Still too hot

[itsallovernow]

First of all, Happy Birthday to veritykindle!! Katya, may the year bring you everything you've hoped for!!

The furniture out the window action seems to have stopped, but there's a pile of rubble in front of my window that goes up past the sill. It's quite a sight to see. The cats have recovered, although M. says they were freaky and trippy all day.

Hoping to get back to new writing today or tomorrow. Editing and rewriting have been first on the agenda, and I'm enjoying a lot of it. Have added a slew of new scenes, and took care of one vaguish plot point.

Saying that, I've discovered what a populist I am. (This is relevant:) as I'm writing a population pissed off at its monarch, looking for a local folk hero, one of them:)

I'm with Vimes. No Kings!! It's the sense of one person having authority over a people, it just makes my skin crawl. The absolute lack of checks on power.

Hmmm, have I discovered my probelm with our current administration? Perhaps. Apparently blogs are now going to be watched by the intelligence communities (not all, but you know, those fiesty ones, politically themed or socially relevant). I'm guessing I'm pretty safe, but it does kinda make me want to be reactionary. Just 'cause:) Well, not just because, but it's almost a dare, you know?

Our system is problematic, and it frequently pisses me off, but I am definitely a supporter of a government guided by the voices of the people. And no, I'm not giggling as I write this.

Comments

[veritykindle.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I'm with Vimes. No Kings!! It's the sense of one person having authority over a people, it just makes my skin crawl. The absolute lack of checks on power.

Absolute power = bad

But... I admit that have some problems with the system as it is here, too.

I guess my biggest problem currently is that the way the system stands, it's nearly impossible to make any long-term plans. At the absolute best, any American leader can only plan about 8 years ahead, and in reality, it's really no longer than 4, because anything that a president starts in their first term that makes things temporarily worse in the short run, or even anything that doesn't get *immediate* results, would probably get them voted out of office. (Unless, of course, they are Bush, who apparently can get away with anything he tries. :( )

And any time a president changes, we run the risk of getting a new president that would immediately start reversing everything that the old president did. (Like, say, Bush with Clinton. :( ) How can *anyone* accomplish anything long-lasting in such conditions?

(My biggest pet peeve currently is the American health care, where I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way to solve things would be to have a massive overhaul of the system. But no matter how good the eventual goal, that would make things *much* worse in the short run. So people are attempting to handle individual symptoms instead of fixing the underlying problem, which makes the bureaucracy more and more bloated and barely solves anything...)

I don't think an absolute ruler is the answer, but maybe there is a way to have a government that doesn't have to change almost completely pretty much every 4 years?

(Of course, on the plus side, when you have a *bad* president, you can rest a lot easier knowing that he will have at most 8 years in which to ruin your country... The real question is what out goal should be -- minimizing the damage from a bad leader, or actually letting a good leader get something done? But of course, if our goal is to minimize the damage, I think term limits should be even shorter than they currently are. As Bush has shown us, one can do *plenty* of damage in 4 years. It's actually doing something constructive that's hard...)

I personally think I could be convinced to have something like a constitutional monarchy -- one person in charge for a longer period of time, but subject to law and with a *lot* of checks and balances. That is, of course, provided that it's the right person, which is always the big issue. (Like, say, Lord Vetinari, for example. Hey, it's not like *he* was chosen democratically, either, was he?) But then again, as we have all seen, a Democracy doesn't guarantee you the right person, either, does it...

I don't know if there is a perfect government system. Every government system has its own problems and can be potentially exploited. And the problem is that the people who rise to the top are usually the people who are most interested in exploiting it for their own ends...

How about we go back to the Greek system and choose our government officials by drawing lots? ;)

Er, sorry. I didn't mean to rant on your LJ. I guess this has been bothering me for a while... I'll shut up now. :)

And again, thank you so much for your kind words. :)

[rubberneck.livejournal.com]

*Gives you big birthday hugs!*

[veritykindle.livejournal.com]

*hugs back* Thank you!

And very, very belated birthday hugs to you, too! :)

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Hee - no problem, always happy to hear from you, in whatever context.

And I heartily agree with the fact that there are serious, major problems that need to be fixed. It's not a perfect system by any means.

I definitely understand the frustration with the term limits leading to shortsightedness (they came about after Roosevelt and the country's fear of a dictatorial government). I guess ideally one hopes that the leader will be looking out for the best interests of the people and not for ways to further their individual careers or agendas.

