Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
I would like a little editorial feetback with this one Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

    I am composing a letter to the editor which I want to get right. Any help would be appreciated.

    "J'accuse"

    An open letter to the US Congress

    Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen of the US Congress

    It is my understanding that the founding fathers envisioned Congress as a law making body peopled with elected representatives (either by popular vote-Congress, or state legislature-Senate) who personified a spirit of Pro Bono.
    It is my observation that this body politic has gradually, over the decades, lost it's compass.
    Most children learn the habit of cooperation at an early age. Those who don't suffer the rest of their lives for being unable to get along.
    In the legislative arena this habit of cooperation boils down to a very simple concept best expressed by the Hegelian Dialectic, ie:thesis+antithesis=synthesis.
    On the contrary, what we have in the halls of Congress is something akin to thesis+antithesis=paralysis.
    For the survival of this great nation this has to stop.
    You have to realize, for example, that only getting 40% of what you want, and giving the opposition a like percentage of what they want is progress not defeat.
    Like I said above, children understand this, so why can't you.
    Respectively,
    A deeply troubled citizen

  • #2
    Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

    I agree with the objective of your letter to the editor, but I think the lines:

    "In the legislative arena this habit of cooperation boils down to a very simple concept best expressed by the Hegelian Dialectic, ie:thesis+antithesis=synthesis.
    On the contrary, what we have in the halls of Congress is something akin to thesis+antithesis=paralysis."

    Probably my lack of intellect, but the "Heglian Dialectic" might be a bit vague/unknown and thus sort of a "what" moment for many readers.

    As a note of personal perception, I liken the obstructionist that may be prompting your letter as an effort to overthrow or at least undermine the duly-elected executive (the Presidency). It would be one thing to disagree and to offer alternative and compromise to accomplish the task; but it has unfortunately made several very public statements that it's objective is to stop the elected Presidency and to eliminate him from office

    It is one thing to state "problems", and then to set forth as a representative body to work those problems out... it is something else entirely to openly state and then act to obstruct an elected branch of government and to plot to ensure the President's elimination from office through deceit and innuendo.

    That is directly contrary to the responsibilities of a representative government and the reason they were voted into office. The members of the House and the Senate are there to support ALL of the people, not just those that contribute to their re-election. Hence, you have the "paralyse" that you describe. Basically it is "treason" to the electorate and it appears that they are blatantly ignorant in their disrespect for their constituents.

    CWS

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

      Plumbus, I thanked you for the effort, but like many letters I have submitted, your letter is an excercise in futility. Lobbyists, and other special interest power players have helped corrupt our elected officials. The problems with our national debt, unemployment, entitlements and all the rest, are in my opinion the result of something much worse than simple bad decisions. If the welfare of the United States was job one, we would not be in all these serious predictaments! Measures would have been put in place to prevent the hemmoraging of jobs over the last forty or so years, there would have been oversight regarding entitlements, there would have been mandatory balanced budgets and so much more! I think we are being naive to think that at this late date our legislators will suddenly act in the best interest of their constituents and the country. Submit your letter and vent your upset, but please don't think it will change anything. Frank
      Last edited by Frankiarmz; 11-04-2012, 07:38 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

        Originally posted by CWSmith View Post
        I agree with the objective of your letter to the editor, but I think the lines:

        "In the legislative arena this habit of cooperation boils down to a very simple concept best expressed by the Hegelian Dialectic, ie:thesis+antithesis=synthesis.
        On the contrary, what we have in the halls of Congress is something akin to thesis+antithesis=paralysis."

        Probably my lack of intellect, but the "Heglian Dialectic" might be a bit vague/unknown and thus sort of a "what" moment for many readers.

        As a note of personal perception, I liken the obstructionist that may be prompting your letter as an effort to overthrow or at least undermine the duly-elected executive (the Presidency). It would be one thing to disagree and to offer alternative and compromise to accomplish the task; but it has unfortunately made several very public statements that it's objective is to stop the elected Presidency and to eliminate him from office

        It is one thing to state "problems", and then to set forth as a representative body to work those problems out... it is something else entirely to openly state and then act to obstruct an elected branch of government and to plot to ensure the President's elimination from office through deceit and innuendo.

        That is directly contrary to the responsibilities of a representative government and the reason they were voted into office. The members of the House and the Senate are there to support ALL of the people, not just those that contribute to their re-election. Hence, you have the "paralyse" that you describe. Basically it is "treason" to the electorate and it appears that they are blatantly ignorant in their disrespect for their constituents.

