These two changes would be the best combination of two changes in our election system would be automatic run-offs AND any election not one on the first round of the run-off – that office holder can not run for that office the next term.

BENEFITs: this would provide features of term limits, encourage third parties, encourage participation even against stronge incombents. Also, will encourage candidates to attempt to respresent the broadest constituency possible. Would encourage broader news coverage of third party candidates — because it would make each election a potential point of significant change.

I agree that presidential electorial college needs to be on a congressional basis. This way a whole congressional districts choice would not be negated.

The real money is in touring, which is precisely why Clear Channel and others have been buying up venues.

I say, set a percentage limit on the amount of the major venue market that any one entity can control (I would prefer 10-15%) to allow for fairer competition among the various venues.

And legalize file-sharing. At (typically) no cost to the business or the artist/s, it is possible to, on occasion, expand a group’s popularity, which increases their touring revenue.

If album sales truly drop, so be it. Let innovation be encouraged rather than stifled. I would rather see a large number of artists making an upper-middle class income from touring, artists who succeeded on their own merits, than see a small number of mega-rich who appeal to focus groups in studies put together by executives that hardly listen to music.

(Very sloppy post, I know.)

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=257&row=0

Why is it that only he is reporting this????ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY IDEAS? Has anyone seen any reports anywhere with a little bit of truth behind it?

This is about the best we can hope for. The argument, (and somebody walked all around it, but didn’t state it plainly) is that much of the corruption in our government comes from high cost of elections. In order to get donations, favors are done. The idea is that by removing one of the highest costs of campaigning, and shifting that cost on to the people who lease the spectrum, works on the problem from two angles.

One, it means that one could run a successful campaign without having to spend vast amounts of money on advertising, and thus avoid having to bend over backwards and make promises for funding.

Two, it shows the people who are leasing the airwaves who really owns them. And frankly, they should thank us for providing such lucrative licences in the first place. The idea of removing such a large, revenue stream from an exploitive industry is merely icing on the cake.

So the power shifts away from those who can make $500,000 donations and lease vast portions of our media spectrum and back to those that own it. By the people, of the people, for the people. And holy crappin’ Jesus, that’s not Marxist propaganda, it’s the American Way of Life. Now IF I had said the Government should revoke all licenses and reserve the public airwaves for ‘only’ public good, then you red-scarer(s) might have something akin to an argument (and get a thought exercise on why communism failed so miserably). As it stands now and if you read what is on the page, anyone who raises this spectre gets a personalized map to the closest windmill, where they can chase away commie ghosts to their heart’s content.

Also, the ‘ultimate solution’ is something along the lines of a nation-wide wifi network with a ‘hand off the pipe’ clause written in stone. Information carriers would be that and only that. The vertical integration in the media business is right at the boiling point, and I’m not sure it is one of those things that can fix itself very easily (or even be fixed easily). It’s tough to fix something that tells 100,000,000 people a night ‘I’m not broken’.

Our national highway system offered an unprecedented freedom of movement throughout the country and stands as a symbol for such freedom. A real ‘information superhighway’ could offer the same thing to this and future generations.

One that would let us shoot the finger at mass market crap that keeps the lowest common denominator listening, and go find the stuff that keeps the rest of our simple little lives enjoyable. Anywhere within our national borders.

Not to mention the TREMENDOUS personal productivity gains that such a system allows. 5 minutes here doing the bills. 10 minutes there ordering goods. 25 minutes over there as I find the story I want in second and don’t have to wait for the next commercial break. These minutes add up to days and weeks over the course of years. This technology is very cheap (and becoming more so by the day) but the benefits it can provide are enormous. Think ‘Fire’ and the ‘Caveman’.

There’s your grail (although as we get closer to it, it would vanish like the rainbow it is, and the quest would begin again).

Not sure how I like the Justice Dept. stuff. Ashcroft has so colored the group that their name only says ‘hypocrisy’ to me. Although, if you break with Bush tradition and publish the transcripts of the meetings, it’s much harder to form conspiracy theories. 🙂

Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School who supports some antispam laws, says he objects to the do-not-spam registry in part because he thinks it would not be effective. In addition, he said that it offered users only a very crude yes or no choice about e-mail solicitations. His proposal instead would require commercial e-mail to be labeled clearly with the product being sold, allowing users to read offers only for the products that interest them.

“If it was labeled for mortgages you may want to read it but not if it was for Viagra,” he said.

The Bandwagon to Fight Spam Hits a Bump
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/11/technology/11SPAM.html?th=&pagewanted=all&position= />

Brian’s oh so constructive response-ROTFLMAO.

The implication being that you have knowledge of the Congressman having outright lied. Care to share it?

I am equally delighted that the idea of a new cabinet department – for peace – is an awakening idea for our country. These issues and others give me a reason to be interested in this candidate. Otherwise, it is way too much of the same old story – I would not feel represented pretty much about anything.

So, how can a candidate with such vitrues actually remain true to his values once in office? It seems that the pressures are so great and the powers so large once in office, that compromises end up being the only way to get anything accomplished.
what are your ideas about this?

thanks, Hyla Bolsta

–William Leggett, Evening Post, 1834