Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Media and Lobbyists
scottyp65
Posts: 261 Member
Just wondering how the member here on MFP feel about how the media impacts "What" is "Good" to eat and those that pull the strings i.e. lobbyists.
I have some background at the state level in working with lobbyists, and they are NOT evil. I will say they are hired guns, like attorneys, which many are, and by definition they are biased. With that being said it become abundantly apparent the individual MUST research and discern a 'Truth".
I bring this up as there are stories out today about Salt & Fat and how the current mains stream thoughts on these two topics are not exactly proven science.
Go.....
I have some background at the state level in working with lobbyists, and they are NOT evil. I will say they are hired guns, like attorneys, which many are, and by definition they are biased. With that being said it become abundantly apparent the individual MUST research and discern a 'Truth".
I bring this up as there are stories out today about Salt & Fat and how the current mains stream thoughts on these two topics are not exactly proven science.
Go.....
0
Replies
-
I don't care because there are no good and bad foods; there are just bad diets. What matters is context and dosage and overall diet.
ETA - IMO the federal government has no business telling anyone what is good or bad or what they should, or should not eat.6 -
I've worked with the same in the defense industry and just think of them as salesmen.
I honestly don't understand the hullabaloo against lobbyists...other than railing against a general "I don't like what they are doing and they shouldn't be allowed to organize" vibe. I see this the same as any group organizing for maximum effect - unions, lobbyists, political parties, etc.
Is it because their methods are effective and the complainers are not?3 -
@CSARdiver
What you're asking is neither a health nor fitness question. I'll try to answer it though: it's because lobbyists are often called upon by people in congress to read and interpret legislation before it's voted on. This is actually congress's job. Many people feel that no private interest (union, lobbyist, etc) should be that embedded in the workings of our government without having been elected to the position. Similarly, the revolving door between congress and the lobbying industry give the appearance of impropriety.12 -
NorthCascades wrote: »@CSARdiver
What you're asking is neither a health nor fitness question. I'll try to answer it though: it's because lobbyists are often called upon by people in congress to read and interpret legislation before it's voted on. This is actually congress's job. Many people feel that no private interest (union, lobbyist, etc) should be that embedded in the workings of our government without having been elected to the position. Similarly, the revolving door between congress and the lobbying industry give the appearance of impropriety.
Not the OP and did not pose this question, but sure this applies to lobbyists representing the food industry. As the OP stated - Salt and Fat.
What defies logic is the selective outrage against lobbyists, but acceptance of other lobbying practices.
This explanation does not address the root cause, but railing against a symptom. I would agree with your assessment that this practice invites corruption and that the root cause, Congress not performing its duty, is left unaddressed.
0 -
The "media" exists in many forms--from the popular media whose main function is to attract viewers/readers in order to sell advertising, to scientific journals and offerings from professional organizations, to individual bloggers. Popular media is going to publish things that will stand out, so there is always a leaning towards more "controversy" or contrarian articles.
Food standards and recommendations have always had an element of politics. It is inevitable since there is usually no clear-cut, absolute scientific evidence on any topic. For something like the food pyramid, there are always going to be competing groups involved--from lobbyists representing commercial interests like beef and dairy producers to groups representing different ideologies or philosophies. Just look at the debates here over low-carb diets.
I don't think there is any grand conspiracy anywhere. All sides are going to try to use "the media" to their advantage. It may seem like commercial interests are favored, but that is likely because they can afford the biggest megaphones. I don't have a lot of patience for discussions about "media conspiracies". I think, overall, "the media" is too big and unwieldy to follow any focused agenda--plus most of the people involved aren't that smart.2 -
If lobbyists were helping Congress to make educated decisions, I doubt there'd be a complaint.
But you don't trust the person selling you a car to tell you what you can afford and whether the ride and the gas mileage is the best for your commute. You keep them at arm's length, do some research into the available options and make that determination yourself.
Lobbyists should be kept at arm's length as well.10 -
NorthCascades wrote: »@CSARdiver
What you're asking is neither a health nor fitness question. I'll try to answer it though: it's because lobbyists are often called upon by people in congress to read and interpret legislation before it's voted on. This is actually congress's job. Many people feel that no private interest (union, lobbyist, etc) should be that embedded in the workings of our government without having been elected to the position. Similarly, the revolving door between congress and the lobbying industry give the appearance of impropriety.
