How the Parties Fail to Serve
The American two-party system is an anachronism that we’re trapped in and can’t get out of. Here’s a proposed two-part solution:
- Establish an “official start date” for the campaign season, say, nine months prior to election day. Allow all candidates publicly-funded air time for the first two months so voters can hear a wider range of possible solutions to issues. The major candidates could pick up ideas from other candidates and more importantly, respond to a wider array of challenges.
- Implement Instant-Runoff Voting. I’m late to the party on IRV, but this is a relatively easy to implement reform to our current voting method that would make a huge difference in outcomes.
This YouTube video explains the process with a couple of irritatingly drawn and badly voiced cartoon characters:
The really glorious aspect to the IRV solution is that it eliminates the “spoiler effect” (a.k.a. The Nader Effect, or “vote splitting.”) that voting for a third-party candidate now produces: if you vote for a third-party candidate similar to the major party candidate, you take your vote away from the major party, thereby helping the opposition candidate get elected.
There are many arguments for keeping the two-party system in place because in many ways it gets us to the same results as IRV. No major party candidate can win without appealing to and capturing the votes of independents. Independents are generally centrists, people like Colin Powell. (yay! Colin Powell!! You remind us all about how being American is about being INCLUSIVE.) We are very fortunate in this election cycle to have two arguably centrist candidates, though McCain has certainly veered. But wouldn’t it have been cool to keep Ron Paul in the debates? Or even Bob Barr? It would really force the dialog onto the issues and away from tit-for-tat personal attacks.
What if, like in past elections, we weren’t as fortunate with our candidates? George Bush lost the popular vote, but won the election. I doubt this would’ve happened with Runoff Voting. We would have been spared the last eight excruciating years.
Why I Love Knee-Jerk News
Anyone who follows blogs and the cacophony of news over the Internet finds that stories are picked up and repeated ad naseum. Much of the news is filtered through biased writing and vociferous opinions. I love this stuff! To me, it’s more REAL than old-fashioned news. Ever since I was a kid I have been a little bothered by the sterile voice of newspapers and newscasters. You know the scenario. A coiffed head on TV announces in a bizarre monotone, a parody of itself, that “A three year old girl was murdered last night in the town of Hellville. Her mutilated body was discovered under a freeway overpass. Police are searching for her assailant.” All in monotone. My head would scream with the repugnant lack of emotion displayed by the newscaster while announcing horrifying stories. Why aren’t these people busting out crying when they read this? Aaaaack! They’re robots!
Nah, it’s called impartiality. While I appreciate fair and balanced reporting (at least I do up until the news people are so fair and balanced that they won’t call out McCain and Palin for lying twice as much as Obama, but that’s another post…), I’ve always felt that there was so much left unsaid. All the emotion missing. All the meaning left out. It’s like having a stranger drop a large rock in your lap. The immediate reaction being, “What the heck do you expect me to do with this?” Well, I love blogs and even funny news sites for the very reason that they help me to interpret the meaning of the news. They help me to cope and provide myriad options for how I might react. They help me to articulate my feelings about the news. I’m sure that long ago, back in the old days, you know maybe ten years ago, people actually talked about current events. These days we Tweet about it while updating the What Are You Doing Right Now dialog on Facebook. And while I miss the humans, it’s pretty cool to hear so many voices through the Web!
The down-side is that they are so many opinions and biases that we are becoming a nation that cannot distinguish truth from reality. Whenever someone wants to discount fact in favor of fiction, they just have to whip out the old chestnut, “It’s the biased media!” We’ve seen this is in spades with the McCain campaign, though I’m quite certain that I would hear a fearsome rebuttal to that point from all those members of the mysterious “base” who take forwarded emails as indisputable fact “because it says it’s true!” And to be fair, it’s always been difficult to eliminate bias since your source is generally tainted with some pressing need to tell their story. Your source is not a robot 
journalist, your source is a person with opinions. So the job now is to become savvy enough to recognize the truth from the spun fable. To discern the truth from the cacophony of sources distinguishing your position in relation to others. I love it. Generations from now (or maybe just a few years!) all of us, even “the base,” will have this down to a science.
Some Resources:
- For excellent and unbiased information plus analysis, read the Christian Science Monitor.
- To find out if that email someone forwarded you with all those “shocking truths” is real, check Snopes.com. Their mission is to debunk urban myth and fake news. Search for your story using key words. They are amazingly thorough.
- For maximum right-wing enjoyment with plenty of knee-jerk, check out Little Green Footballs.
- For maximum left-wing enjoyment, also plenty of knee-jerk, check out Huffington Post.
- For deluxe political humor, check out Wonkette.
List your favs in the comments!
How Big Firms Were Allowed to Leverage Debt to Assets at 33:1
A must read article from the New York Times explains how a little-known ruling in 2004 eliminated the requirement that large investment banks retain a reasonable amount of cash to cover losses.
