Commentary on a Colleague's Blog

In Nick Matthews' post on pork-barrel spending, Mr. Matthews seems to share the frustration of many Americans today. This aggravation with our government spending is apparent as he reflects on how we are trying to solve the federal deficit, yet money continues to be spent on projects like the "bridge to nowhere." For those of you unfamiliar with that project, that was an idea that was projected to cost $398 million dollars to build a bridge that would benefit a mere fifty people. It is spending such as this that causes me and I assume, Nick Matthews, to become skeptical of the tactics that our government is implementing to fix our current issues.

Mr. Matthews does an excellent job introducing us to the subject and defining his topic for those that might be unaware of "earmarks." He also provides relevant examples that allow the reader to decipher if these "earmarks" are truly "ploys to garner favor and get votes lined up for the next election." Even though he did not include a source for the "bridge to nowhere" argument, I found that I am already familiar with the subject so I know it is a legitimate example. It is clear that pork-barrel spending is an issue in our government and should be either eliminated or heavily regulated. In this aspect I completely agree with Mr. Matthews however, the idea of using it to help the federal deficit I find is too large of an expectation.

Realistically speaking, the pork-barrel spending of our government takes up a very small percentage of our federal deficit. This is seen in the New York Times "Budget Puzzle" where "earmarks" are projected to consume $14 billion of the $418 billion dollars in 2015. Of course fixing the deficit has to start somewhere but that does not seem like a very drastic change, or something to base an argument off of. I thouroughly enjoyed reading this blog and observing Mr. Matthews views on something I also strongly disagree with. Earmarks I feel should be eliminated not because of the federal deficit, because deficit or not, entirely too much money is being thrown at unnecessary projects.

Who's the Real Killer?

Our forefathers once established great articles that weren’t only created as documents, but what have now evolved into America’s backbone. As amendments like the right to bear arms, have withstood the test of time, it has also withstood great controversy. As you look through time you see different regions forfeiting this right, because only their freedom is swept out from under them but their dignity and pride. These are all qualities our country was established on. Today we observe countries experiencing predicaments and power struggles, as individuals are not able to maintain the same safety. The view on gun control and its effect on our world vary from person to person. One might conclude that rather than government control, it is ownership that is necessary and crucial when defending oneself, or others, and truncating the amount of murders.

George Washington once declared that the United States should never establish permanent allies or have a standing army. Now today more than ever each country has some form of an ally. Former President Eisenhower feared the U.S. Defense department was gaining too many powers, causing this department to become more concerned with the economic aspect then actually defending our country. And lastly authors of the Bill of Rights once said that each man should have the right to own a gun as seen in the second amendment. Each of these men listed have something in common, and that is, that they made those statements based on the knowledge from previous experiences. Our fore fathers realized the government should not be given more power than necessary which is why we have a democracy. Their requests and advice are continuously being ignored, and moved to the backburner, causing things to truly heat up. The amendments were created to give us permanent rights, and freedoms and now people want to take them away?                            

With all powerful tools, there is a risk factor that goes along with owning or using something that has the ability to kill. Some are pro gun control because they feel guns are very dangerous, which they are, and especially can be when put into the wrong hands. But didn’t back thousands of years ago Indians use a slice of flint and a stick to kill not only other rival tribes, but animals as big as the fierce and beast-like buffalo? And even in recent years you find people have used knifes, clubs, garage tools all for murder weapons. Some also say that guns can fire at the wrong time creating dangerous situations. However, you find that cars, boats, and planes, can all malfunction and cause massive perplexities. Another major topic that people use as an argument is that once guns are taken away the crime rate and murder rate will drop. But Australia and England have found the results to be the exact opposite of what was expected as the crime and murder rates actually stayed the same or grew because people didn’t have the proper self defense tools, and criminals knew that.                                                                           

Aspects of society will always change but the question is whether they’re for better or worse. In my opinion, gun control is not the answer to the problem because our government would be in control, which is not the kind of foundation our country was built on. The word “gun” shouldn’t automatically give people a negative connotation because it doesn’t only keep the crime rate down, it’s a way of protection, and there are few deaths that are actually caused from firearms. The punishment for misuse of these firearms needs to be more effective. People will always find a way to hurt each other if the punishments are not more of a deterrent. All individuals seeking ownership of a gun should have to take a mandatory gun safety class before they purchase one. Every owner of a gun should also own a lock and key to keep the guns away from children. Guns aren’t the killer; it’s the people that are in control of these tools that make them into lethal weapons.

