Posted by FleshPresser at 9:40 AM /
ModFab posted at 12:22 AM
Ummmm...that's the longest post in the history of...posts.
1) Go, boy, go.
2) This relates to CATS somehow, right? It's all Lloyd Webber's fault, right?
4) If money is the great corruptor, then the answer is publicly funded campaigns, right?
posted at 2:56 AM
Great post. The only thing I would change is the term limits. I would make it so that there would be a built in "Refresher" time period that someone must be out of office in order to run again. So House of Rep, you get THREE consecutive terms and then if you wait 2 years, you can get THREE more. Senate would stay at TWO consecutive but if you've been out of office for 4 years you qualify for TWO more. It would force people to get back in touch with regular society but still allow those few that are truely gifted the chance to remain.
SadButTrue posted at 5:00 AM
Great Post! And no need to apologize for the length. The problem with EVERYTHING is the tendency to try to reduce everything to a sound byte. Just because the MSM does that does NOT mean that bloggers should too. I have been gravitating away from the 'one paragraph (or sentence) and a link' formatted blogs, because what's the damn point of that? It reduces the blogosphere to an echo chamber, with no original thought. One of the most informative blogs is Glen Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory. His posts average the length of this one, and often some of the comments are just as long. Much preferable to say Atrios or ThinkProgress, who can't be bothered to add anything editorially to the link they provide.
This is just expanding on what your blog is saying about voters who are too intellectually lazy to find out about what a candidate's position is. They chose an Alfred E. Newman clone like G. Dubya because he reduces his whole platform to 'what, me worry?' Kerry might have known what he was talking about, but the voter is yawning halfway through his first sentence. It's all part of an instant gratification videogame culture, where you push reset 10 seconds in because you missed the first bonus power-up.
It will be a damn shame when America slouches into FASCISM because the electorate was too busy sucking the electronic pacifier to do anything about it.
The Xsociate posted at 5:00 AM
I agree with you that Congress should have term limits placed on them. Not only will this force them get whatever initiatives they wish enacted during their time, it will allow for a continuous injection of fresh blood in the political process.
I also feel the the President should be limited one term in office.
The Professor posted at 8:43 AM
An interesting post, but alas, I don't think your conclusions in the first part are accurate, and drawing a parallel to politics is a non-sequitur.
Derivative movies are more successful on "opening day" (remember, that's the metric you chose) simply because of expectations. It is far easier to generate expectations for something about which we have some experience. Once we get past the opening day, then the experience of this movie will overtime influence perspectives, and either increase or decrease the value of that franchise. And, that being said, the audiences still judge the new movies on a variety of attributes to include the freshness of the story line (and special effects, and acting, and...)
On the other hand, people judge politicians based on what they are able to do for their constituents. Long standing politicians have acheived that status by being able to deliver the bacon (whether through Pork, or solid statesmanship) to their constituents in a consistent manner. To condemn politicians simply because they have been there a long time is, in my mind, simply another outlet of frustration without thought.
Why do most people (58%) support removing members of congress "in general" but then that same percentage (okay, 60%, and admittedly not the same people, per se) support the re-election of their own member of Congress? Simply this: I don't like those evil so-and-so's from the OTHER side of the aisle, and life would be better without THEM. This is either based on real political positioning (I would love to see Ted Kennedy gone, for instance) or just because the public has been listening to anti-Congress rhetoric for so long, but either way, their experience, with THEIR representative, leads them to conclude that THAT person is "alright." [I have commented before how this same thought process is true in education. In the early 90s studies showed that a majority of Americans thought the school system was broken, but a far greater percentage said "but my school is fine.")
Perhaps another day I will tackle your points towards reform, but for now, I felt I needed to address the thought that time in office is the big bad meanie.
Imagine if, in your profession, someone were to come forward and argue that "Flesh Presser" has been the director for far too long. Hey, we realize he has been doing a good job, and the local theater going public likes his work, but don't you think that it's just been a little TOO long in one job? No one should have such a long stay in what they do. Yeah, the analogy has it's flaws, but the point still holds--tenure (time in office) should not be a determinant for whether someone should remain in office. Don't keep em because they have "always been there" and don't ditch em for that reason, either.