%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |    My primary Writing.com blog. |
|
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics). Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:  "The Soundtrackers Group"  "Blogging Circle of Friends " "Blog City ~ Every Blogger's Paradise" "JAFBG" "Take up Your Cross" Thanks for stopping by!  |
"JAFBG" | Prompt ▼ While I do understand and appreciate the power of collective action, I'm not one of those people who thinks that climate change can be combatted by individual households giving up single-use plastic drinking straws, or using reusable shopping bags only, or going vegan. I think meaningful change to climate policy is going to have to come from high-level changes from large corporations and governments. That, unfortunately, is an opinion that a whole lot of people use to justify doing nothing, so I'm going to still try to attempt to answer the question of what I individually would be willing to give up when I don't think it's necessarily individual choices that will make the most difference. The two biggest things I can think of giving up would be, depending on the consumer good, low prices and/or convenience. The meat industry is a great example of one where I don't think personal choices (individuals not eating meat) make much difference but the industry as a whole is a major contributor to climate change (not to mention animal cruelty) due to current production standards which emphasize a cheap product over anything else. I would be willing to pay significantly more for meat if it meant changing the industry in a way where meat production was sustainable, environmentally friendly, and cruelty-free. I'd also be open to consuming meat alternatives more often if it meant combatting climate change. If we were in a world where a hamburger cost $20 instead of $5, I would consider that a reasonable tradeoff for making that industry greener and more forward-thinking. I realize the "It's fine, I'll just pay more" rationale is one that comes from a place of great privilege though, so I would also be willing to give up my greatest resource (time) if it meant better climate outcomes. Earlier this month, I read a Wall Street Journal article by Life & Work reporter Rachel Wolfe entitled "I Rented an Electric Car for a Four-Day Road Trip. I Spent More Time Charging It Than I Did Sleeping ," which chronicled her drive from New Orleans to Chicago using an electric-only EV. Her big takeaway from that experience was that the EV was cheaper (she spent $175 on charging and would have spent an estimated $275 on gas with a traditional gas-powered vehicle), but the lack of EV charging infrastructure along the way meant that they spent a lot of time sitting around waiting for their car to charge.If I'm being completely honest, that's why the last car I bought (back in 2015) was a hybrid rather that a fully-electric EV. I was concerned that it would be a challenge to find charging stations and that would make the car impractical for long trips. I specifically drive from Orange County to Sacramento (a 500-mile drive) to visit family a few times a year, and the idea of stopping four or five times to charge the car for a couple hours at a time seems like a nightmare. That would turn a seven-ish hour drive into a literal all-day affair and, if you've ever been to central California, you know there's not a lot to see between Los Angeles and Sacramento!). But as climate change worsens and I see what little is being done about it, I really do think our next vehicle purchase will be an EV. Not just because battery technology and charging stations are getting better and better every year, but because - at this point - I'm prepared the take on the inconvenience of the EV charging grid if it means getting us farther away from our reliance on fossil fuels and the massive damage to the climate that the non-renewable energy industry is causing. |
Like a lot of people, I've been experiencing a lot of grief, anger, and frustration at what's been going on in our country over the last couple of weeks. And not just the wildly hypocritical decisions coming out of the increasingly politicized Supreme Court (we can tell state legislatures that they can't regulate guns but who are we to say that they can't regulate abortion?), but the fact that it seems like both sides of the aisle in state and federal governments seem oblivious to what everyday people are going through. One of our political parties seems to be increasingly hostile to generational concerns like income inequality and climate change and social justice, while the other seems to be weak and ineffectual whenever they do have the opportunity to make progress. I'm disillusioned with the system, but there has already been plenty of writing about current events. And as a financially comfortable white male in a progressive state, my opinions and perspectives aren't one that we need to be listening to right now. But I'm a writer, and the way I process the world around me is to write. So I thought it would be an interesting exercise to spend a little bit of time imagining what an effective system of government might look like. For this exercise, I'm going to take the three-branch governmental structure we currently have and pretend like I have the sole authority to modify it to my heart's content. If you're so inclined, give my fantasy government a read and let me know what you think! THE JUDICIAL BRANCH We'll start with the one that's been the most newsworthy lately. One of the biggest issues I have with the Supreme Court is how politicized it's become. I don't think anyone can seriously make a claim that this is a branch of government free from politics when every single vacancy itself has now become an openly political act. Lists of acceptable nominees by partisan organizations, vacancies held open (or rushed through) depending on which party is in power at the time, televised hearings packed with more drama than Court TV. The courts aren't impartial bodies anymore. One of the suggestions I really like on how to reform the Supreme Court was to take away the "celebrity" of SCOTUS justices, where so much is determined by the personalty and temperament of the individual justices. We could do that by expanding the Supreme Court (which is not the same thing