Not the OP and did not pose this question, but sure this applies to lobbyists representing the food industry. As the OP stated - Salt and Fat.
What defies logic is the selective outrage against lobbyists, but acceptance of other lobbying practices.
This explanation does not address the root cause, but railing against a symptom. I would agree with your assessment that this practice invites corruption and that the root cause, Congress not performing its duty, is left unaddressed.
I think the biggest complaint against "lobbyists" is due to the perception that they have undue access and influence on legislators. This is especially true when people see legislators move overnight from their legislative position to a lobbyist, and even more "especially true" when they end up lobbying for a corporation or interest group that they used to regulate.
With the money that is needed in US electoral politics, there is also the perception that legislators are almost wholly "owned" by lobbyists because they are so dependent on them for campaign funds. How many issues do we see in the US that have the support of 60%, 70% or more from citizens across the political spectrum, but are completely ignored by congressmen. More and more congressmen are allowing lobbyists to write and review legislation -- the legislators are now just stenographers and office assistants.
So I agree that lobbyists are not inherently evil, but I think our system has devolved to the point where they can have an outsized influence that is overall detrimental to the legislative process.11 -
Low trust in the media has been well earned, it's not just for political reporting.
Lobbyists do serve a good role, but their financial clout should be reduced.6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »@CSARdiver
What you're asking is neither a health nor fitness question. I'll try to answer it though: it's because lobbyists are often called upon by people in congress to read and interpret legislation before it's voted on. This is actually congress's job. Many people feel that no private interest (union, lobbyist, etc) should be that embedded in the workings of our government without having been elected to the position. Similarly, the revolving door between congress and the lobbying industry give the appearance of impropriety.
Not the OP and did not pose this question, but sure this applies to lobbyists representing the food industry. As the OP stated - Salt and Fat.
What defies logic is the selective outrage against lobbyists, but acceptance of other lobbying practices.
This explanation does not address the root cause, but railing against a symptom. I would agree with your assessment that this practice invites corruption and that the root cause, Congress not performing its duty, is left unaddressed.
I think the biggest complaint against "lobbyists" is due to the perception that they have undue access and influence on legislators. This is especially true when people see legislators move overnight from their legislative position to a lobbyist, and even more "especially true" when they end up lobbying for a corporation or interest group that they used to regulate.
With the money that is needed in US electoral politics, there is also the perception that legislators are almost wholly "owned" by lobbyists because they are so dependent on them for campaign funds. How many issues do we see in the US that have the support of 60%, 70% or more from citizens across the political spectrum, but are completely ignored by congressmen. More and more congressmen are allowing lobbyists to write and review legislation -- the legislators are now just stenographers and office assistants.
So I agree that lobbyists are not inherently evil, but I think our system has devolved to the point where they can have an outsized influence that is overall detrimental to the legislative process.
This.2 -
"Marketing isn't screwing the customer; marketing just holds the customer down while sales screws them."6
-
CipherZero wrote: »"Marketing isn't screwing the customer; marketing just holds the customer down while sales screws them."
LOL!0 -
I think you're leaving out the role of people hearing what they expect or want to hear, and not hearing contradictory information , and being willing to wallow in self-deception - if you're willing to put any credence in social science research, this is pretty well demonstrated. It interplays with the other factors, big time, IMO.
When I was in an MBA program, I took marketing classes. It was pretty clear that what they were telling us was to use the marketing research tools to find out what people really, really want . . . and this is often not what they say they'd want if you ask in a straightforward way. Then you give them what they want, and position it as being what they say they want, or what they think they ought to want.
For example (making an over-simplified case of it), people often say they want healthy choices on fast food menus. This might lead you to offer salads. If those sold well, the fast food joints would be happy to offer a totally salad-focused menu (they just want to make money, after all).
However, what people really want (actually buy) is salty, fried stuff . . . so voila, crispy chicken salad, a "good for you" (?) fast food option! We're happy to play along with that, because now we're "eating healthy" (i.e., we've heard what we want to hear in that marketing, and we're deceiving ourselves).
