Martin Dudziak is running for Congress as a Democrat from the 7th District, now represented by Tom DeLay's buddy Eric Cantor (R). Martin kindly agreed to an interview with Raising Kaine, answering 10 questions posed by our intrepid bloggers/citizen activists/quasi-journalists. Ha. Anyway, we published the first three yesterday, as part of our "Three for Thursday" series. Now, here are the last seven, as promised. Thanks again to Martin, and best of luck to him. Eric "Culture of Corruption" Cantor needs to go, and it sounds like Martin Dudziak may be just the guy to do it!
4) You have proposed a Civilian Response Network and have stated that "Our Security IS in our own hands." Along these lines, would you support mandatory national service for all 18 year olds, whether in homeland security, environmental conservation, education, health care, or the military?
This is a very interesting angle that I believe should be considered and debated. We should have something along those lines, and perhaps linked with college loans, etc., perhaps a total revamping of the "concept" of ROTC.
Many countries have something of the sort although not as comprehensive as to include environmental, education, and health care projects. I believe that something along these lines does make sense, accompanied with a careful analysis of the "model" of domestic ("homeland") security, the nature of a "National Guard" and the military as a whole,
Moreover, I believe that such a plan could be designed in a way that is compatible and accepted by many groups that have been opposed to "national service" before, especially if there is a strong emphasis on recognizing that part of "homeland security" includes having environmental and energy and public health stability.
[more after the jump]
5) What is your position on the "marriage amendment" that likely will appear on this November's Virginia ballot? In general, what is your position on gay rights?
We need to intelligently distinguish and avoid confusion between: a) serious, committed, lifelong (goal) relationships, which can be of any sort - MF, MM, FF, etc. - and which are real, bona fide (or can be), and which should be acknowledged and accepted as simply the right and privacy of people to choose how and with whom they live and what they do in that relationship (so long as it does not infringe upon individual personal and civil rights); and b) marriage per se as a relationship traditionally centered around potential building and making of family and children.
We need to allow for the "a" relationships to have civil and economic rights, and this goes BEYOND just gay relationships. They are actually among the smaller group not receiving fairness in terms of the civil, legal, and economic rights pertaining to insurance, taxation, survivorship, etc. We have an alarming situation with dependent parents that needs to be addressed as well.
The times have changed over the generations, and not only with respect to same-sex relationships. We need to enable SSA services in these relationships, for instance - but also we need to strengthen up SSA!
I propose a "package solution" that creates legal fairness for committed, definite, lifelong-intended relationships.
I want to see that same-sex relationships and orientations are given rights and freedoms in a broad context whereby what people choose to do, freely and privately, is not inhibited because of any one group or sector having objections, for whatever personal or religious reasons. At the same time we need to examine other areas of "lifestyle control" having nothing to do with same-sex issues, and we need to put a huge amount of attention into EDUCATION on all of these subjects. We have a dearth of decent education in all school levels, and ignorance is the pathway for all sorts of absues and confusion as well as crime. I want to to see an end to repression of the topic of "sex" which repression leads to a huge amount of problems in our society. But we need to approach this in ways that do not alienate masses of people, or else we will just bog down and get nowhere, as we have been.
6) Do you support Virginia's "right to work? laws" Or, do you agree with Leslie Byrne that "right to work" really should be called "right to be poor?"
At the present I do not see a pressing reason to change these laws and I do not agree with Ms. Byrne in her interpretation. I am open to examining the issues, of course, but right now we have a whole lot of worse problems facing us that need attention!
7) A few months ago, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation?s annual State of the Bay report gave the Bay an overall health rating of "D." The Foundation's President, William C. Baker, said that "we have a bay that is dangerously out of balance and in critical condition.? Obviously, that's not acceptable. If elected to Congress, what would you do to restore this invaluable and amazing ecosystem?
"D" is a high grade, considering that there are possible "points of no return" with regard to many aspects of the Bay's flora and fauna. In any case, I believe the Bay is in an extremely critical eco-state. Changes need to be serious, fast-moving, and continuous. This requires the collaboration of companies and governments in Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal govt. especially.
We cannot simply roll back industry and commerce, and we need the support and involvement of a diverse population of businesses and residents. I woulld like to develop first a committed and visible team of people from many sectors including the financial interest groups, to devise a plan that addresses reduction of waste, reduction of fishing, and increase of alternatives. For every reduction of an active or passive "negative" (e.g., pollution and overfishing as "active" negative contributors and overbuilding the shoreline regions as a "passive" form) there must be something that makes sense for the people who are going to be giving up something - we cannot hope to get the Bay improved just by legislating or wishful thinking.
Here are two simple examples of where exploration and action can be directed.
a) Working toward an increase in fish-farming that can offset reduced Bay fishing without reducing the income and employment of the fishing industry. I do not know the answers, but Congress can and should support exploring these alternatives.
b) Working toward increase in biomass and biofuel energy development to reduce waste pollution into the Bay and at the same time providing a growth industry in the area.
8) What is your position on trade issues? Do you believe that labor, environmental and human rights guarantees should be part of trade agreements? What about eliminating agricultural subsidies in developed countries in order to provide a more level playing field for developing nations?
We need to reduce our trade deficits, and I want to focus more upon creation and support of new exports, especially in energy (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal technologies), health (medicine, sensors, preventives), and the kinds of products that have markets in these developing countries, rather than just trying to "reduce imports" or "increase tariffs."
Walls upon walls, literal or figurative, don't provide solutions, but generally only confusion, lack of communication, and eventually bottled-up problems, such as we have been seeing for the past few generations. Building better channels and conduits creates balance and that is balsically what we need more than anything in the world.
Regarding agriculture, we need to spend our subsidy money in different ways to increase exports, better production, better foods for humans and animals, and the biofuel area is one where we can really gain.
9) Do you support Sen. Russ Feingold's call to censure President George W. Bush? If not, why not?
At this point I believe that we need some serious investigation of the President's actions in both leaking information and in misinformation/disinformation about the rationale to invade Iraq - and indeed more. Let's get deeper into the facts and not get caught in the partisan defense against a censure too soon, and then there may be grounds for more than just a censure. We need to stop what has been allowed to go on for years now, and this cange requires more people with clear, objective, rationale minds in Congress.
10) Who is your favorite President and why? Who do you think was the worst President and why?
Thomas Jefferson stands out as my favorite, for what he did both before, during and after his Presidency, particularly with respect to individual liberties and rights, but also with respect to the balances of power between states and the federal government and among the branches of the govt.
I also have strong particular respect and admiration for: Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton.
As for the worst, there are a few contenders. George W. Bush does top the list, because of his inability to focus and take a stand and not be easily swayed and influenced by the next group to have an audience, because of his totally inappropriate politics and the dominance by Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Not far behind in my book are A. Johnson, Grant, Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, and Bush 41.
In this one, he looks too much like male prostitute, White House correspodent Jeff Gannon/Jeff Duckert.