as court packing, BTW) to include, say, all of the roughly 180 circuit court judges, with nine being "called up" to serve as SCOTUS justices on a decision-by-decision basis. So instead of the same nine people deciding every single legal decision that comes to the highest court, it's instead decided by a larger pool of judges and no one necessarily knows who will get assigned to what case. I'd also impose term limits on judges. Rather than lifetime appointments, I'd limit them to ten-year terms so that so much doesn't ride on who's in the White House at any given time; the entire judiciary in the above example (or even just the nine justices in SCOTUS' current form) would rotate out on a predicable schedule so every president had the opportunity to appoint the same number of vacancies (barring any deaths or retirements). I think both components above would have the effect of lowering the temperature on the winner-takes-all approach to nominating justices that we currently have, and all the politics surrounding who gets nominated and when. I think it would bring us back to a closer approximation of what this branch was intended to do, which is to make assessments on the specific legal merits of specific cases. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH Term limits here too. I think five terms for the House (ten years total) and two terms max (twelve years total) for the Senate. I get the benefits of experience and wanting good people to stay, but our system has repeatedly shown that it entrenches power and enriches individuals more than anything. If you want to stay in public service, find a new way to do it after a decade. I would also reform campaign finance so that it's publicly funded. Give each candidate in a race the same amount of money and the same media access, so that elections aren't decided by who can raise and spend the most, and so that elected officials don't have to spend so much of their time raising money for their next election. Let them focus on doing their job rather than keeping their job. I'd give representation to all major U.S. territories and jurisdictions: DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They're affected by things our legislature does, so they should have a voice in said legislature. And with regards to the Senate, in particular, I would abolish the filibuster for the simple reason that I don't think the minority party should be able to prevent the majority, on a consistent basis, from enacting legislation. The filibuster has basically ensured that nothing ever gets done and although abolishing it would probably create a pendulum effect with legislation being enacted by one party and repealed by another, let that process play out (and all of its resulting effects on future elections) rather than having a legislature that barely does anything because partisanship means almost never getting 60% of the senators to agree on anything substantive. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH Say goodbye to the Electoral College. It served a purpose, for a time, but in this day and age there's no reason why the popular vote shouldn't determine the outcome of an election, especially one as consequential as a Presidential election. If you're running for president and more people vote for you than your opponent, you should win regardless of which state your voters happen to live in. I would also codify all the norms into law. If the Trump presidency taught us anything, it's just how much of our expectations of the nation's chief executive are not actually a matter of law but just norms and best practices. Pass actual laws and assign criminal penalties to things like destroying presidential records, violating the Hatch Act, the peaceful transition of power, etc. OTHER RANDOM THINGS While I'm playing around with omnipotence, a few other odds and ends:  North Dakota and South Dakota are hereby a single state known simply as "Dakota." The two states combined have fewer people than the city of Phoenix, Arizona; they don't need four senators. In general, I think we need to look at the way our states (and territories, see above) are represented. The idea of an equal number of senators per state was a good idea at the time it was conceived, but I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined we would have a system where states like California (40 million residents) and Texas (30 million residents) have the exact same representation in the Senate as Wyoming (600,000 residents) and Vermont (650,000 residents). I would be fine with a more conservative-leaning judiciary if we could have a more progressive legislature. The idea of a legislature passing laws and reaching forward and pressing boundaries that are then guided and occasionally reigned in by a judiciary that is looking to temper extremism is a dynamic that would work better for progress as a whole, I think, than a conservative legislature who is trying to restrict progress, and an "activist" judiciary that's rebelling against that. Make laws that are then tempered by legal action, rather than taking legal action to push forward an issue that no one will agree to make a law about. Get rid of the debt ceiling and invest in this country again. There is very little economic research to support the idea that federal debt works in the same way as a household checkbook (a favorite comparison for many) or even state budget (which has to be balanced every year) works. With the obvious caveat that we shouldn't spend irresponsibly, we're too skittish about spending money in general, especially on things like new technology, infrastructure, education, etc. that will pay dividends later. If the federal deficit increases in the name of making meaningful, noticeable improvements to this country and the lives of its citizens, it's money well spent.Anyway, that's some random thoughts on things I think might start to improve our system of government and start making it work more in the interests of the people than in the interests of perpetuating the system that's already in power. I'm sure this will be a controversial blog post, so I'm interested to see who agrees, disagrees, and has other thoughts on what they'd like to see happen if they got to hold the omnipotence wand for a while. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
