I wrote the following in on 1/9/2012 (but decided not to post it until now):
"With CES (Consumer Electronic Show) coming up next week, I expect to talk about technology quite a bit in the next week. So, I've decided to switch things up and shake up this atmosphere a bit. I will bring up a subject I usually don't talk about, that is politics. It's been grinding my gears lately.
The following is directed more towards Senators, Representatives, and anyone that represents citizens. This is not directly towards the Presidency election. But I have one small comment, while Obama isn't close to being the ideal President I think he currently has my vote since the Republican party has yet to convince me of a reasonable candidate.
I think politicians have become out of control. I will first start with trading on Wall Street. Since they (Senators/Representatives/President) basically directly affect the economy with their power, I don't think they should be allowed to trade. I don't think this is too unreasonable since their salaries are quite high and should be sufficient enough to live a well off life (This is not even mentioning the reputation built that can lead to opportunities like book deals, doing paid appearances like speeches). And how does this not count as insider trading? Especially with their representation power, not allowing them to trade will reduce the chance of bribery and such from parties from the outside.
Another issue I have is how politicians are "representing" their constituents. As I see it now, the people only have two choices, Democratic and Republicans. And we are forced to choose the lesser of the two evils. With their alliances to their respective parties, do the representatives really depict their constituents? I'm sure in some cases they do. But I'm sure in majority of cases they do not follow the concord of their party. Shouldn't the politicians vote for bills in favor what they think their constituents would agree with, no matter what their party votes for? Even if their personal opinions differs from the people they represent? While it is difficult to get opinions from their people, it has gotten easier with technology. I do put some of the blame on the people and the lack of speaking out somewhat. But I certainly don't think we should only have two choices, neither that represents the people properly, especially since the candidates are pushed so far to one side of the spectrum in order to win their primaries. To relieve these issues with the two party system, the process could change: election ballets could be party-less so voters will need to be better informed instead of choosing just a party and primaries can be party-less, meaning that primaries would be one group and the best candidates (no matter what party) move on to the elections.
With this power given to them by us, politicians should be trusted not to favor certain companies or take sides in anyway. This will only lead to more corruption and more problems. And with SOPA, it's hard to believe that there is no influence from the outside including the music and movie industry. Unless the politicians are absolutely misinformed, I don't see any reason that this bill should pass. This bill will outright kill what the internet stands for. We will only be one step closer to more and more censoring which would be absolutely terrible. Shouldn't they listen to experts on this subject, including the largest forces on the web (Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL).
With all this said, all these problems can be attributed to Greed. And with elected officials, we are trusting them to put aside their greediness to represent us and protect our rights as best they can. They should not base all their actions in order to get re-elected. I hope the people never forget this fact."
Nearly a year has passed since the 2012 elections and nothing has changed. If anything has, the voices of extremists from both sides have become stronger. This leaves the moderates with no place to go. Politicians are still behaving with re-election in mind and playing political party games.
Before the 2012 elections, Todd Akin said "First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” which ultimately led to losing the Senate seat he was favored to win. Todd Akin was a member of the Committee of Space, Science, and Technology. While graduating from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, it was in Engineering Management.
But even the current leadership of the current don't seem to have any science or technology background. Committee Chair, Lamar Smith, and the other committee leads don't have a single STEM degree. Lamar Smith introduced SOPA which was adamantly opposed by the people and professionals in the industry.
That brings up another issue with Congress and how committee assignments are made. There should be background and knowledge requirements in order to become a member of a certain committee especially since spending budgets are overseen by them. Actual experience and knowledge could reduce the influence of lobbyists and large corporations.
It's difficult not to get irritated by reading about what is going on in politics (or the lack of).