3 ms·

Yes, yes, yes on everything you said. Thankfully we still do have the ability to move the rudder and change or correct direction. As you said, it can be slow b

Yes, yes, yes on everything you said. Thankfully we still do have the ability to move the rudder and change or correct direction. As you said, it can be slow but it does work. Another thought that is interesting is the idea that all legislation ought to be passed with an expiration date. This ensures that laws --and the ideas they represent-- will be re-evaluated every n years. This approach would be one step towards preventing politicians from making decisions that will affect generations to come. Of course, some legislation needs to become the law of the land forever (civil rights stuff). Still, laws ought to be passed with fully justified and debated expiration dates. If something needs to be "forever" and it is justified, then the expiration date is "never". Most anything else might not pass the "forever" test.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
I could certainly support that. I have suggested to all the folks I've talked with and supported for election that they consider taking a pledge to remove one law per quarter and that would win my vote for re-election. I nearly ran for congress in 2010, it is still on my list of things to do. The only thing that stopped me that time was figuring out the dynamics was taking longer than I had. I no interest in offering just a random name on the ballot and putting together something of a platform took longer than I expected. In some ways I chickened out when it came to sending the FEC money. My reasoning was the paperwork burden I was about to incur vs that possible outcomes. At the time I was going to run as a Republican although the California party had already said that my views on Gay marriage (for) and abortion (pro choice) made me "unsuitable" for their support. Too late to create a 'new' party, and unlikely to make it through the primaries as an "off" ticket, didn't bode well. Instead I used the time to try to learn more about the underlying processes. Starting out targeting congress is a pretty low percentage move unless you're a Kennedy. :-)

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I could certainly support that. I have suggested to all the folks I've talked with and supported for election that they consider taking a pledge to remove one law per quarter and that would win my vote for re-election. I nearly ran for congress in 2010, it is still on my list of things to do. The only thing that stopped me that time was figuring out the dynamics was taking longer than I had. I no interest in offering just a random name on the ballot and putting together something of a platform took longer than I expected. In some ways I chickened out when it came to sending the FEC money. My reasoning was the paperwork burden I was about to incur vs that possible outcomes. At the time I was going to run as a Republican although the California party had already said that my views on Gay marriage (for) and abortion (pro choice) made me "unsuitable" for their support. Too late to create a 'new' party, and unlikely to make it through the primaries as an "off" ticket, didn't bode well. Instead I used the time to try to learn more about the underlying processes. Starting out targeting congress is a pretty low percentage move unless you're a Kennedy. :-)