Commentary on "My proposal for a new government"

In the commentary, "My proposal for a new government" Mrs. Dickerson offers her view on the United States Government and the "problems plaguing the nation." She outlines her main issues with the government that I suspect are similar to countless Americans, myself included. Some of these issues include how our economy is deplorable, our government is greed-driven and that we are dealing with matters that aren't necessarily important at this point in time. She does a great job embodying the frustrations of Americans and suggesting some solutions that she feels would help.

Some of Mrs. Dickerson's proposals to help fix the fradulent ways of our government I feel could be beneficial. For one, I agree with the notion that the amount of total terms someone is in office should be limited. This would guarantee that no one person would be in office for too long of time. It also allows for more people to have a chance to help lead our nation. On the otherhand, I feel it is an unrealistic expectation for us to "kick them all out" (them being Congress.) If we were to institute this we would be getting rid of all the experience and would still expect to get things accomplished. I also feel although it states an interesting point, it is not the most credible commentary because there are no outside sources for the factual type of writing.

There is no doubt in my mind that corruption is widely present in our government and money has a large part to do with that. The question is whether taking away the perks and lowering the income they recieve will positively affect it. I fear that once you take those (legal) perks away, few will want to take on those roles. And the salary that she suggests they receive ($100,000) is quite small leaving few factors that would incline people to run. Mrs. Dickerson makes many valid points about where our government is lacking and where we could improve. I enjoyed reading it and seeing her input on something so pertinent in our lives.

Liars and Leaders... Synonymous?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “He that cannot obey, cannot command.” Franklin, an innovator and founding father, was known for many accomplishments. One from which we could learn from is the eloquent quote he created regarding leadership. Too many times I have switched on the television for images to blur across the screen to hear a newscaster say, “good evening” but proceed to bombard his audience with the irony of bad news, many times about our leaders today. And how the corruption of their character is corroding the once solid mass we called ‘government.’

It appears now it is a prerequisite that you have a criminal record to become a politician. Our country recently has had problems acquiring a president with a clean slate; it seems they are always enmeshed in some scandal. To illustrate: the healthcare bill’s passage was assured by a modern form of bribery to congressional members. Or politicians “secretly craft the final bill behind closed doors [to] fit more with a policy of official opacity than oft-promised transparency.” Another example is the Watergate Scandal that rocked Washington D.C. Congress is occupied with power-hungry, greed driven men and women who are willing to use questionable means to achieve their goal. Unfortunately, no side is exempt when examining our government. And the irony of it is the most frustrating. Our legislators encourage us to be good citizens, yet they themselves have many faults. I draw the line well before someone sells his “seat” on EBay. If so much of their malfeasance is obvious it makes one wonder what they do behind closed doors.

           

Why have we let it come to this? I ask myself that question all the time. Why is it so challenging to have an honest, trustworthy person as president? Why do persons holding public trust feel they are above the law, particularly if they are the ones that bestow them upon us? Too many times I have pondered if there are any type of institutions that promote honesty and leadership.

Whose side are you on?

In a recent blog, "Would-be Tides shooter: 'It was the things [Glenn Beck] did, it was the things he exposed, that blew my mind'" I discovered an article written about exactly what the title suggests: how Glenn Beck "influenced" Bryon Williams to want to partake in a shooting rampage. David Neiwert's blog, featured in Crooks and Liars uses plenty of evidentiary support as his entire blog consists of quotes from the whole interview between John Hamilton and Williams. John Hamilton, "an enterprising young Bay Area radio journalist, freelancing for Media Matters" interviewed Williams who was accused of wanting to start a revolution.

