In the chat during Mike Gravel's ultimate debate and q&a session, we covered a
lot of good ideas. I'll try and give some highlights here so they can
be passed on. Reply to me if you think you can help some way or
another. Your all valuable assets to the campaign, every idea, every
action in support, is precious. Lets get it done.

• ebay donation auctions
  • people donating their belongings to the campaign
  • simple listing of the ebay donations
  • market it with videos of people donating
  • simple website script for linking to them
    • or standard posting format to be listed in the search query link

• live events, for other events
  • republican debates, dem debates, other things.
  • planned ahead depending on where mike is.
  • mike needs a more comfy chair for these q&a sessions
  • an online coordinator to handle the chat, at least need ops to boot spammers etc.

• official resources for new people
  • useful bits of information and resources
  • tasks that people can do that help
  • IRC chat how to

• Mike Gravel Lighted Cab Signs
  • Mike Gravel Cab Tour?

• candidates faces on a car
  • selling sledgehammer smacks
  • then selling car on ebay

• videos on specific issues
  • net neutrality
  • iran
  • abortion
  • stem cells
  • technology
  • mars
  • prohibition
    • Any other problems that mike gravel can suggest solutions to

• stop and think
  • tshirt
  • mugs
  • banners
  • stickers
  • posters

• Autographed copies of the pentagon papers
  • sold on ebay
  • any other historical stuff mike might have that could be sold

• NY film students
  • they pay to use equipment and get experience
  • shooting videos for mike

• Campaign days
  • pick days that people will do stuff to get publicity and supporting
  • supporters will follow through and do lots

• Recurring mike gravel e-show
  • with a co-host or two
  • focusing on calling out the other politicians
  • speaking truth via entertainment

• Press Contact List
  • So volunteers can try to get mike more coverage

external site possibility
http://www.bennessimo.com/Awesome

I'm sure there was a lot more to it. But a lot was missed. These are
the good ideas that stuck out in memory and were discussed. There are a
lot of people who just need to be told to do something. Thus, we need
to come up with something to do. Some attention getting action that can
be repeated across the country. On video of course.

There are any number of possibilities, it all depends on how much you
want to utilize the resources available. There are some brilliant
people who support mike gravel. They just need stuff to do. Most won't
even require money to do things part time.

Looking forward to creating links to all these ideas as they develop.

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.”

-- George Washington, 1787

<!-- mp3 player courtosy of http://www.its.ex.ac.uk/latis/resources/flashplayers/mp3player.php -->

The National Initiative for Democracyis a proposed law developed by The Democracy Foundation, over the past decade,along with a plan to get it enacted by the people (not by the government) creating, for the first time, a government "by you, the people."

The National Initiative includesa constitutional amendment and a federal statute that equips the peoplewith the central power of government, lawmaking. As lawmakers, thepeople in every government jurisdiction of the United States become anew Check in our system of Checks and Balances designed to control theabuses of government. Representative government remains unalteredexcept for the partnership established between the people and theirelected legislators.

For more info, read these 3 pages:

1. Concept of National Initiative
2. America DOES NOT have a Government "By the People"
3. The National Initiative for Democracy

Join us on irc:

irc.blitzed.org:6667 #mikegravel

http://www.blitzed.org/chat

Decentralized Government

Using the Internet as a model

One of the core principals of the Internet is that it has no head to cut off, figuratively speaking.  To destroy the Internet, you have to knock out enormous chunks (in the form of backbone infrastructure) spread over the entire planet.  Whatever pieces are still left in tact and connected continue to function as a whole, and data may still be routed between any two points which remain connected to the grid.  

Granted, flaws in our current networking technology creates certain possibilities to poison the Internet from within, but it remains extremely resilient to physical damage.  This model can be applied to governmental structure as well.  

Democracy is supposed to be the greater will of the people--majority rules.  This can be applied at different levels, thus matters affecting limited portions of the population may vote pertaining to their local events, while larger, more broadspread matters may be presented to larger groups of voters, until there's something which affects everybody.  

This type of scalability serves a number of purposes, including (when performed correctly) a fair representation for national and international matters, increased community control in local areas.  

