MichaelDG @ 28 – that’s a great link, thank you. do you know of any other examples of useful hearings? it seems to me we don’t have to reinvent the wheel here – just use what’s been used successfully in the past.

ImperialFlow @ 30 – thanks for the link to your diary. i will try to read and reply tomorrow, but i don’t think i’m going to have time to help much at least for a while. so sorry, it sounds awfully interesting (but i really do need to catch up on the reading i’ve already assigned myself first)

readerOfTeaLeaves @ 31 – thanks for coming back. i made some phone calls and will make some more tomorrow. but i don’t think i’ve been able to convince many people here of the uselessness of the hearings as they are currently being held. well, other than the people who’ve been listening to a lot of the hearings. if i learn anything interesting from making the phone calls tomorrow, i’ll post something here (i think this thread will be open until tomorrow night).

I’ll check again later to see what you’ve put up and hope for some kind of update.
I think you have a brilliant strategic point here.

There’s just a wealth of vast knowledge and lighting research that can be, they just have no means to tap it.

selise,

I was hoping you’d take a look at this http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/4415 and give some feedback, and perhaps have some interest in pursuing additional research with me. Doing some crowd-sourcing myself :)

but i do believe this:

“I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.”

how do those folks get tracked down so a big red $ sign can be painted on their clothes?

So yes, the hearings are typically structured miserably and perform poorly. But on top of that, these are only valuable (I’d argue) when they lead to some form of positive, corrective action. And they just never seem to do that.

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
P: (202) 224-7391
F: (202) 224-5137

House Financial Services Committee
Democratic Staff
2129 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Ph: (202) 225-4247
Fax: (202) 225-6952

links to the list of committee members:

House Financial Services Committee
Senate Banking Committee

toll free phone numbers (from katymine) to the capitol switchboard (call one of these numbers and then just ask for any congress member’s office):

(800) 828 – 0498
(800) 459 – 1887
(800) 614 – 2803
(866) 340 – 9281
(866) 338 – 1015
(877) 851 – 6437

i’ve got to get some coffee and do a couple of things, but then i’m going to make some calls. will report back here later…

thanks again to all.

re the 5 minute time limit. i’m sorry i wasn’t clear – i only think the time limit can be gotten rid of by having committee counsel (or some appropriate designee) do the questioning (as has been done previously, i understand for example during the watergate hearings). so long as it is congress members doing the questioning, there absolutely must be a time limit. i just don’t think congress members are the right people to be doing the questioning on some matters – like the economic crisis when the witnesses are not trying to inform. as hugh notes above, when the witnesses are there to obfuscate, it’s a very different kind of hearing – and one congress has shown no ability to deal with.

BTW, selise, what you do is share, inform, cajole, enlighten, enthrall, annoy, encourage, confirm and inspire.

It is known as ‘leadership’.

You are very good at it.

;~D

David

I have to agree with eCAHNomics on the blowhard issue. Imagine no time limits, and one of those long-winded Repubs getting up there and reciting the entire Declaration of Independence to preface his “question”.

These guys are mostly Lawyers – they’re taught from the get-go to obfuscate, confuse, and use the most torturous forms of linguistic contortionism. Expecting them to ask in plain English and without bombastic hyperbole is really asking a lot of such simple minds… /snark