@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:
If the AP's demonstration of skepticism is a harbinger of things to come, this would mark a turning point in voter education. Perhaps, there is hope for us MAC's and, therefore, the country itself! I've always thought that, given a balanced view of issues and solution sets for their resolution, Americans will make the right choices. MAC's should continue to post these ear marks until regular voters are educated and become tired of all the pork coming from Congress. MAC's should politely and constantly hammer away at this. 2010 can't come too soon.
In the last few weeks, I haven't seen much that is encouraging coming from our government, but the AP story did lift my spirits. It is the first glimmer of hope that I've had in awhile that American journalism had not so prostituted itself that it is lost to us forever. Maybe, just maybe, the Fourth Estate can be resurrected as the independent public watchdog and insurer of transparency that it once was.
Quote:I propose that no politician be allowed to speak to the press live. All comments and speeches would be taped and only released after the new government agency, known as the DLGR (Dept of "Let's Get Real"), fact checks the content and provides truthful revisions if needed. We could then run the tape of the politicians' words concurrent with the truth. Perhaps like those speeches aired where there is a person in a little box in one of the corners of the screen, you know, like they use for ASL for the deaf.
Did you ever see the movie "Liar, Liar"?
I wonder what kind of government we would have if politicians, reporters, political ads, everything put out there to inorm or influence the public had to be the absolutely truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth except in matters of national security? How refreshing that would be. But they'd just make that tattoo removal thing a matter of national security I guess.
And they would just make the DLGR into another huge bureaucracy and then change the rules.
I would be happy if they would just change the law to make it illegal for our lawmakers to 'revise and amend' their remarks at the end of the day or change any vote after the fact. If we cannot catch them on camera, at least they would no longer be able to lie to the Congressional Record. And they would no longer be able to bundle unrelated things into any bill--they would have to vote straight up or straight down on a tattoo removal expense, for instance, and be on the record as to how they voted.
Quote:Some questions:
1. Doesn't the Constitution charge members of Congress with the duty of passing laws and appropriations for the good of the whole country or is it still constitutional to stoop to parochialism?
The Congress has circumvented the Constitution every chance they have now for decades.
Quote:2. C.I. and Cyclops:
What's the deal? Are you channeling each other?
I call this the progressive pack mentality.