Federal = Centralized = One Point of Failure

In the US, the political landscape has changed much over the past several decades--many small changes, in aggregate, have led us to the current situation.  Time and time again, the American Federal Government has usurped much power from state and local governments.  

This is dangerous.  

Point of failure, in this case, does not necessarily mean the elimination or incapacitation of the government, but rather any failure of its first responsibility, which is to the people being governed.  Any failure to act in the best interest of the whole of the people is a failure, nonetheless.  

Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law

Laws are supposed to be made to prevent some harm or cause some good--that's the basic idea.  Too frequently the spirit of the law (or reason for the law in the first place) is challenged, perverted and abused at a technical level, which alters the original intent of the law creators. 

This practice leads to the creation of new laws for the purpose of 'closing loopholes' in existing legislation. 

Balance of Power

Most proponents of a decentralized government do approve of a limited central government to facilitate multi-state matters and provide a uniting effect.  This usually takes the form of an electoral system, in which freely elected candidates serve as recallable representatives of the people.  

This was the idea behind the US congress branch, with senators to give each state an equal vote (2 per state), and members of the House of Representatives to balance out population density (number of reps is based on a state's population).  

The idea of a Checks and Balances system is supposed to provide for a limited amount of review, control and accountability between branches of the government, thus creating a self-regulating system.  In this type of system, the mass of the people (general citizens) should have the last say in a democratic state.  

Taking the US government as an example (though it should be pointed out that they are certainly not the only example of this type of behavior), we can see that over time, the federal government has taken more and more powers that used to belong exclusively to the states (and in some cases counties and cities). 

United States Civil War

This was probably the largest of the first cases of the federal government increasing its power.  Previous to the decision of Abraham Lincoln which was the catalyst to thrust America into civil war, the union of American states was a voluntary matter.  After Lincoln's declaration, the precedent had been set that the federal government now had the final say.  

Following the war, several new amendments to the Constitution were made, as well.   

Interstate Commerce

As trade began to expand much more commonly over a larger and larger body of states, the federal government began to create a slew of rules to facilitate even standards over how this may be accomplished. 

Civil Rights Movement

When the Civil Rights movement exploded across America, the federal governement responded by setting up regulations for more fair treatment of people of different races.  Over time, the situation has improved, though some would say, not in the right ways.  Seemingly well-intentioned laws, such as Affirmative Action, sometimes created the possibility for even more discrimination.  

War on Drugs

Originally spearheaded by the Reagan administration, the War on Drugs has continued fiercely, and largely unsuccessful, though this federally imposed agenda utilizes both federal resources as well as state and local resources.  

Monetary Regulation

Control of the Money Supply - When US president Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into being, the nation's entire money supply was placed into the hands of a private bank.  The Federal Reserve System (or Fed) regulates America's interest rates and, thus, entire money supply.  

The abuse of this system quickly became apparent as a squeeze on the part of the Fed soon plunged America into a national economic depression.  

Federal Money for States - The federal government has even been able to wield influence over state government in matters that they are not legally allowed to legislate on.  Rather than enacting laws on such matters, federal financing is simply withheld unless states comply with the wishes of the federal government (e.g. unless state schools meet certain federally imposed criteria, whether better or worse, they miss out on massive federal funding, which can essentally create federal control over state public schools).  

If I'm not hurting anyone, why should you care?

By localizing the choices being made, and the laws in place, different groups of people are allowed to set up laws for their communities which may be drastically different.  In this way, a more broad range of local variances are allowed to flourish.  Freedom and democratic representation are still maintained, as it is the greater will of the community which makes the locally applicable decisions, and members who do not agree are still free to participate or leave.  

In this type of situation, the only role of a central government would be to provide a baseline, protecting the minimum standards for acceptable behaviour (e.g. you still can't murder someone, or a federally imposed health and safety system to maintain food or drug qualities).  In others words, as long as you're not hurting anybody... 

Control of law by those affected

So, clearly there are strong cases both for strong and weak centralized government systems, though in actuality, it's often better to have a fair combination.  By decentralizing some of the federally usurped powers back into the hands of those people whom the laws govern, closer to the point of control, a more democratic system may be achieved--those who are being governed get a fair and equal voice in the matters at hand.  

Obviously, there is no government system which will be perfect, but there is a growing movement to re-gain more local control.