Random Thoughts on Yet Another Snowy AM

If people are so concerned about the money in politics, it seems there's an easy way to fix that.  Voters could find which candidate(s) spend(s) the most money and then vote for the other guy(s). That is if people are so concerned about the money in politics.  Sometimes, I think, our idealism and our pragmatism conflict.

An op-ed piece in the newspaper this week (I don't remember the day) claimed most members of Congress are hard-working (I have no reason to believe otherwise), work to please the majority of their constituents, have integrity, and are not primarily motivated by personal interest or ambitions, but rather of what is best for the nation as a whole.  (How he can write this in the face of, say, ObamaCare is beyond me.)  The writer didn't say anything about party ideologies.  Later, though, in the same piece some contradictions seems to appear.  Despite all of the above accolades (?), most members of Congress don't see issues from the perspectives of "ordinary people" because they are too busy sidling up to special interests and money.  After all, getting re-elected is the endgame, isn't it?  (Yes, I understand that to get anything done, they must win first.  But, does that mean "win" at all costs?)  He goes on to add that many members of Congress don't know much about the issues ("misinformed"), that they rely on staffers to know things.  Then, to boot, the article criticizes, not the members, but the "process" of Congress.  Wait a minute!  Who determines the "process" of Congress?  Isn't that the members?  Who determines the leadership?  Isn't that the members?  He then goes on to suggest that members abuse or, at the least, take advantage of the "process."  Hmmm...how does that mesh with "integrity?"

And isn't this IRS scandal frightening?  Here is the federal agency with the most potential for abuse being put to work against political opponents by the administration in power.  And, to nobody's surprise, the woman (I have forgotten her name right now) called to testify before Congress has invoked the Fifth (the Amendment, not the bottle!).  That, of course, is her Constitutional right and should not be considered, at least legally, an admission of guilt.  But, extra-legally, don't Americans also have a right to surmise about such invocations?  That is, can't we ask why she might take the Fifth?  Is she protecting herself or others higher up?  If so, is that out of fear of retribution or even a sense of ideological superiority, that abuse of government power is OK as long as it's directed against "the bad guys?"  And the guy appointed to investigate is a minion in the IRS and a big-time Obama contributor.  Hmmm......  What was it Patrick Henry once said about a completely different matter?  "I smelt a rat."  Yet, there are still members of Congress calling for the IRS to crack down even harder on these political opponents.  No, I'm not going to start on that history stuff again, but I could.

No time now, but later in the week I want to add some fuel to the debate on educational reform, namely the idiotic reliance on student test scores to determine quality.