And the idealogue's in session

Three days from the big double bang. And has anything really changed?
Okay, I'll admit there is heavier security on planes, considering the recent scare with liquid products. However, does that really mean we're any safer than we were? Is it really a physical safety that a government can provide, or an ideological one?
Considering fiscal policy, physical resources are a limited resource. Ideas are a commodity you can hit the sky with and still have more. It's the physical resources in which our government of business has tapped, and unsuccessfully considering the movement of these "public" goods. This only highlights yet another argument in favor of privatization of such commodities, but then there would be less restrictions on how the goods get destributed. Is there an equilibrium?
I go back to the idea of ideas. Legal mandates are a pain in the ass, but they have good heart. Unfortunately, once they hit the legal part, politics takes over and strips it of it's best possibilities. This is a problem of which has been a problem for some time. These legal eagles have to try and fight for the fat, and the only way they can do it is through compromise (who would have thunk it with such a wide ideological gap now adays, well they say we're the most divided we've ever been...)
This is where the constituency can hold power. These poor humble representatives are only a handful of people dealing with a boat load of issues. They can't do it all alone. And no matter how intimidating it might seem to try and get in contact with them, they do work for us. We pay their salaries. We are the best possible resource they have - a backing. Sometimes fiscal, but people make a better change on ideas. Money can be efficient, but not in a public setting. It's actually a waste to spend some of this money - power may make it seem like it's being effective, but it's only for a few, and goes against the ideas of public goods. Public goods are meant for the many, not the few. This is why the taxes are being cut the way they are - the constituents who talk are the ones who have the financial interest to do so. I say we all have a financial interest - it's our money being squandered on inefficient public programs! If there's going to have to be fights in congress over how power is to be lobbied, there needs to be better "representation." Now, I put the word in quotes, because then this is where the heavy ideas of - well, isn't that what our senators and representatives are supposed to be - or even the lobbiests? Yes, and no. Something left to stagnate too long becomes ineffective or pompous. Yet in the case of the house of representatives, something that only has so much time has to make good on what they pass. They have a better chance of listening to what their constituents want because they have a somewhat smaller base, but primarily because they want to get re-elected. Senators kind of listen, but they mainly have a bigger constituency. How often do you think Bush gets time to look at the polls?
Problems are meant to be squawked about.