The media are no different, they're just marketing a different type of product: They want your eyeballs. If lots of people will click on it, some media source(s) will provide it. (They, too, don't mostly care what we consume, but whatever we prove we want to consume, they'll provide. They, too, just want to make money.)
If you go by behavior, people mostly seem to enjoy the so-called hyper-palatable foods: Those with a serious jolt of fat, sugar, and salt, typically. Media will play to that in one way or another, because more eyeballs. Lobbyists serve the corporate master, and will stump for what the corporations are trying to sell. And they're trying to sell us the stuff we really want, but don't want to admit. JMO.
Walt Kelly had Pogo say it best: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." And yes, if we don't want to be our own enemy, we have to do our own clear-eyed, careful research, because we're swimming against the popular tide.7 -
I usually figure that since the government pays for a lot of people's health procedures and stuff that it wouldn't be in their best interest to lie to us about what is healthy. Their opinion is subject to change just like any other health circles. Science is constantly changing and discovering things and I choose to just ignore the sensationalism that isn't backed up my good sources (in my opinion, trans fats being bad is airtight, whereas carbs being evil is subjective and not thoroughly backed by any study 100%)0
-
I think it's appropriate that you referred to them as "hired guns." I believe that guns are not inherently bad, but you never can tell about the people aiming them.5
-
When I was in an MBA program, I took marketing classes. It was pretty clear that what they were telling us was to use the marketing research tools to find out what people really, really want . . . and this is often not what they say they'd want if you ask in a straightforward way. Then you give them what they want, and position it as being what they say they want, or what they think they ought to want.
Malcolm Gladwell (who wrote The Tipping Point) gave a TED Talk about this. The example he gave was to ask people how they like their coffee. Almost everybody will say "strong and dark" because that's the right sounding answer, what they think they're supposed to say. Truth is most people like it weak and milky.4 -
More and more congressmen are allowing lobbyists to write and review legislation -- the legislators are now just stenographers and office assistants.NorthCascades wrote: »@CSARdiver
What you're asking is neither a health nor fitness question. I'll try to answer it though: it's because lobbyists are often called upon by people in congress to read and interpret legislation before it's voted on. This is actually congress's job. Many people feel that no private interest (union, lobbyist, etc) should be that embedded in the workings of our government without having been elected to the position. Similarly, the revolving door between congress and the lobbying industry give the appearance of impropriety.
Not the OP and did not pose this question, but sure this applies to lobbyists representing the food industry. As the OP stated - Salt and Fat.
What defies logic is the selective outrage against lobbyists, but acceptance of other lobbying practices.
This explanation does not address the root cause, but railing against a symptom. I would agree with your assessment that this practice invites corruption and that the root cause, Congress not performing its duty, is left unaddressed.
They have staffers show up to sessions for them and also proxy vote for them. There are people in Congress whose entire lives consist of avoiding the job they are supposedly elected to do so that they can instead use that time to go and campaign either for their own reelection, or for the election of someone else who has given them financial incentive to support. Every now and then one of them shows up to give a speech to an empty room.
Much of what people complain about with lobbyists is a symptom of the real problem.5 -
I believe that you can't rely on the media for anything...even to get the basic facts right. Far too many of the stories I read...whether about nutrition, politics, or even an obvious terrorist attack...either leave out certain key pieces of information to lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, get basic facts wrong (whether deliberately or just because of sloppiness), or clearly are pushing an agenda and slanting everything to support the reporter's own feelings (when their job is to just give us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions.)
Lobbyists serve a legitimate function, however in the current political system they have far, far too much power. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008 new legislation was passed to regulate the financial industry. A good friend of mine...who works for one of the major investment banks!!!...actually wrote key passages of the legislation that was passed. Congress didn't understand the issues (or perhaps corruption also played a part?), went to the lobbyists for help, and the lobbyists went back to their client...the banks. So the banks wrote the legislation that supposedly holds them in check. The same thing happens in nutrition.
There has been plenty written on all the lobbying that resulted in that food pyramid. The food pyramid that many of us grew up with was really NOT supported by the science at the time. But carbs (breads & cereals) became the base (6-11 servings were recommended in the original version! Against the recommendations of USDA scientists!!!) because of the impact of lobbyists for the wheat and corn industries.