Hamilton wanted a president for life, and the orignial founders wanted there to be no leader, and somewhere along the way we've ended up with the two term precedent and the chaos that can accompany that.

(My biggest pet peeve currently is the American health care, where I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way to solve things would be to have a massive overhaul of the system. But no matter how good the eventual goal, that would make things *much* worse in the short run. So people are attempting to handle individual symptoms instead of fixing the underlying problem, which makes the bureaucracy more and more bloated and barely solves anything...)

This I agree with completely!!

Ideally, a leader would be planning the things that would be set in motion that would have long lasting consequences, and I'd say that we've done that in the past. Universal suffrage and civil rights legislation, and amendments to the constitution which shouldn't be taken lightly, and I think probably shouldn't be used to say what can't be done, and I do think it's possible for a two term president to make lasting change, as long as he or she is invested in the responsability and not the power trip:)

[veritykindle.livejournal.com]

I guess ideally one hopes that the leader will be looking out for the best interests of the people and not for ways to further their individual careers or agendas.

Well, yes, but in that case, why not have that leader in office for longer? I would have no problem with a monarchy if a leader like that were in charge. (Especially if this leader was also smart enough to choose good, qualified advisors for himself as well -- good intentions are not always enough to lead a country.)

And yes, it does feel very strange for me to be arguing against term limits when one of my dearest wishes is to get our current "leader" out of office. It's just... If we do get a good leader, it seems like such a waste to lose them so quickly. Good leaders are so hard to find.

(Heh. Maybe I'm still bitter over the fact that for all his problems, I think Clinton would have had *no* problem getting re-elected for a third term against Bush. :( )

Ideally, a leader would be planning the things that would be set in motion that would have long lasting consequences, and I'd say that we've done that in the past. Universal suffrage and civil rights legislation, and amendments to the constitution which shouldn't be taken lightly, and I think probably shouldn't be used to say what can't be done, and I do think it's possible for a two term president to make lasting change, as long as he or she is invested in the responsibility and not the power trip:)

Heh. Well, I would argue that most, if not all of those changes were made *before* term limits. But I guess most of them were still made by presidents who were in office less than eight years, so my argument doesn't really hold water.

And I admit that some long-lasting changes can be made even in two terms. (And certainly, considering current events, I'm just as glad that constitutional amendments are so hard to pass.) But some changes, like fixing the aforementioned health care, or dealing with bureaucracy in general, are pretty much impossible to make.

And the other problem is, that after watching several elections in this country, it seems to me that the current system actually favors people who are on power trips. It's a race to see who can best manipulate the system, rather than a race to see who would be the best leader.

And at the very least, I'm still in favor of a preliminary test for presidential candidates before anyone can vote for them in the election. The people should only vote for people who are *qualified* to be president. No one without at least a basic understanding of the issues (both foreign policy and domestic) need apply.

Have you ever read the "Assassin" and "Fool" series by Robin Hobb? I have just recently read them for the first time, and I was fascinated by her idea of a leader as "Sacrifice" for his or her people -- the ultimate servant, rather than the ultimate ruler...

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but in that case, why not have that leader in office for longer? I would have no problem with a monarchy if a leader like that were in charge. (Especially if this leader was also smart enough to choose good, qualified advisors for himself as well -- good intentions are not always enough to lead a country.)

For me, at least, an open term of leadership brings with it such potential for abuse of power. A monarch isn't answerable to anyone but him/herself, and I think that's my largest problem with a monarchy, constitutional or not. Having one person responsible for an entire lifetime's worth of decisions is just kind of terrifying to me.

The idea behind the parties, behind our bicameral legislation is that it is the congress that effects change. The president is the one guiding that change through, sheperding if you will, instead of creating policy. It's why there aren't term limits for most congressional seats.

And the other problem is, that after watching several elections in this country, it seems to me that the current system actually favors people who are on power trips. It's a race to see who can best manipulate the system, rather than a race to see who would be the best leader.

I'd certainly agree that the last election (and the proceedings for the upcoming election) haven't done much to dispell that notion.

And at the very least, I'm still in favor of a preliminary test for presidential candidates before anyone can vote for them in the election. The people should only vote for people who are *qualified* to be president. No one without at least a basic understanding of the issues (both foreign policy and domestic) need apply.

But voting is the test. We have guidelines. To run for president, one needs to be a citizen of this country and 35 years or older, and not a felon:) It is up to the people to decide if he or she is qualified to lead the country!! So, in essence, we have no one, and nothing to blame except for complacency and acceptance for our current political system.

