My Biggest Beef

            I think one of the biggest issues bothering me lately is the relationship between special interest groups and our government.  As Madison once wrote about, interest groups and factions are inevitable, but I believe that it has indeed gotten out of hand.

            It seems like you can’t go anywhere without reading or hearing about some sort of corruption between special interest groups and government agencies or policies.  Between regulatory capture and what seems like a lack of accountability on both parties, it begs you to wonder, “Who watches the watchmen”?

            For example, Michael Taylor is the senior advisor for the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which is a HUGE conflict of interest.  As coined in this article, it’s like the fox watching the henhouse.  That isn’t the only instance in which something like that has happened either. As seen by a graph shown here, there are several former Monsanto executives that have previously or currently are holding important government offices that are in direct conflict of interest.

            While this is not the only example, not by a longshot, it is one that is near and dear to my heart having spent most of my life in a rural farming town that has been affected by Monsanto and the government.  What bothers me about this sort of behavior is that it does not at all have the “big picture” best interests of our nation in mind. While it waves around that flag of lobbying for the common man, it is doing just the opposite.  Where integrity and morality are not part of the game, but the upper hand goes to the highest bidders.

            Don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying at all that we should, or even that it’s possible, to get rid of special interest groups and lobbyists.  What I would really like to see happen is a more stringent regulation on how the Iron Triangle interacts and affects our nations policies.  I want more accountability and less ability for such conflict of interests to happen between our government and corporations.

Charity Photo-Op Exposure

This weeks article I have chosen, is written by Felicia Somnez and talks about the recent shenanigan involving Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan at a soup kitchen in Northeast Ohio.

            While on the campaign trail, after Ryan had finished a Town Hall Meeting at Youngstown State University, he and his family stopped by the St. Vincent De Paul Society in Mahoning County to get “help out” at the local shelter.  The curious thing, though, was that he decided to show up unannounced and largely uninvited!  The soup kitchen, which is run by Brian J. Antal, is primarily funded by private donations.  Antal expresses concerns about Ryan showing up unannounced being misconstrued by those that fund his organization as a political sway.

To make matters worse, it appears as though Ryan’s visit did not accomplish much.  He and his family arrived after the food had already been served, the hall cleaned, and most of the staff already gone for the day.  According to the article and folks interviewed, they came in like a whirlwind unannounced, made nice with the people who were still there, put on aprons and cleaned already clean dishes for 15 minutes before leaving for the airport to continue the campaign trail.

It appears as though this was a political pony show move akin to that of kissing babies or shaking hands with blue collar factory workers.

The author of this article, Felicia Somnez is by no means an unbiased writer.  It is pretty clear from a simple google search that she is a staunch democrat and writes as such.  Though, personally I was impressed that she did not resort to lower brow mudslinging to make an already clearly foul situation even worse. 

The Insatiable Media Sensation

The post I chose for this week’s Blog assignment was a Huffington Post article written by Jason Linkins and Elyse Siegel titled “Obama Performs His Disappearing Act: The 2012 Speculatron Weekly Roundup for Oct.5” The article, while I was interested in reading at first, became pretty clear to me that it was just traditional sensationalist media trying to make mountains out of molehills.

For example when the authors mentioned their disappointment that the debate was not a “Zinger fest”, this is a debate, not a circus show focused on entertainment.  Stating that the debate was “remarkably free of attacks to the jugular”, as if it were a bad thing rubs me the wrong way. Why is refraining from tearing down another candidate a flaw? I have grown weary of the mudslinging that has become popular in politics as of late. Furthermore, why should the president be wasting time tearing down Mitt Romney and pointing out how much he flip flops on issues, when that is the job of the moderator? A debate is to focus on the topics at hand, not to spend the entire time tearing each other down. The writer stating that the Obama campaign not pointing out Romney's lies until the day after being useless is silly. This election is more than a series of televised debates, it's important that the public stay informed even when it's not the most popular thing on T.V. To watch.  And as a matter of fact, there were sites that WERE fact checking AS the debate was happening. 

It was also the opinion of the authors, as well as several other sources that the “clear” victor in this first debate was Romney. Stating “ by not losing, Romney won”.  So going into a debate without saying anything of real substance and telling large falsities is considered now to be presenting one's self as a "credible Candidate"? Is winning by not losing an actual victory nowadays?

To me, this all seems to be sensationalism. Calling Obama listless and performing a disappearing act seems a bit extreme and uncalled for. And declaring a man a winner simply because he had presence and energy is just about as silly as saying someone won because they didn't lose...

One of the authors, Jason Linkins, has a history of this sensationalist sort of writing.  In fact, he was banned  from the HuffPo Front Page for awhile for his writings and articles.  This article makes brevity a joke, and seems to me that they are looking to stir up the pot more than aiming to be objective.

Space Shuttle Makes Final Landing in California

Today marks a special day in American history, at least to me.  It’s the day that the space shuttle Endeavour has landed safely in its new home in California.  Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/21/161577281/touchdown-space-shuttle-endeavour-lands-in-los-angeles

            You may be asking yourself “what does this have anything to do with news concerning our national government?”  I believe that it has more to do with US government than one would originally think. Consider the US budget and spending.  According to NPR, we spend about $20.2 billion (that’s BILLION, folks) on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. (source: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning?sc=tw&cc=share)   In just one year, the expenditure of the U.S.’s military budget is equivalent to the entire 50-year running budget of NASA combined.
            With the country rapidly trying to plug the leaks in the sinking ship that is the national debt which has gotten wildly out of control, a hot topic in this election is government spending and cuts.  Unfortunately, many of the cuts are being swung towards programs that are meant to help our nation in the long run, i.e. Planned Parenthood, education, and programs like NASA.

            This news article is really important, because is highlights how vital programs like NASA are to us.  I believe that NASA has done so very many good things to help us evolve as a society, and that reigniting our passion for space exploration through any means necessary is essential to the innovation and passion needed to make us once again the best country in the world.