So media and lobbyists have a HUGE impact on what the public in general considers healthy. That is not a good thing considering that these groups are not working for the public, but for speific business interests.
If you really want to be informed, read studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions about what the science actually points toward...don't accept somebody else's conclusion as "fact".4 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I believe that you can't rely on the media for anything...even to get the basic facts right. Far too many of the stories I read...whether about nutrition, politics, or even an obvious terrorist attack...either leave out certain key pieces of information to lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, get basic facts wrong (whether deliberately or just because of sloppiness), or clearly are pushing an agenda and slanting everything to support the reporter's own feelings (when their job is to just give us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions.)
Lobbyists serve a legitimate function, however in the current political system they have far, far too much power. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008 new legislation was passed to regulate the financial industry. A good friend of mine...who works for one of the major investment banks!!!...actually wrote key passages of the legislation that was passed. Congress didn't understand the issues (or perhaps corruption also played a part?), went to the lobbyists for help, and the lobbyists went back to their client...the banks. So the banks wrote the legislation that supposedly holds them in check. The same thing happens in nutrition.
There has been plenty written on all the lobbying that resulted in that food pyramid. The food pyramid that many of us grew up with was really NOT supported by the science at the time. But carbs (breads & cereals) became the base (6-11 servings were recommended in the original version! Against the recommendations of USDA scientists!!!) because of the impact of lobbyists for the wheat and corn industries.
So media and lobbyists have a HUGE impact on what the public in general considers healthy. That is not a good thing considering that these groups are not working for the public, but for specific business interests.
If you really want to be informed, read studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions about what the science actually points toward...don't accept somebody else's conclusion as "fact".
Hear hear! If you've ever been part of a news story or interviewed you know firsthand how media manipulates data to serve an agenda. I don't know if it is possible to remove bias, but it is critical to be aware of it. Government media will bias toward government. Commercial media will bias toward its sponsors. This makes it all the more important to review source data, but few have the time or knowledge to access this.
We could address the root cause through term limits and remove the occupation of professional politician, but the majority will not do this. Only a small minority are politically aware, even fewer are politically active. Those that are are so rooted into binary thinking that they cannot see beyond their personal political doctrine. People have the mindset that while Congress is non-functional, their Congressman is not the problem.2 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I believe that you can't rely on the media for anything...even to get the basic facts right. Far too many of the stories I read...whether about nutrition, politics, or even an obvious terrorist attack...either leave out certain key pieces of information to lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, get basic facts wrong (whether deliberately or just because of sloppiness), or clearly are pushing an agenda and slanting everything to support the reporter's own feelings (when their job is to just give us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions.)
Lobbyists serve a legitimate function, however in the current political system they have far, far too much power. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008 new legislation was passed to regulate the financial industry. A good friend of mine...who works for one of the major investment banks!!!...actually wrote key passages of the legislation that was passed. Congress didn't understand the issues (or perhaps corruption also played a part?), went to the lobbyists for help, and the lobbyists went back to their client...the banks. So the banks wrote the legislation that supposedly holds them in check. The same thing happens in nutrition.
There has been plenty written on all the lobbying that resulted in that food pyramid. The food pyramid that many of us grew up with was really NOT supported by the science at the time. But carbs (breads & cereals) became the base (6-11 servings were recommended in the original version! Against the recommendations of USDA scientists!!!) because of the impact of lobbyists for the wheat and corn industries.
So media and lobbyists have a HUGE impact on what the public in general considers healthy. That is not a good thing considering that these groups are not working for the public, but for specific business interests.
If you really want to be informed, read studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions about what the science actually points toward...don't accept somebody else's conclusion as "fact".
Hear hear! If you've ever been part of a news story or interviewed you know firsthand how media manipulates data to serve an agenda. I don't know if it is possible to remove bias, but it is critical to be aware of it. Government media will bias toward government. Commercial media will bias toward its sponsors. This makes it all the more important to review source data, but few have the time or knowledge to access this.
We could address the root cause through term limits and remove the occupation of professional politician, but the majority will not do this. Only a small minority are politically aware, even fewer are politically active. Those that are are so rooted into binary thinking that they cannot see beyond their personal political doctrine. People have the mindset that while Congress is non-functional, their Congressman is not the problem.
