Change is good, change is inevitable, change is strange

As I sit cross-training for my job, I muse on the implications of change in my life.

Within the last couple of years, there have been several deaths in my circle of friends....
Within the last couple of years, there have been the dissolution of some publications that I used to read
Within the last couple of years, the cost of living has gone up and up, and yet my take home funds have gone down and down.
Within the last couple of years, there have been some medical issues that have arisen in my family for literally all members of my immediate family.
Within the last couple of years, some businesses that I supported when I could have gone into bankruptcy.
Within the last couple of years, the technology I felt was underutilized has now become commonplace.
Within the last couple of years, the friends that I had around have faded into their own lives, where we only read about each other on FB.


And yet . . .

Within the last couple of years, I've learned more about myself and now understood scenarios that played out in my life that I didn't understand at the time.
Within the last couple of years, I've discovered other pursuits that could not be enjoyed when life moved faster for me.
Within the last couple of years, I've rediscovered my enjoyment of reading, and the appreciation for the written and spoken word.
Within the last couple of years, I've discovered a core of responsibility that I didn't think I had, where I can grind through situations that before I would have just quit on.

Rough weather makes strong timber.

Represent Me Please

Ok, so the US Government is involved in a partial shutdown because the Congress is a house divided against itself, and as a result they are causing government workers in 'non-essential' roles to have to take a non-paid furlough.

My question though is, when are the members of Congress, more so than the local versions of government, going to admit that they are not representing their entire constituency, but only selected demographics?  I know that's a rhetorical question, but there's a reason behind it.  We only have term limits enforced for one major public office - the President.  For Congress, they can be in that role until voted out or they retire, and or the Supreme Court, they have appointments for life.  As such, we have members of Congress that have been in 'service' to the country for so long that they have made that their career.  The problem with that, as I see it, is that they become more loyal to their current position and environment than they are to the people and region that they have been elected to represent.

Potential solution:

• Make all Congressional seats one term only, but increase the length of the term.  Whether eight, ten, or twelve years, doesn't matter - but a finite number.  This way they're not tempted to split their time between doing their job, and starting their re-election campaign during their second week in office.
• Make the salary for Congress the national minimum wage, and all healthcare benefits/insurances are only in place during their actual sitting term.  (My healthcare benefits don't carry over for life after I leave a job, theirs shouldn't either.)
• For any Congressional member that sits on a subcommittee that deals with a specific subject, they should demonstrate at least a moderate level of knowledge about that subject.  My basis for this one is the infamous SOPA hearings where the Congressman from my state, Mel Watt, stated that he didn't understand the technology that he was making decisions about.  If you don't understand all the nuances and potential ramifications initially - that's fine, but table any decisions until an unbiased group can be brought together who has the skills to 1. understand the nuances and ramifications, and 2. has the ability to explain them to said Congressional member.
• When running for an elected seat, each person vying for the position is allocated the same amount of money from a pooled election budget, no more, no less.  This will 1. allow anyone to run for office without it being a race to outspend the other candidate(s), and 2. demonstrate each candidate's financial prowess as far as managing limited money and resources to achieve their goals - which should be important in the job that they're applying for.
• The only time announcements can be made to the press is at the beginning of a debate over a subject, saying something like "We are starting deliberations on healthcare reform", and then at the end where members of both political parties can stand together and say "We have made a joint decision about healthcare reform, and this is what we have come up with."  None of this working as much television face time in order to encourage polarization on a topic.  I am a believer of transparency to the media, but not of grandstanding in public.

I could go on, but you get the point.  Our governmental system isn't perfect, but it's been in place for 200+ years.  Hopefully there can be moderation, compromise, and working for the greater good instead of the political version of bad reality tv.