Here’s an excerpt:
Many events in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere around the country have led to what has been called the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency’s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.
On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks.
They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.
The five investment banks led the charge, including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr. Two years later, he left to become Treasury secretary. [The fox guarding the hen house possibly?]
Still, nothing illegal happened. There’s no one to prosecute since they got permission. How scary is that???
On the topic of a dissenting view of the bailout, check out this awesome clip from Representative Kaptur from Ohio (Thanks The Soccer Mom Vote!) While I have argued that it was probably necessary to bail out the ultra-wealthy, I liked that Kaptur called out the Paulsen crew for the fear-mongering and obfuscation. Considering Paulsen was somewhat instrumental in CAUSING the meltdown. (see above!)
Go for the Cash! (Or Stay in for the Long Haul?)
Now that we’re all stock market investors with our 401Ks, mutual funds, and savings, we have to decide whether it’s a better idea to stay in the market for the next ten years and ride it out or get out now while there’s anything to get. (You know it’s bad when the word PLUNGE feels overused.) I read a blog post from a guy in Iceland who says people there are stockpiling food stuffs. Not so good! And really, I don’t know what the heck I’m talking about since I’m not one of the ruling elite, super ultra wealthy, 1% people. But here’s what I read today in the NY Times: A terribly weak argument about how you shouldn’t get out because if you do, you won’t know when to get back in and you’ll probably lose money as a result. The argument is backed by cumulative data from the last 30 years. (Ironic. Maybe they should’ve gone back farther.)
There are two gigantic things the article does not address:
- What if you don’t have thirty years to wait for your money to be worth anything? What if you only have five years? There is some break even point that we surely do not have magic-allseeing-crystal-ball access to, but I couldn’t wait. This is our family savings. If my husband lost his job in six months, we’d be up a creek. This is why we got out.
- Secondly, what no stock broker, money manager, or investment banker will tell you, is that if you “panic” and get out of the market, you will be contributing to bringing down the house of cards that the government is so desperately trying to prop up. Our system is based on using your capital as leverage. If you take away your capital, the system collapses. Just ask Iceland.
So it might be unAmerican or unCapitalist, or… dare I say it… bordering on SOCIALIST if you take your money out. It could be actually, for real, and without doubt inviting economic calamity. All I know is the money belongs to my family. I don’t want anyone else gambling with it anymore.
When beggars and shoeshine boys, barbers and beauticians can tell you how to get rich it is time to remind yourself that there is no more dangerous illusion than the belief that one can get something for nothing. ~Bernard Baruch, 1929.
McCain’s Ball and Chain (and it’s not Cindy)
If Sarah Palin (the woman I am absolutely TIRED of dissing, but who remains a candidate for VP) is a simpleton, a mere mouthpiece for the Republican Party, then I pity her. If Sarah Palin is an outrageous, deluded liar, then I fear her. Either way, she is the awful mistake the McCain campaign has to live with.
The Anchorage Daily News Editorial page spells out the best interpretation of Sarah Palin’s bizarre reaction to the recent report on Troopergate:
She claims the report “vindicates” her. She said that the investigation found “no unlawful or unethical activity on my part.”
Her response is either astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian.
Page 8, Finding Number One of the report says: “I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.” In plain English, she did something “unlawful.” She broke the state ethics law. Perhaps Gov. Palin has been too busy to actually read the Troopergate report. Perhaps she is relying on briefings from McCain campaign spinmeisters. [...] Palin’s response is the kind of political “big lie” that George Orwell warned against. War is peace. Black is white. Up is down.”
According to Newsweek, the Palin camp attempted to skirt the original Troopergate findings by appealing to the Alaska State Personnel Board for a separate investigation. Surprise! They’ve expanded the investigation to address several other complaints against Governor Palin.
Still sure you don’t want to swap out your VP pick, McCain?
We All Need Wiener Email. Even You!
Feeling trepidation and uncertainty over the current financial crisis? All this serious finance business and politics is no fun! So in an effort to have a good time, I scoured my spam folder to bring you this: the latest from my collection of funny wiener emails! I loooove wiener emails! And I know you do too, because it’s really a window into the soul of our culture. It’s evidence of our constant struggle to improve the species. And everyone knows you can achieve all your personal goal plus the goals of humanity in general by having a large organ!! Just ask Millie Peacock, because she is an expert and she emails me regularly to inform me that a larger cucumber is within my — er — grasp, so to speak, that even I can have a larger and bigger pole. By this I think she means Polish boyfriend because I am a woman afterall! So, without hesitation or trepidation please read on to learn how YOU can become like an African Bushman!
Who said spam was worthless and annoying?
-
-
About
Welcome to duh pookie where we work hard to bring you sparkly new thoughts.
-
- RSS Feed
-
Visit Political Voices of Women Community