        CWS

        CW
        You make politics sound like some kind of plot. I agree that party politics is the problem. But, I see it as individuals using a system intended to govern to better their position vis-a-vis other individuals, with a little added third party influence peddling going on behind closed doors. If we can just embarrass them into seeing the error of their ways and to stop thinking about their own bottom line, we may get something of substance out of them. Taken as individuals, they are anything but stupid, just misguided.
        As for Hegel, I'm not addressing my fellow citizens. I'm addressing an assembly that has or should have had some exposure to the great thinkers of the past (see above comment). Since Hegel's theorem is actually easy to understand and defines the optimal process to a tee, I don't think it's use is inappropriate.

        Here's draft two:

        "J'accuse"

        An open letter to the US Congress

        Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen of the US Congress,
        "J'accuse" you of not having the sense God gives little geese.

        It is my understanding that the founding fathers envisioned Congress as a law making body peopled with elected representatives (either by popular vote-Congress, or state legislature-Senate) who personified a spirit of Pro Bono.
        It is my observation that this body politic has gradually, over the decades, lost it's compass.
        Most children learn the habit of cooperation at an early age. Those who don't, suffer the rest of their lives for being unable to get along.
        In the legislative arena this habit of cooperation boils down to a very simple concept best expressed by the Hegelian Dialectic, ie:thesis+antithesis=synthesis.
        On the contrary, what we have in the halls of Congress is something akin to thesis+antithesis=paralysis.
        For the survival of this great nation this has to stop.
        You have to realize, for example, that only getting 40% of what you want, and giving the opposition a like percentage of what they want is progress, not defeat.
        Like I said above, children (and geese) understand this, so why can't you.

        Respectively,
        A deeply troubled citizen

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

          Common sense, cooperation and politics don't mix very well.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

            Mr. Smith got me to thinking. I think my approach will not work.
            A direct appeal to Congress from one individual hasn't got a chance of being heard.
            However, an appeal to the people of the United States in the form of a petition, might at least get the attention of our legislators.
            So, with that in mind I go back to the drawing board.
            Hopefully, I'll have a little time next weekend to compose something which I can post for your honest comments, and suggestions.
            In the mean time, we have an election which I'm sure will bring some surprises.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

              You guys do realize that the founders developed our system to have gridlock, and not to be streamlined right? The idea was that with all the checks and balances with the separation of powers, laws were not suppose to be easy to pass. It created a complex system that was suppose to keep the government control to a minimum. Somewhere we lost that and they run over us creating law after law, regulation after regulation... freedom died a long time ago sadly...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

                Originally posted by Plumbus View Post
                CW
                You make politics sound like some kind of plot.

                Well Plumbus, I certainly didn't always think that way. As a registered Republican from 1964 to present, and voting pretty much Republican up until 2000, I would fairly think that the both parties pretty much worked together toward a common goal. They certainly did not always agree, but there was at least a concept pushed, perhaps falsly sometimes, that they had the best interest of the country and its people in mind.

                But, when you get the Republican leadership openly state that their primary objective is to get the duly elected President out of office and then openly obstruct all major legislation (even that which they previously agreed upon), and do it in a very well orchastrated manner, then that is something else indeed! And since they meet and discuss and organize to that objective... well I owuld think by any definition then that is indeed a "plot".

                I do not vote for political party, or for individuals based on some pundits advice... I vote on knowledge of history, action, and understanding of events.

                Good luck with your letter,

                CWS

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

                  Originally posted by CWSmith View Post
                  I do not vote for political party, or for individuals based on some pundits advice... I vote on knowledge of history, action, and understanding of events.
                  CWS
                  Ditto! Or at least I try to do so.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I would like a little editorial feetback with this one

                    Originally posted by CWSmith View Post
                    Well Plumbus, I certainly didn't always think that way. As a registered Republican from 1964 to present, and voting pretty much Republican up until 2000, I would fairly think that the both parties pretty much worked together toward a common goal. They certainly did not always agree, but there was at least a concept pushed, perhaps falsly sometimes, that they had the best interest of the country and its people in mind.

                    But, when you get the Republican leadership openly state that their primary objective is to get the duly elected President out of office and then openly obstruct all major legislation (even that which they previously agreed upon), and do it in a very well orchastrated manner, then that is something else indeed! And since they meet and discuss and organize to that objective... well I owuld think by any definition then that is indeed a "plot".

                    I do not vote for political party, or for individuals based on some pundits advice... I vote on knowledge of history, action, and understanding of events.

                    Good luck with your letter,

                    CWS
                    Considering the President and democratic controlled congress wasted precious time to pass a healthcare law which is a new tax for the middle class, I can see some justification for the plot. Instead of encouraging oil exploration, new refineries, "clean burning coal" and the expansion of natural gas alternatives, we got grand speeches on alternative energy and massive misuse of taxpayer funds to Obama campaign contributors. The republicans may have been a thorne in the President's side, but he has been a major disappointment and liability for the middle class in my opinion.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X