Please: NO to term limits. We implemented them at the state level (in Michigan) and it's been a disaster. The average person doesn't really learn how a complex thing like a state operates well enough to do the job with full competence and insight, within the limited time they can be in office.
Therefore, staffers and lobbyists get more power, because they stick around; the actual legislators don't know enough about the subjects to exercise integrity even if they have some.
On top of that, the limits mean that most legislators are grandstanding during their terms, sponsoring splashy headline-grabbing pandering kinds of things (because they're already running for their next office), while boring but serious business (especially the intellectually complex, difficult to understand parts) goes completely un-addressed.
No, no, no to term limits. It's poison. If you don't like 'em, vote 'em out. If they're competent, let them stay, and give some continuity to the big machine (that isn't unelected civil servants, staffers and lobbyists).4 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I believe that you can't rely on the media for anything...even to get the basic facts right. Far too many of the stories I read...whether about nutrition, politics, or even an obvious terrorist attack...either leave out certain key pieces of information to lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, get basic facts wrong (whether deliberately or just because of sloppiness), or clearly are pushing an agenda and slanting everything to support the reporter's own feelings (when their job is to just give us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions.)
Lobbyists serve a legitimate function, however in the current political system they have far, far too much power. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008 new legislation was passed to regulate the financial industry. A good friend of mine...who works for one of the major investment banks!!!...actually wrote key passages of the legislation that was passed. Congress didn't understand the issues (or perhaps corruption also played a part?), went to the lobbyists for help, and the lobbyists went back to their client...the banks. So the banks wrote the legislation that supposedly holds them in check. The same thing happens in nutrition.
There has been plenty written on all the lobbying that resulted in that food pyramid. The food pyramid that many of us grew up with was really NOT supported by the science at the time. But carbs (breads & cereals) became the base (6-11 servings were recommended in the original version! Against the recommendations of USDA scientists!!!) because of the impact of lobbyists for the wheat and corn industries.
So media and lobbyists have a HUGE impact on what the public in general considers healthy. That is not a good thing considering that these groups are not working for the public, but for specific business interests.
If you really want to be informed, read studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions about what the science actually points toward...don't accept somebody else's conclusion as "fact".
Hear hear! If you've ever been part of a news story or interviewed you know firsthand how media manipulates data to serve an agenda. I don't know if it is possible to remove bias, but it is critical to be aware of it. Government media will bias toward government. Commercial media will bias toward its sponsors. This makes it all the more important to review source data, but few have the time or knowledge to access this.
We could address the root cause through term limits and remove the occupation of professional politician, but the majority will not do this. Only a small minority are politically aware, even fewer are politically active. Those that are are so rooted into binary thinking that they cannot see beyond their personal political doctrine. People have the mindset that while Congress is non-functional, their Congressman is not the problem.
Please: NO to term limits. We implemented them at the state level (in Michigan) and it's been a disaster. The average person doesn't really learn how a complex thing like a state operates well enough to do the job with full competence and insight, within the limited time they can be in office.
Therefore, staffers and lobbyists get more power, because they stick around; the actual legislators don't know enough about the subjects to exercise integrity even if they have some.
On top of that, the limits mean that most legislators are grandstanding during their terms, sponsoring splashy headline-grabbing pandering kinds of things (because they're already running for their next office), while boring but serious business (especially the intellectually complex, difficult to understand parts) goes completely un-addressed.
No, no, no to term limits. It's poison. If you don't like 'em, vote 'em out. If they're competent, let them stay, and give some continuity to the big machine (that isn't unelected civil servants, staffers and lobbyists).
Agree 100%. If you could "throw the bums out" tomorrow, in a year they would just be replaced by more bums.
The "corrupt" politicians that everyone hates came from the same population pool as those who would replace them. They were yesterday's "reformers".
IMO, term limits, like tax freezes, are lazy approaches. Voters have the tools they need to change the government at any time. If they aren't competent to choose the right person now (see Election, 2016), why would they be any more competent to choose candidates more frequently?
