Who or what has said that we should have a two party system? Why not 3 or 1 or 10, or none? How would we achieve a viable method of including the voices of all ‘parties’ in the decision making/problem solving system? Why ‘parties’ at all. Why not individuals? Had the idea of political parties, arisen in the context of constraints possessed by some particular social order in the past, or some education or communication deficiencies
present in the past, but no longer constraints? President Washington question the concept of political parties during that very first term. Political parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution. Why not individuals with NO organizations promoting them, just individuals running on their own merits, experiences, and ideas? How could we NOW provide for the learning and understanding about those individuals by their constituents? If we insist on a 2 party system, why not provide equal voice for each party in the problem solving, decision making process? When voting and elections often separate different individuals or parties by only a few percentage points, why should not the idea of the lesser achieving individual NOT be presented, heard, or considered in the decision making process, decision making bodies, or within the greater public forum? Nearly half of the ideas of the populace are being hidden, or ignored, and not considered. Is that to suggest that nearly half of the people at any one time are not worthy of having their ideas made available and understandable and considered? Seldom if ever does an elected representative have a mandate of all.
If we insist on a 2 party system, why not have the constituency of each political party elect one individual who then would sit beside the other individual in the deliberative bodies of the senate and/or house, and collegially work together to come up with ideas and action plans for solutions to the problems we/they face? Are the possible solutions to problems always dichotomies? Do we consider ourselves individually infallible and fountains of truth and possessing all necessary knowledge to make decisions independently? Would not the ideas of others, and their experiences synergistically contribute to alternate solutions or ideas? Are we not attempting to work toward some mutual benefit? That however brings up the question as to what is considered a benefit. When determining benefits, what is the projected time frame over which the benefit is to be achieved, and what is the time we expect the benefit is to last in to the future? Are we looking only for time periods of an elected official, the employment period of a CEO, a single generation, or multiple generations?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
The role of journalism in a socieity is integral to that society's functioning. Knowledge is essential to decision making and good journalism can provide that knowledge. Good journalism not only reports events and the actions and thoughts of groups or individuals, but also poses the questions why and how behind those events, actions and thoughts. Editorial may provide some 'opinions' to those questions however other 'citizen journalists' will search out the whys and hows. Like those things that are essential to 'life', profit should not be associated with the provision of the products of journalism. I have often considred radio and video journalism candidates for federal subsidy, but until viewing the PBS NOW program January 15th, 2010,had not considered print journalsim. Funny how we so often exhibit such 'tunnel vision'. As a middle school teacher I have seen a continual decline in the asking of the questions why and how when viewing the 'events' of the day. Journalism translates to most people as 'news' what has happened, not why it has happened, nor asking what is at the root of what has happened.