things people say because they don’t have a better or more logical argument for you. Other than it is a factually goofy thing to say, it violates the very idea of our republic. Each of us has the option to choose our level of participation in all aspects of the governance of our society.

I admit that having a cynical attitude is a terrible justification for failing to vote. However, many people have legitimate reasons for arriving at their opinions about voting and the political process.

I vote. You won’t hear me disparaging those who choose not to, though, even when it is easy or glibly done.

Who has the biggest impact: someone who votes but can’t effectively voice their opinions and influence those around them OR non-voters who are very articulate and convincing? A motivated non-voter can do more damage to a political cause by using his intelligence to negate the appeal of a candidate or ideal.I concede that most non-voters tend to be apolitical and apathetic. But some non-voters are adept at making some interesting appeals to people who do vote.

Since I am rambling, I have noticed in my personal experience that the ones who grumble most at non-voters tend to be conservatives rather than liberal. It might be a bias in my mind, but I am careful about listening when I hear someone berating a non-voter trying to voice an opinion.

I try to remind people that registering to vote is a good thing, if only so that you can sign petitions and participate in other aspects of the system. If you aren’t a registered voter, you lose your voice in the petition process. It’s an important one these days.

When I was younger, I was caught up way too much in the political machinations and stupidity of it. My personal opinions about any specific thing weren’t that important in the scheme of things. I realized that getting irritated or worrying or arguing about politics was nothing more than a means to literally waste my life. Now, I enjoy watching other people stress and go grey-headed over things that they have very little ability to affect. I still admire people who can get out and try to get their opinions across, though.

If you can’t or don’t vote, don’t let people attempt to silence you. You do have the ability to keep talking, writing and participating. Voting is a small part of participating in our society’s system of politics.

Truthfully, I’m not sure that your money donated toward the political cause of your choice doesn’t have more impact than your vote.

P.S. Up to 2.5% of our adult population can’t vote simply because their states have stripped them of the right to vote under the ‘rules’ of criminal voter disenfranchisement. (Even if they’ve done their time, made amends, and are productive members of society.)

In case I skip this topic, I am almost entirely against “the drug war,” as understood generally.

Before further comment, I’d like to point out that I have never even smoked marijuana, much less injected anything or snorted. I don’t have to worry about someone coming out of the woodwork alleging that I secretly used drugs – it’s never happened. In the interest of fairness, I had wanted to try marijuana, but couldn’t find the right circumstances. The potential risk of being tested after trying it were too great for me. I doubt that my employer would believe that I had done it just once to see what all the fuss was about. While it would be true, people who use drugs once are lumped together with hardcore users.

Many of our freedoms have been eroded by pushing them under the banner of drug eradication. Asset forfeiture is a great example of this type of lunacy. Imprisoning such a large potion of our population is another.

For addicts, focus and money should be on treatment, not punitive consequences, including jail.

Jailing someone for no “crime” other than using a banned substance serves no societal good, other than to condition the criminal mindset, build more jails, etc. Again, I am NOT advocating no consequences for drug-related crimes, just not for the drugs themselves. I’ve got the same mentality for gun-related crime, terror-related crime, etc – they are all crimes, regardless of their associations. Crimes should be judged based on their harm to other people.

Yes, we should pay for the treatment. All of it. To argue that we can’t or shouldn’t denies the cost we are supporting now. It’s ridiculous.

If a person is using an illegal substance (whatever that is) and there are no substantial consequences to other people, we need to stay out of their business. However, if you are driving and impaired, the legal consequences should be equal to those of alcohol, which I’m not too sympathetic toward.

I can understand the need for many people to want to punish drug users. But it serves no greater good. Not everyone who wants punishment for drug users is motivated out of self-righteous – but some are.

If your drug habit is leading you to further crime, yes you should be held accountable for the crime independently of the drugs. And treated. But drug use shouldn’t be permitted as a method to reduce your accountability.

And I can be quite often wrong.