Congress: The act of coming together.
The literal meaning of congress is 'coming together'. For the intent of this dispatch I wish it to mean coming together for the common good. That is what is was founded for and what it is still supposed to stand for.
The body itself seems to have forgotten that. That would be the institution of our nat'l Congress of the United States of America.
And it has gone beyond being a shame to being borderline criminal in it's repercussions.
And we the people are paying the price for their willful inability to do their elected jobs.
Because of their inactions we are looking at what will possibly be one of the most violent summers ever in this country. People are fed up with the situations leading us to this point. We have asked...no, we have begged, for Congress to do their jobs, and still we are denied.
The weather has just started to warm as have the tempers of the intemperate. I truly fear the coming season. Look in the mirror House. Look in the Reflecting Pool, Senate. You are to blame for this. All of it.
Am I the threat? No. I am merely one of thousands of observers.
I am also a voter.
Do I think the system will change? Possibly not. Your siding with your special interest backers is so firmly entrenched it's hard to imagine it changing. So what is the answer? I can't say at this point. But it may very well may be moot.
Because we may be too busy picking up the pieces of anarchy after this summer comes to an end.
It's kind of like corporate officers who justify outrageous salaries by saying we wouldn't be able to attract the proper talent if we paid less, and seal their positions by sitting on boards and voting those salaries for each-other. It's interesting that it's only been (relatively) recently that they've been able to create this perception of scarcity of talent.
ReplyDeleteIn similar fashion, we are told that freshman senators/reps can't get as much done for the constituency because they haven't made the proper contacts, which is technically true. But maybe if we all voted in fresh blood across the board...
It IS time to clean house. Obviously. I really see no other way. What will happen after? Who knows nut this cannot be allowed to continue. We are being crushed by it...and so is the business model you pointed out. Look at what is happening to the kids just coming into the workforce. They have nothing but debt to look forward to. All of this is so shameful.
DeleteI try not to condone violence ... though I tend to have violent tendencies ... and I most assuredly never condone violence towards innocent parties ... but ... well ... maybe ... a little anarchy is what is needed .... *shrugs* ... I have hope though ... that those with a murderous bent will be few and far between.
ReplyDeleteI think the Flamingo's point is that there are so many of us that are frustrated that it's inevitable/likely that more and more will strike out randomly and violently.
DeleteThat is my point, Augie and you and I were around when this took place during and after Vietnam. The situation is even more dire now, imho, and it does not bode well.
DeleteI'm afraid you're right. :(
DeleteThe two-party system worked well for a long time, but I think it has now become the problem. Through happenstance and gerrymandering most congressional districts and states are either blue or red, so incumbents worry more about alienating their own party than they do about broadening their support by reaching out to the other party. The result is that there is more to lose by bucking the most radical components of one's own party than by alienating the other party. As much as I may dislike what my congressman does, voting for the people the other party typically nominates would be unthinkable in my congressional district. The parliamentary system has some advantages (and disadvantages), but I don't think it's realistic to expect the United States to adopt that system. Traditionally, France had multiple parties. That mitigated some of the difficulties with the two-party system but multi-party systems can foster instability and gridlock in their own way. *sigh*
ReplyDeleteThis really is a problem. I do agree, but something has to be done because we are suffocating under the current system and we are allowing the death of a great nation to happen on our watch. This is unacceptable.
DeleteThe two-party system is indeed a drag on progress, but it is tough to change. In 2000 I signed a petition to get the Green Party on the ballot in my fairly blue/Democrat Congressional district. In the election in November, there were 3 newbies running for a seat that had been Democrat for decades. The Green and the Dem split 66% of the vote, the Republican pooplet took 34% and the election. Some gerrymandering was done and he has had that seat ever since. Fourteen years of him. This is what discourages me.
ReplyDeleteI have 3 people in Congress. One I'd like to keep, one I'd like to shove a bit and one I would like to vote out. Maybe an idea would be to change not the people elected, but the districts. Re-district the State. OR do it someway that party that gets at least 25% of the vote gets some sort of representation. I dunno. But the system right now is brokern. Thank you so much for this blog.
Currently, in Virginia, they are trying to do just that... but for reasons not ethical in any sense of the word, I'm sorry but not surprised to say. The more southern districts, which wish to deprive the more urban of their areas the ease of voting especially for the less advantaged voters [read minority and often Democrat]will be split and made to commute to outlying areas costing them $ for the privilege to wait in lines to cast their votes thus diminishing their numbers at the polls. At least this is the current reasoning coming out of the Republican party here. Just another tactic to try to rig the election process.
ReplyDeleteFlamingo, I have heard of that whole thing and it is scary.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure that our current political methods can be or even deserve to be 'fixed'. Perhaps we need a complete do over. Not sure that would result in anything special either as of course the 'do over' would be 'sponsored' by the current electeds. A good start would be to ensure that the entire population of the US is affected by all laws and all are held accountable without exception. Getting by in is paramount for any change and the quickest way to get buy in is to include ALL concerned. This of course would again involve negotiations which would have their own negative impact of the state of politics. So maybe it would be best to just have members of congress selected by the jury system with terms (with reasonable pay and allowances) limited. Hmmm... talk about mayhem!
ReplyDeleteYup a do over overseen by every eligible voter is obviously the only way to go. But with everyone a member of Congress who would we tax?
Sorry, doesn't really seem to be anything left but to turn it over to the radicals and see what they make of it. Seems like it would have to be at least somewhat better. Maybe S.H. is available.
MT C
Term limits, campaign contribution limits, income limits while in office, no special interest affiliations___it's all been addressed and managed to be skirted somehow, someway. The frustrations behind trying to get good people onto the hill and uninfluenced by anything other than doing the job they were elected to do [and no, that's not represent special interests over the people]has become so endemic that honestly, I for one, see little benefit at this point in even unlocking their doors in the morning and admitting them to chambers. What is the point in paying their salaries?
ReplyDeleteI think campaign contribution limits would help a lot. In fact, I think changing the way people spend would change a lot of things.
ReplyDelete