3 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I believe that you can't rely on the media for anything...even to get the basic facts right. Far too many of the stories I read...whether about nutrition, politics, or even an obvious terrorist attack...either leave out certain key pieces of information to lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, get basic facts wrong (whether deliberately or just because of sloppiness), or clearly are pushing an agenda and slanting everything to support the reporter's own feelings (when their job is to just give us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions.)
Lobbyists serve a legitimate function, however in the current political system they have far, far too much power. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008 new legislation was passed to regulate the financial industry. A good friend of mine...who works for one of the major investment banks!!!...actually wrote key passages of the legislation that was passed. Congress didn't understand the issues (or perhaps corruption also played a part?), went to the lobbyists for help, and the lobbyists went back to their client...the banks. So the banks wrote the legislation that supposedly holds them in check. The same thing happens in nutrition.
There has been plenty written on all the lobbying that resulted in that food pyramid. The food pyramid that many of us grew up with was really NOT supported by the science at the time. But carbs (breads & cereals) became the base (6-11 servings were recommended in the original version! Against the recommendations of USDA scientists!!!) because of the impact of lobbyists for the wheat and corn industries.
So media and lobbyists have a HUGE impact on what the public in general considers healthy. That is not a good thing considering that these groups are not working for the public, but for specific business interests.
If you really want to be informed, read studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions about what the science actually points toward...don't accept somebody else's conclusion as "fact".
Hear hear! If you've ever been part of a news story or interviewed you know firsthand how media manipulates data to serve an agenda. I don't know if it is possible to remove bias, but it is critical to be aware of it. Government media will bias toward government. Commercial media will bias toward its sponsors. This makes it all the more important to review source data, but few have the time or knowledge to access this.
We could address the root cause through term limits and remove the occupation of professional politician, but the majority will not do this. Only a small minority are politically aware, even fewer are politically active. Those that are are so rooted into binary thinking that they cannot see beyond their personal political doctrine. People have the mindset that while Congress is non-functional, their Congressman is not the problem.
Please: NO to term limits. We implemented them at the state level (in Michigan) and it's been a disaster. The average person doesn't really learn how a complex thing like a state operates well enough to do the job with full competence and insight, within the limited time they can be in office.
Therefore, staffers and lobbyists get more power, because they stick around; the actual legislators don't know enough about the subjects to exercise integrity even if they have some.
On top of that, the limits mean that most legislators are grandstanding during their terms, sponsoring splashy headline-grabbing pandering kinds of things (because they're already running for their next office), while boring but serious business (especially the intellectually complex, difficult to understand parts) goes completely un-addressed.
No, no, no to term limits. It's poison. If you don't like 'em, vote 'em out. If they're competent, let them stay, and give some continuity to the big machine (that isn't unelected civil servants, staffers and lobbyists).
Agree 100%. If you could "throw the bums out" tomorrow, in a year they would just be replaced by more bums.
The "corrupt" politicians that everyone hates came from the same population pool as those who would replace them. They were yesterday's "reformers".
IMO, term limits, like tax freezes, are lazy approaches. Voters have the tools they need to change the government at any time. If they aren't competent to choose the right person now (see Election, 2016), why would they be any more competent to choose candidates more frequently?
There is cause for the saying "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". A regular changing of the guard reduces both motive and means for corruption.1 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I believe that you can't rely on the media for anything...even to get the basic facts right. Far too many of the stories I read...whether about nutrition, politics, or even an obvious terrorist attack...either leave out certain key pieces of information to lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, get basic facts wrong (whether deliberately or just because of sloppiness), or clearly are pushing an agenda and slanting everything to support the reporter's own feelings (when their job is to just give us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions.)
Lobbyists serve a legitimate function, however in the current political system they have far, far too much power. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008 new legislation was passed to regulate the financial industry. A good friend of mine...who works for one of the major investment banks!!!...actually wrote key passages of the legislation that was passed. Congress didn't understand the issues (or perhaps corruption also played a part?), went to the lobbyists for help, and the lobbyists went back to their client...the banks. So the banks wrote the legislation that supposedly holds them in check. The same thing happens in nutrition.
There has been plenty written on all the lobbying that resulted in that food pyramid. The food pyramid that many of us grew up with was really NOT supported by the science at the time. But carbs (breads & cereals) became the base (6-11 servings were recommended in the original version! Against the recommendations of USDA scientists!!!) because of the impact of lobbyists for the wheat and corn industries.
