chuck kottke

I like feedback - don't we all! So, since our economy is on the brink of disaster, and our elected officeholders spend more time posturing than actually fixing anything, I thought maybe it's about time we Fix Them. Here's a short wish-list of things I'd like to see change with the US Congress - please add to the list & join in the discussion, even if you aren't from the US - because, as we all know, all the strands of the web are connected, so whatever we tug on here affects someone else, and vice-versa.. Reform List for 2008 and beyond: + Limit Congressional terms to 18 years max. + Make both the House and the Senate 6-year terms (=time for stable thinking and action between races) + maximum donation allowed for individuals to candidate's race limited to 2/365th of median income (another words, 2 days' wages max for the average American, which comes to around $260 at the present). add to that only real people can donate; not corporations, unions, think-tanks, etc.. + Equal, substantial, and free access for all viable candidates on the broadcast networks, including radio time as well as TV. + Campaigns can begin no sooner than 6 months before the election. + No outside money allowed. Meaning only district residents can donate to campaigns within that district, for offices representing that district. + No direct paid endorsements on TV/radio/internet/print media by groups other than the candidate's election committee + Groups can advocate for a viewpoint all they want on an issue, but they cannot mention a candidate or officeholder with their paid advertisements. + No revolving door - on money, perks, or positions. Officeholders leaving office cannot work for a firm that they have had influence over while in Congress (for example, the head of the Food and Drug oversight committee cannot get a job working for a pharmaceutical giant once out of office). + No staffing of agencies with individuals from companies normally regulated by that agency. If experience in the field is necessary, get qualified educated graduates in those degree fields closest to the area to be regulated; Better to have a less-perfect fit than to have nepotism.

Potato sack races - I remember those! People would get into their potato sacks, and had to try and hop across the finish line!! Now, if you're good in the sack, does this mean you win a race or something??

But Chis did say she is different! I just think the whole concept of celebrity gossip is just wayy wayy too blown out of proportion, and besides, isn't Chris Martin married to that Paltrow gal? Hmm.. methinks this whole thing is a wee bit silly!

What was I thinking??!!! Whatever it was, it's all gone now! Oh yea, I was thinking how funny it is that the "Wayback machine" thinks 2001 is "way back there"! To me, 1966 is "wayback"!

Even the "Wayback" machine is broken!! Oh well, Lore, you'll just have to use your incredible memory to recall it all, and give us a synopsis! ;--)

I do agree if the interest rates went up, more citizens would keep money in savings, and the use of credit cards is a major problem today. Personal bankruptcy was very rare a decade or more ago..

..And since this is the site with the most affinity to Coldplay.com, it is, by extension, the discussion board!;)

And I've had enough for tonight.

You know, Obama's been poor, and so I trust that he might still remember what it's like to have to go through tough times. I've read the Audacity of Hope, and whether those lessons will remain fresh in his mind remains to be seen. And John McCain was an ardent supporter of campaign finance reform, and knew suffering as a POW. I have no misgivings about what they do to get where they are - and that's the problem with the process. The process can turn good men and women into political whores. But then what is the answer, in your humble opinion?

And so what I'm saying is that the referee must be the government working on our behalf, but with our long-term interests in mind, and to get that we must have fair elections and fair contests, and open up the commons. What we need are statesmen, not politicians. Oversight is essential, but if it's tied to the ability of some to buy off the referees, or tied too closely to the political whims of the day, then we're sunk. Unregulated markets were a roller-coaster years ago, and that's no good either.

Change and reform do not come from partisan politics, but preventing disaster in the short term is sometimes essential and pragmatic. Change can come from third political parties, as history has shown, and it also can come from grass-roots movements that move public opinion and understanding by other means.

Would you go to see a game, if there were no referee, and the rules were being constantly changed by the teams?? Our government is instituted to act as a referee on the behalf and for the best interest of all citizens. I am not in 100% agreement of Obama, but someone has to balance your rhetoric in support of McCain by bashing preferentially Obama 1st, and only mentioning McCain in passing. I only support Obama in the sense that I see him as a slightly better option than McCain.

I am not the fool you think I am "Mr. Cool"! Look, I'm aware of the corruption, but given the options, I would rather pick the lesser of two flawed individuals than throw my vote far afield right now, and wind up in even worse straits. I'm for reform, but given the closeness of the race, I feel more inclined to choose between the two front-runners. If the race proves to be less close, I may opt to choose a third party candidate. The way I see for real change is through non-partisan grass-roots organizing, and putting forth demands for real change of the process by the citizens, and for protections of our rights - to the commons, to fair elections, and to fair contests. You can go your way, and choose the party route - I have never, and nor will I ever insult you for your path, but don't go insulting me for my choices!

True regulation can only come when we get honest representation. Lack of regulation can lead to wild market fluctuations, and the crooked scams we've seen recently. Don't blame regulation; blame the poor representation, and the the lack of reform of the elections/campaign process that allows things to develop this way. And assuming they are the same is too simplistic. The contributions tell the story better than any one inference can say. Mostly, what's needed is to limit all contributions to a level affordable by most Americans, or else the squeaky wheels get the grease, even when they only squeak just to get grease, and not because they need any! Why is it that there's corruption?? Because someone can bend the ears farther than anyone else; because ads that persuade based on popular appeal are more effective than substantive debate in the public square. I have every right to speak my mind, for freedom of the press is a right held by all of us! And I am not supporting corrupt men, only stating that equating both candidates currently in the forefront as "the same" is like saying an earthquake is the same as a tornado! Both have their flaws/faults, and the real problems neither will entirely fix, but I am merely showing that they are not quite the carbon copy of one-another that you seem to be suggesting they are.