Such political commentators as O'Reilly and Beck are notorious for their extremely conservative views so it is not surprising that  a left-wing blog is reporting on an issue that involved a man trying to attack the Tides Foundation which Beck "rallied against." Of course Beck and Fox News have been under scrutiny lately for their highly biased news stories, so it is inevitable that Williams would claim, "I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind. I said, well, nobody does this."

David Neiwert is clearly upset with Beck's "propaganda." He explains how one of his more clever ways of introducing a point is Beck's "'I'm not saying, I'm just saying' dodge whenever he wants to float an idea that is vile and outrageous and create controversy and thus boost his ratings." But one of Neiwert's arguments that seem more extreme is that Beck "has been inciting acts of terrorist violence." Neiwert explains how it is different if an unstable person lashes out on a group versus someone who acts out purely on "rhetoric specifically intended to inspire action."

Neiwert appears to use a lot of hyperboles to send fear to his audience, causing the left-wing to further despise Fox and its affiliates, and the right-wing to re-think their news sources. Williams concludes "now they've got Beck labeled as this guy that is trying to incite violence. And what I say is that if the truth incites violence, it means that we've been living too long in the lies." That is the problem with not being an informed citizen, people hear one side of an issue and take that individual's opinion as absolute. Sure, Beck blows things out of proportion which influences the minds of those that "follow" him, but to conclude that all American people will launch an attack from one of his ridiculous ideas is in itself ridiculous. Neiwert uses one case to portray that Beck is unhealthy for the American public... but couldn't such outspoken assumptions be called "Beck-like" actions?

Must be the Money

According to the article "Our view on campaign finance: Who's buying this election? Who knows?" USA Today claims that spending on congressional elections has increased greatly over the past couple of years and many of those compaigns misrepresented the politicians depicted. The authors appeal to those voting in the upcoming elections or those who might be swayed by campaigns seen in the mass media. To achieve this they strive to point out how this voting system is "transparent" and "exploits" candidates. The Editorial Board explains how through out history we have seen distortion of politician's lives through campaigns which could be compared to a "mud-slinging" tactic. The article goes on to explain how billions of dollars are predicted to be spent this year, and that many organizations are keeping their donors' names confidential. The article complains that the amount of money going into such secretive efforts is advocating people to lie, especially if that company or person has a grudge against a candidate. To demonstrate this fiasco, they used the Center for Responsive Politics which is both a credible and reliable source. To further this notion, they incorporated quotes from FactCheck.org, a non-partisan group.  The Editorial Board is clearly frustrated with Congress and all organizations partaking in the financing of campaigns.
Personally, I agree with the Editorial Board about the financing of campaigns. I feel the amount of money going towards these efforts is ridiculous. I also agree with their stance on it promoting deceit and misinformation. Many question the legitimacy of our government, yet we allow organizations to potentially manipulate elections. I believe there should be some type of regulation on how much is spent per donor. Moreover, I feel that companies should not be given the choice to donate because they reflect the interests of the company, not of the people. If Congress chooses to continuously ignore this issue, we may fall into a system of government that is further corrupted.

America the Brave?

     According to Paul Krugman author of, "China, Japan, America," Japan has confonted China in an effort to halt their manipulation of trade. Krugman explains how this is a typical characteristic of China that we have grown accustomed to because of our fear that they will cease to buy bonds (which Krugman says are not that essential.) By keeping their currency weak and creating a trade surplus, China  has negatively affected other nations. The U.S. has tried convincing China that a stronger currency would benefit them, but China has found a weak currency is actually good for some of their companies. Although they have tried to resolve this issue, the U.S. has been rather unsuccessful  because they are too intimidated, and assume that China will sabotage their companies and the dollar will fall. The irony of it Krugman says, is that it would actually help competition in our economy. I have heard a lot about China becoming the next economic superpower so it is interesting to read an article about some of the tactics they are using against countries. Because China's economy directly affects ours and our government, I think it is very important to stay informed with what they are doing.