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.