If you think McCain, think AIG. See the NY Times article on it. But really, the numbers for McCain are stacked more heavily towards the rich, and the number for Obama are stacked more heavily towards the working classes. I'm not saying either is a saint, but neither are they identical in the policies they will be proposing, or who has more the interests of the average citizen at heart. The numbers are there for all to see at http://www.votesmart.com

It's not fair to categorize all of those citizens who took out the loans as "bad", or blaming them for the easy terms and sales pitch they were sold that made it sound fine. Someone had to convince them that is was possible to make the payments, and some of the terms were not fully discussed with those who took the loans out. But it's the lack of agency oversight, and the problem of allowing political races to be run based on money buying influence, a pure popularity/beauty contest, and short-term thinking. If the office terms were longer, and the politicians more accountable so they begin behaving as statesmen, then their efforts would reflect more long-term, wise thinking. Getting rid of the media circus and the hyped ads bought by the deepest pockets who use irrational emotional appeals to sell their candidate(s), would get us a lot further to getting good sound oversight by appointing agency heads that do their job for the best interests of the nation as a whole, and not for their political bosses, and their short-term goals of perpetual salesmanship and re-election bids, financed by the very forces that should be held in check (remember ENRON anyone?? Bush's #1 Contributors!). Markets need checks and balances by government oversight, but the referee has to by far-sighted in the world's interests, and to get that takes an honest election and campaign process.

I was hoping for a Constitutional Convention; if only the state legislatures were honest and true to their constituents. Make Election Fair.

I was hoping for a Constitutional Convention; if only the state legislatures were honest and true to their constituents. Make Election Fair.

Not necessarily so. (or maybe so - but I'm opting for something else though..). The process of amendments requires ratification through the state legislatures, last as I recall (it's been 30 years since I last watched an amendment being put though the motions..). Now, Congress could fail to ratify it, but if the public support is too strong for them to deny, and it makes perfect sense (even though it would put an end to their whore shops), I think they would be fired on election day if they refused to pass it. We had some grassroots - supported legislation passed in Wisconsin that defeated the corrupt kickback schemes, mainly because the majority of citizens were strongly in support of it, and the politicians knew if they did not vote for it, they would be ending their careers - so it can be done , as long as we keep a blow torch on their tails! Maybe the current crisis will not do much harm, but wake people up to the need to reform then process, and hold them to their promises on it. But on the other hand, it's harder to deny an amendment - there it is, the ultimate law of the land, and pretty tough to deny by comparison.

If we amend the Constitution, the players will have to play by honest rules, and the contest winners would be chosen based on legitimate ability - their voting record, their ideas, how responsive they are to the real needs of the country and the world, and if they work well together when essential, but stand out when bad ideas are afoot, they will be rewarded. Given equal access to the commons, then all legitimate candidates - Libertarian, Green, Democratic, or Republican candidates would have equal access and debate on equal terms; limiting contributions to the 2/365th of median income would make their job of representing a broad base of support legitimate and then what matters is ideas and strengths, not payoffs and promos. It's time to level the playing field, and then parties and candidates can truly represent the best interests of our nation, with the marketplace of ideas being the principal mover, and the respect for the Constitution restored to it's rightful place.

Gleeting Miss Crayola! Happy to see you could join in our cadre of well-seasoned eccentrics! Bring crayons, and enjoy!!

Greeting to you Sylvia! Vienna's a beautiful city, and the music you have there is simply astounding! Welcome aboard, and hope you enjoy the show!!

Welcome Alice from Wonderland!!

I'll take Obama's inexperience any day to Palin's! He's pretty damn sharp, if you ask me. Very well educated, and he actually got his degrees the honest way - by studying hard and earning good grades. Whether or not he can pry himself away from the money influence still needs to be seen, but based on percentages, I'd give him better odds than John McCain for doing so. 50% to Obama from small donations; 32% to McCain from small donations. Neither is where they should be in this regard (they should all be held to 2 days wages for the average American, no more, in acceptable contribution levels), but that's where we're at today.

And the process is the problem. Did you get a chance to look at the Constitutional Amendment I'm suggesting? Maybe or maybe not the answer, but it seems to me that when politicians become the purveyors of a gambling racket run amok, and they're always going for the short-term re-election game, then we all loose in the end. I feel that we need to change the terms for office - longer terms, and term limits - so they're not constantly running for office, and they're not career politicians for life. Some might say they would then have too little experience, but there would be more upward mobility in government, and less control issues on key committees, since the power brokering wouldn't be so long-lasting (no hogging the control of key committees). That's one part. The other part is to open up the airwaves (the new public commons) so every candidate with signatures to get on the ballot has equal access to them, and there are sufficient debates of real substance. Also, cap the limits on campaign donations to 2 days wages for the median income group (around $250 max.), and no more. Otherwise, the gamblers and schemers will keep buying the legislation they want, that hurts the majority of citizens. Maybe there is no perfect fix, but that's my best guess.(?) I think capping it and tying it to the median income gives the representatives reason to respond more to the needs of the country as a whole, and to be responsive to improving the economy, as that would increase the contribution level allowable.