BTW - haven't read the books, but am very interested. They soud fascinating.

[veritykindle.livejournal.com]

For me, at least, an open term of leadership brings with it such potential for abuse of power. A monarch isn't answerable to anyone but him/herself, and I think that's my largest problem with a monarchy, constitutional or not.

Well, a *monarch* might not be answerable to anybody, but a president is, no matter the length of his term in office. I really like the system of checks and balances we have in this country -- each of the branches keeping the others in check. That wouldn't change if we drop the two-term limit, would it? The President would still be answerable to the people and Congress and the courts. He just would have the potential to serve in office for a longer period of time.

But it occurs to me that I'm being too negative here. Don't listen to me -- I'm just so bitter about this whole election (and the last election) that it's coloring my mood about the whole system of government. I just... it's not just Bush winning the last election, or Bush still having such a high approval rating after everything he has done in office -- I still can't figure out how Gore got the Democratic nomination over Bradley, any more than I can figure out how Schwarzeneger could win as governor last year, or how *Kerry* could have won the Democratic nomination this year, over all the other candidates who looked so much more qualified to me. :(

I guess I'm just a bitter cynic. Don't listen to me. -- I don't know what I'm talking about. :)

But voting is the test.

But... But... it's not testing the right things! The skills you need to campaign successfully are *not* the same skills you need to run a country. :( We need a president who can fix this mess we have gotten ourselves into, not just someone who is best at telling us what we want to hear.

BTW - haven't read the books, but am very interested. They soud fascinating.

Heh. Well, I really liked them, in any case. I really don't know why Robin Hobb is not more famous. That series was *easily* as good as Bujold's Curse of Challion books. (Although I think the Miles Vorkosigan books in their prime were still better.)

I came across Robin Hobb's books quite by accident a few weeks ago, when I was looking at ebooks to download for my PDA. They got really high ratings, so I figured I'd try them out, but I wasn't expecting very much. From the desctiptions, it looked like just another one of the fantasy series I read by the dozen when I just want some mostly mindless entertainment. :)

But then I opened the first book, and from the first line on, I just couldn't. Stop. Reading. I stayed up half the night for *two weeks* trying to finish those books, because I just had to know what would happen next. At some points, I got so desperate that I would sneak away at *work* and read a little bit, just so I could find a better stopping place. And then I would read for longer than I expected, because I just couldn't *find* a good stopping place. I *always* wanted to know what would happen next.

Seriously, I don't remember the last time I've been this engrossed in a book. Part of the reason I disappeared from LJ in the past few weeks was because I just had to finish those books, and there are only so many hours in a day. *g*

I don't mean to imply that these books are perfect, of course. I think the author gets carried away with the limited first person POV sometimes. And really, the books are full of fantasy cliches, for all that they do a very good job of handling those cliches with grace. But damn, the author had to have done *something* right, to make me so desperate to keep reading those books. :)

So, um... Yeah, I would definitely recommend these books, if only for that. :)

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm just a bitter cynic. Don't listen to me. -- I don't know what I'm talking about. :)

You absolutely know what you're talking about !! And I'd say, given the state of our current political climate, also have a right to be cynical about it!

I think Kerry is getting the nomination because people thought he had a better chance of winning than the other candidates, and we got Arnold because people wanted change, and Gore got the nomination last time because he was endorsed by the leader of the party, and you're right. None of those things makes any of these people the best potential leader, or candidate, or most qualified person to run a country.

The only solution to this is to do things like supporting Dean (not that I didn't have problems with Dean), or other candidates working outside of the current system, rallying and shouting and working for change. And that's something I truly believe in.

Interestingly enough, the two term thing was unofficially considered the norm before we made a law limit the presidential term (and many people think that term limits are unconsitutional. That they violate the people's right to choose their representative. I'm very anti-term limit for congress, but surprisingly supportive of it for the Presidential office. In part, I think the responsability changes people. I'm not sure what leader would have the stamina to be in office for more than 8 years, but I do sort of lean towards the unoffical two term concept, as opposed to the constitutionally mandated one because then the option is open, and it's not, serve for two years, campaign for two).

I'll definitely look for those books!! Thanks for the recc!

Hope you had a lovely birthday, hon!

[operalover.livejournal.com]

I read a recent review of an old Robert Heinlein novel in which he proposed a society where the entire populace had to vote whether to go to war. If you voted yes, then you were the first to be enlisted, trained, and sent to fight. His ideas of government changed dramatically throughout his life, and they provide interesting food for thought!

