rules of order – a rant

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Jun 4, 2012.

  1. Sydde macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2009
    The US, such a wonderful and amazing country. The founders had such incredible insight in the way they designed the constitution. Except, it was only a little different from the British Parliament. "Baby steps", I suppose, not all that amazing when you look at it.

    And here we are, at a pass. Nothing gets done (which in some ways might be a good thing) because we have sides that are always at odds. If congresscritter Zed wants to do a thing, he has a bunch of hurdles to jump over, which is as it should be, but if the opposition party does not like Zed's idea, it could be dead in the water. Some of Zed's ideas have merit, others are just silly or wasteful.

    In this polemic environment, how should the government deal with issues? If nothing can get done, one might even ask, "why bother?" More importantly, how might we fix the stalemate problem? Because, after all, Zed's proposal may have been truly unworthy, but if it were aimed at an important issue, the net result is stagnation, even decay, with respect to the given issue.

    Therefore, I would suggest that the legislative process be revised. Instead of semi-random
    proposals to fix what may or may not be important matters, the congress ought to begin by first identifying those matters (flowchart: is there a problem? Yes: seek a solution; no: move on), prioritizing them, then moving on them. Once a problem has been identified, a solution must be reached, no punting. It would be like turning the process inside out in order to make it work.

    I want to see certain things done. Other people want certain other things done. None of us will ever be satisfied, just ain't gonna happen. But to throw out all progress because we cannot get what we want is counter-productive. We can only get closer to our goals through compromise, which means we are still not satisfied, but maybe we have gotten a little bit of what we want.

    As it stands, we are a house divided, fighting when we should be working together. That is not the road to better lives for any of us (well, maybe a very few).
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000


    Feb 8, 2002
    Wealthy people do NOT buy crappy products. Mitt Romney probably doesn't wear a fossil watch or a Seiko. He probably has the best that money can buy.

    I say that because if you are wealthy, you don't send your kids to public school. You live in neighborhoods that are gated and guarded by private security companies, and served by fire departments that want for nothing.

    The rich pay for the best, and get the best.

    Which explains why they are desperate to reduce their taxes as much as possible. Why pay for something good for someone else?
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    So you're saying the country is being run by wealthy people who don't and won't compromise?

    Nah, that can't be it.
  4. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2009
    Maybe the "Coffee Party" got my attention. Or, perhaps that "No Labels" movement. Well intentioned forays into addressing the roots of our problems.

    I see a lot of commonality amongst people, more than I see differences. I could just have bad vision, or I could be looking in the wrong places, but it seems to me we could fix a lot of things if we worked toward that little flag in the middle of the rope instead of trying to pull the rope our way from either end. To me, what divides us seems petty and overblown compared to how similar, even identical, our real desires and goals are.

    For example, we argue about the mechanics of health care, but no one really looks at the greasy underside of the issue: why does it cost so much in the first place? There are a lot of vectors down there driving the cost of care and insurance through the roof, but we are busy arguing about how to pay for it, not how to deal with all the underlying issues. Perhaps that is because it is a greasy, dirty, smelly mess that would upset us too much.

    There probably are wealthy people shaping discussion and debate to their own sociopathic ends, but when one suggests such things, they are almost automatically labeled paranoid or a class warrior. Which, again, comes around to pettiness trumping dialogue. The signal-to-noise ratio is so bad right now, we cannot even hear ourselves think.

Share This Page