I believe the blog answers the questions that have been raised regarding Obama and Wright.  In specific he categorically rejects/denounces/renounces/repudiates the offensive statements

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

My first blog post, please be kind.
I was listening to NPR on my way home from work and heard a story about reform in the Congressional earmark "system".
Currently, members of Congress can add earmarks to spending bills to get $$$ for their districts.  These could range from $100K to study cheese making, or fund a small local museam to something like Ted Stevens "Bridge to Nowhere"
While I'm not sure all earmarks are bad - the idea of a Congressperson putting several million dollars into a spending bill for a pet project strikes most people as kind of scandalous.  Not to mention the lobbying that goes on for this type of thing.  On the other hand, sometimes, small earmarks can do good things, like preserve local landmarks or special industries / crafts, etc.  
Here is my proposal for reform of the earmark system:Each member of congress gets $500K in "earmark money" on an annual basis.  That creates a (roughly) $220 million budget line item.  Members should have some discretion in how they spend their earmark, but there should be some auditing (e.g. checks to see that the money actually goes to the place they say it's going and that the organization they give it to actually exists) and accountability (e.g. they can't use it for campaigning for themselves or others).  
If a member wants to go over the $500K limit - they will need to team up with another member of congress to fund their project.  For example, members of congress from around the DC area (reps from Montgomery County and PG County in MD, plus Fairfax and Arlington County in VA) could get together to fund a $2M project to help clean up the Potomac River.
This sort of teamwork would force members of Congress to work together, and would help make sure that the larger projects were realistic and worthy.
Here's the other wrinkle - if a Congressperson doesn't use their money in a given year, it doesn't carry over.  So, you can't "save up" for 2 years to fund a big project.  
Similarly, it's not "use it or lose it".  One of the big problems with Federal budgeting is "use it or lose it".  Agencies get a certain amount in budget dollars, and divvy it up among various departments, and so forth.  The problem is that if the department or group doesn't use their budget allocation in a given year, the next year, their overall budget allocation is reduced - so there is NO incentive to save.  For example, let's say I have a $1M budget for 2007, and by the end of the budget cycle (September, since the fiscal year starts October 1), I've spend $850K of it.  That means I have to spend $150K before October 1, or my budget gets reduced.  (This is where you end up with a lot of waste - people spending their remaining budget, so they don't get cut later).Anyway, back to the point.  If a member of congress spends $400K of their earmark money in one budget year, the next budget year, they still get $500K.
I'm sure there are a lot of ways that this system could work better - different allocations of money, more auditing and accountability, etc.  However, I think this sort of system will take infrastructure projects (roads, bridges) out of earmarks, and into rational budgeting, while still preserving the ability for Congresspeople to give something back to their districts.  In addition, I think it might create opportunities for congresspeople to work together on projects (hopefully for the greater good).  Similarly, since the discretionary dollars are small, it might reduce the impact of lobbyists.  
Anyway, I'm sure there are a lot of intelligent people out their who might have ideas on how to create a rational system that preserves some sort of "congressionally directed funding" without breaking the bank.
Again - this is my first blog, so please be nice.