posted
I have thought of five ideas that might make the politics in the US better, and they are not impossible ideas. I mean, five impossible ideas to make the government better are easy to create. 1)Get money out of it, 2) Get better people into it, 3)Get everyone to vote, 4)Get all the voters to be informed, 5)Stop the lies.
However, those ideas while sounding grand, just are not practical. They are goals to be aimed for possibly, but not ultimately attainable. My suggestions are more practical I think.
They just require someone with a lot more money than I have to back them, and some one with a lot more experience than I have to set them up.
1) LAB. Create a non-for profit informational organization with one goal. The Legislative Accountability Board or LAB would be designed to track legislation and determine if it succeeds in the goals for which the legislation was supposed to be designed for.
An example is the attempted legislation that would limit Pain and Suffering payments made in mal-practice cases. The reason such limits are being considered is in order to reduce the cost of Mal-Practice Insurance.
This board would track Mal-Practice Insurance Rates. If they continue to go up years after the bill is passed, then it becomes apparent that the law should be rescinded. If they do fall, and stay low, then all those who argued against the bill will be proven wrong.
The idea is to put the same accountability that legislators are demanding from society, on those we elect into the legislature. This way when someone claims a "Clean Air Act" or a "Forest Conservation Act" they will have to account for the cleanliness of the air and the endurance of the forests.
2) The ABC's. The American Bipartisanship Committee. Only select legislators are invited to join this very civil and polite committee. Those who actually attempt to work together in a civil way, those who put the good of the country above the good of the party. There are many such senators and representatives out there, but they are being bullied and threatened by the extremes. Promoting an ABC (yes, probably Moderate) gathering will help promote a better more rational congress. This way problems like the Delay situation or the Nuclear Option can be dealt with by people the other side may respect and trust.
3) http:/Factcheck.org and groups like it need to be used much more often. When was the last time you were there? Have you visited since the election? I had gotten out of the habit, and that is a shame. We need more Snopes for Politicians, and we need them to be out and public and used in every political debate.
4) Change the way news stories are archived. This will take one innovative news organization to start, but once done everyone will follow. Right now every story written is written in a newspaper fashion, complete in itself. Each article has a begining, middle, and end, even though we have not come to the end of the news, as more facts are being developed.
Let me do an example. Back in November of 2002 I heard a story on NPR about how some CIA people in Washington were disputing the WMD in Iraq. They were being forced down by the President's inner circle. Two years later the President officially blames the CIA for getting the information about WMD wrong.
I went back to look for this earlier article, and could find nothing. Perhaps I misheard it, or perhaps I was wrong. Or perhaps the way the news article was archived, finding old news is too difficult.
What should be done is the story should be kept up to date as new information is found. It should be easy to determine what is happening along any story that is emerging, and to follow them with links from one story to another. The archives should not be listed by date when the story was run, but by topic with an intuitive index.
The greatest weakness of our Democracy is our terrible memory. I believe this would help fix that, so the lies and crimes of yesterday are not buried under the garbage of today.
5) Change the name Spin Doctor to Lords Of Propaganda. That is what they are. Spin Doctors try to twist the facts into a story that helps their clients. They try to change reality to fit what they want. Too often they succeed. What we get is one liar trying to out yell another. No wonder the people in the middle grow callous. To add to that giving them the respected name of Doctor is too much.
I prefer Lords Of Propaganda, to remind us that they are just Propaganda slingers. Besides, the initials, LOP is inane enough. Could you respect Carl Rove if he was called President Bush's LOP?
Of course FLOP would be better. I'd love to turn all the Rove'ites into FLOPs, but then I'd have to find a good F word to put at the begining? Fascist sounds good, but not politically accurate. Anyone else have a good F word?
And remember, this is a family forum.
I already thought of THAT f word.
And I find it appropriate, but not likely to catch on with the media.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate your idealism, Dan - I really do! (((Dan)))
Good reminder about "factcheck" -
I suspect that you probably DID hear that story, it's just that electronic archiving has not achieved the same degree of sophistication as say, the local library.
Have you tried contacting NPR and asking for some help? Or do you know anyone that works at a radio station that runs NPR? Maybe they could help . . .
I do like that idea of carrying through with the story - our local rags have been carrying "series" over 1-2 years' time which makes it easy to keep tabs on where the story began and what has transpired.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike the idea of a blue team and a red team. I think it's really really stoopid.
I also have a great lack of respect for those that capitalize on that state of affairs. A very very deep and profound lack of respect. They should have more imagination.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind the 'red-team, blue-team' idea, but it's the way it works today that I hate. The nomination of a President is a serious matter, and too often the two parties nominate someone who isn't fit for the job, but who is more like a majority of people and more likely to take their votes. The two parties should look inside themselves, nominate the best and most able person to run the country, and then let voters decide which person they want. That way we won't get two people who really aren't fit for the job.
And I do think there should be some sort of law FORCING the government to tell the truth, in all cases. I would hope there is one now, but obviously no one listens to it. There should be strict penalties enforcing this rule, how can we trust our government if it lies to us?
Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think no t-shirts with any slogans relating to Dan's post should be legal. (positive, negative, or neutral)
That should be a rule: commercialization. Not sure what it should be, but it definitely deserves a (check) of some sort under the current and formidable sys of checks and balances.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SO now we abridge freedom of speech to defend these boards? I don't think that is a good idea at all....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dharma Bum I was trying to avoid those ideas that are not quite practical. While its great to say that people in government should always tell the truth, the problem is that some of those terms are open to interpretation.
What do you mean by government? What do you mean by Truth? How about when a governmental employee is not working? Does every postal worker have to tell their kids there is no Santa? Its the details that get in our way every time.
But I agree with you. The biggest problem I see is not the corruption of our politicians, but the corruption of those non-elected power players who stand behind our politicians and advice them into our out of power.
That is why I am against term limits. I'd rather get to vote for/against the greedy scum in power, than have them work behind the scenes offering me only a choice of stuffed puppets to vote for.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it would be hard to prevent politicians from lying (I meant only them), though perhaps it is possible to have tougher laws that if one is found lying, it would set an example to possibly stop others?
Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