I'm in agreement with you.

[operalover.livejournal.com]

(My biggest pet peeve currently is the American health care, where I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way to solve things would be to have a massive overhaul of the system. But no matter how good the eventual goal, that would make things *much* worse in the short run. So people are attempting to handle individual symptoms instead of fixing the underlying problem, which makes the bureaucracy more and more bloated and barely solves anything...)

To me (working in healthcare for more than 25 years), a main cause of the complete dysfunction of this system is that way too many people make a profit from the illness of others. We have a pharmaceutical industry that is more interested in shareholder earnings than in providing people with the medicines they need at a price they can afford. They say they need the profits to reinvest in research, however, they spend more in advertising than R&D -- and, I believe we are the only country in the world that allows ads for prescription only medications. And then, most of the HMOs and health insurance companies, are also public profit-making organizations - where the important thing is to cut costs (benefits to enrollees) to make shareholder earnings go up. The system is so screwed. I have been hoping for universal health insurance in the US for decades. I have come to realize it will never happen because too many people make way too much money off the current system.

By the way, just for the record, the Medicare program, which Bush wants to privatize, has fewer administrative costs and more benefits to the enrollees than any private insurer. It is incredibly well run (if frustrating) and should be expanded to include others rather than trying to split it off into the profit minded private sector.

I am so sorry for this rant. Thanks for the opportunity!

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Political and social ranting are always welcome!! Even if you disagree with me:)

[elliejane.livejournal.com]

Well, as is apprpopriate with my level of brain power at the moment I am skipping entirely past the Deep and Serious (tm) discussion, and saying congrat that the throwing things out of the window phase has passed! Cats are fairly superior beings, hopefuly the trauma will pass.

Glad you are writing - you writing is a GOOD THING. I really, really want to write but am having a problem actually getting started! I have this thing all plotted in my head, and I think my subconcious is worried it won't actually work correctly when its on paper. Have realised that doing My John meme type stuff, was my subconciousness' was of avoiding the subject of serious writing! Sighs....

Ah well - while I'm here, can I ask - are My John type memes considered postable at Kansas in UR, do you know/think? Not fic I know, and I don't think I've seen any there before. But I'm a feedback junkie, plus I'd love to see how others relate to my way of seeing my John. Thanks for checking him out btw!! Good to know that at least parts of my view gel with some others! Also, maybe if I post him in Kansas, more folks will do the meme?!! ~snerk~

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Cats are fairly superior beings, hopefuly the trauma will pass. It's true, and they seemed to be fully recovered by the time I got home.

Glad you are writing - you writing is a GOOD THING. I really, really want to write but am having a problem actually getting started! I have this thing all plotted in my head, and I think my subconcious is worried it won't actually work correctly when its on paper.

First of all, thanks so much. And second, I understand being stuck, and my only advice is to write anyway, even if it's only in dribs and drabs. Once you start writing, the plot tends to work itself out:)

Ah well - while I'm here, can I ask - are My John type memes considered postable at Kansas in UR, do you know/think?

This I don't know. You'd have to ask the mods, but I'm sure they'd happily consider it:)

And in case you were still interested, here is My Aeryn post.

[elliejane.livejournal.com]

Ooh, thank you thank you! I meant to ask, did you know when your Aeryn was, but went a-looking first. I think that particular entry was the only one I hadn't checked!!

Used to think of herself as a weapon first, as Aeryn second.
Is pleased with this.
Loves the sound and feel of the Prowler, loves it more when she makes it better.
Has always known how to laugh, how to be proud, how to fight, how to frell and how to fly.

I do think you see, that Aeryn wasn't unhappy before. She may have become 'more', but I think maybe she just thinks she's become different. Because being 'more' entails so much hardship (guilt, love, regret et al), that perhaps being 'less' was a happier place to be. A simpler way of life. Painful, yes, at times, but requiring less of her self, than she is asked for now.

I have started writing! I actually followed your advice before you give it, lol, having come to the conclusion that just putting any old words on the page, would start 'something'. And I have started and am making tiny amounts of progress, so yay me!

Aha, good idea I'll ask the mods. :)

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

I do think you see, that Aeryn wasn't unhappy before.

I don't think Aeryn was unhappy before, any more than I think John saved her from that life. He forced change upon her certainly, but she's the one who embraced it, who struggled to understand it. I think she developed, grew, but I don't think she was particularly unhappy, maybe more vaguely dissastified, maybe just focused and ambitious, definitely simpler!

And congratulations on writing!! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with!