Scott Baio (yes, that Scott Baio) could really use donations for his non-profit charitable organization, Baily Baio Angel Foundation. It's a great organization that works at making life better for families and children dealing with GA1 and other organic acidemia metabolic disorders. I don't want to speak for him, so don't hold me to this one, but Scott has also suggested that he would "follow" on Twitter those who donate.
You can find out more about OA disorders here and here. Please give generously. And not just because "Happy Days" and "Charles in Charge" are awesome. Do it because generosity is awesome!
August 21, 2011
August 17, 2011
It's All About Who You Work For
Wow...that didn't take long. I see the media is already going after Rick Perry. This article from Time.com asserts that he once "Aggressively Pursued Federal Aid He Now Decries." How hypocritical of him...or is it?
I do think that there is a lot of hypocrisy out there on both sides of the aisle, but I'm not sure that these two situations are inconsistent, and therefore, not necessarily hypocritical. Today, Perry is running for POTUS, and part of that job would be to get federal spending under control. (Are you listening, Mr. Obama?) He should be looking out for U.S. citizens, and their future. Thus his current position on deficit spending.
This is an entirely different job than the one he held at the time in question. Back in 2003, Perry was governor of Texas. What was his job then? To represent the people of Texas. I don't think it's inconsistent in the slightest to say "hey, federal spending is out of control, and should be cut back...but as long as those programs are in place, I'm going to be damn sure to get benefits for the people I represent, because that's why they elected me." Turning that money down, or ignoring it only hurts the people he was elected to represent. Lobbying for it really only means he was doing a good job on their behalf.* It's no different than an individual saying "I think the welfare system is costly and inefficient and I think they could make some important changes; however, my family is in need and my primary concern is their well-being, so I will take the benefits." If that individual is put in charge of the welfare system eight years later, is it that strange that he or she would try to fix those issues from so long ago?
This is just Time trying to find some way to stem the flow of Perry's sudden popularity. Ultimately, though, the difference between Perry then and now? Simple--in 2003, he was representing a different group of people.
*full dislosure: I'm no Perry fan; I don't really know him well enough. I also hate lobbying and lobbyists and everything to do with that aspect of politics. But, as I said, as long as it's in place, I would expect my representatives to participate to the extent that they can.
I do think that there is a lot of hypocrisy out there on both sides of the aisle, but I'm not sure that these two situations are inconsistent, and therefore, not necessarily hypocritical. Today, Perry is running for POTUS, and part of that job would be to get federal spending under control. (Are you listening, Mr. Obama?) He should be looking out for U.S. citizens, and their future. Thus his current position on deficit spending.
This is an entirely different job than the one he held at the time in question. Back in 2003, Perry was governor of Texas. What was his job then? To represent the people of Texas. I don't think it's inconsistent in the slightest to say "hey, federal spending is out of control, and should be cut back...but as long as those programs are in place, I'm going to be damn sure to get benefits for the people I represent, because that's why they elected me." Turning that money down, or ignoring it only hurts the people he was elected to represent. Lobbying for it really only means he was doing a good job on their behalf.* It's no different than an individual saying "I think the welfare system is costly and inefficient and I think they could make some important changes; however, my family is in need and my primary concern is their well-being, so I will take the benefits." If that individual is put in charge of the welfare system eight years later, is it that strange that he or she would try to fix those issues from so long ago?
This is just Time trying to find some way to stem the flow of Perry's sudden popularity. Ultimately, though, the difference between Perry then and now? Simple--in 2003, he was representing a different group of people.
*full dislosure: I'm no Perry fan; I don't really know him well enough. I also hate lobbying and lobbyists and everything to do with that aspect of politics. But, as I said, as long as it's in place, I would expect my representatives to participate to the extent that they can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)