What needs either much more or much less federal oversight?
Scott Renshaw: It’s not federal vs. state oversight that’s the issue. It’s long-view vs. short-view. And it’s virtually impossible to get anyone at any level to take the political risk involved in pushing for the long view.
Paula Saltas: More attention on Social Security benefits for the elderly and poor. Quality of life may be better in prison than in a retirement home. You’ll get three square meals a day plus free health care, monitoring and prescriptions. Let’s put the convicts in a retirement home and the senior citizens in jail.
Kolbie Stonehocker: LGBT folks should all be allowed to get married tomorrow, no matter what their own state says. And comprehensive sex education should be taught in all necessary schools, no matter how closed-minded and ignorant educators’ own opinions are on the subject.
Colin Wolf: At this point, I’d rather live under the thumb of totalitarian government, like in Aeon Flux, if it means tea-baggers will shut the hell up.
Pete Saltas: We need more federal oversight committees to regulate the effectiveness of oversight committees. Thus, we will know how efficiently and effectively we are overseeing the areas that require the oversight. That’s a bulletproof plan that will ultimately lead to a much higher GDP because bureaucracy.
Paydn Augustine: Definitely less Internet monitoring and control, along with giving the population a greater say in the desicion-making. Here’s looking to the FCC on Internet “fast lanes.” How am I supposed to download skimpy anime waifus in glorious high quality with a 25 mb/h zone? I should be going 75 like everyone else on the highway.
I always enjoy City Weekly's Hits & Misses column, and this week's version [Dec. 4, City Weekly], was no exception. Unfortunately, the Rocky III segment, while a nice complement to John Saltas' piece ["Mayor Maybe"], is wildly inaccurate.