So media and lobbyists have a HUGE impact on what the public in general considers healthy. That is not a good thing considering that these groups are not working for the public, but for specific business interests.
If you really want to be informed, read studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions about what the science actually points toward...don't accept somebody else's conclusion as "fact".
Hear hear! If you've ever been part of a news story or interviewed you know firsthand how media manipulates data to serve an agenda. I don't know if it is possible to remove bias, but it is critical to be aware of it. Government media will bias toward government. Commercial media will bias toward its sponsors. This makes it all the more important to review source data, but few have the time or knowledge to access this.
We could address the root cause through term limits and remove the occupation of professional politician, but the majority will not do this. Only a small minority are politically aware, even fewer are politically active. Those that are are so rooted into binary thinking that they cannot see beyond their personal political doctrine. People have the mindset that while Congress is non-functional, their Congressman is not the problem.
Please: NO to term limits. We implemented them at the state level (in Michigan) and it's been a disaster. The average person doesn't really learn how a complex thing like a state operates well enough to do the job with full competence and insight, within the limited time they can be in office.
Therefore, staffers and lobbyists get more power, because they stick around; the actual legislators don't know enough about the subjects to exercise integrity even if they have some.
On top of that, the limits mean that most legislators are grandstanding during their terms, sponsoring splashy headline-grabbing pandering kinds of things (because they're already running for their next office), while boring but serious business (especially the intellectually complex, difficult to understand parts) goes completely un-addressed.
No, no, no to term limits. It's poison. If you don't like 'em, vote 'em out. If they're competent, let them stay, and give some continuity to the big machine (that isn't unelected civil servants, staffers and lobbyists).
Agree 100%. If you could "throw the bums out" tomorrow, in a year they would just be replaced by more bums.
The "corrupt" politicians that everyone hates came from the same population pool as those who would replace them. They were yesterday's "reformers".
IMO, term limits, like tax freezes, are lazy approaches. Voters have the tools they need to change the government at any time. If they aren't competent to choose the right person now (see Election, 2016), why would they be any more competent to choose candidates more frequently?
There is cause for the saying "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". A regular changing of the guard reduces both motive and means for corruption.
But what happens with term limits is you really, really quickly burn through the people with intelligence, integrity, and willingness to serve, and end up with the Keystone Kops. I guess it's an advantage that often their corruption is so freakin' transparent that a child could see it.
Here in term-limited Michigan, a recent favorite of mine was two married (to others) tea-party-affiliated legislators who had an affair, even sharing an office and staff in the legislature. Then the male half of the team asked his flacks to whisper a rumor that he was gay, an easily-righteously-refuted claim, to cover up this extra-marital affair (no, that idea doesn't make sense to anyone but him). This news was leaked, leading to much amusement and/or chagrin by spectators inside & outside the legislature. Ultimately, both were booted by their colleagues. Last I heard, the female was suing them because she had understood that if she admitted guilt, she'd be censured but not ejected. One or both of them - I forget which - tried to run again (they weren't limited out yet). It didn't go well.
Seriously, when these folks can only serve a couple of terms, they don't need to be bought to be corrupted. They know so little about what's going on that 'friendly' lobbyists can hoodwink them just by providing biased information that they don't have enough experience to vet competently. The lobbyists can also buy staff members (who are serial-monogamous employees over time of different legislators from the same party, and therefore get cozy with the lobbyists). These staffers have sway over the clueless legislators, stack the deck, and can't be voted out.
The other thing we're seeing is family dynasties: Guy runs, limits out, wife runs, limits out, daughter runs, limits out . . . .
You know that experience you have when you go to McDonald's and the whole crew is new, then you order something only just slightly unusual and they fall apart? Our legislature acts a lot like that, on a society-changing scale. Every problem a state faces is way more complicated than a Sausage McMuffin with extra egg, and they face problems across a huge range of subject matters.
Term limits are a disaster.
If you need the guard changed, vote them out.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I believe that you can't rely on the media for anything...even to get the basic facts right. Far too many of the stories I read...whether about nutrition, politics, or even an obvious terrorist attack...either leave out certain key pieces of information to lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, get basic facts wrong (whether deliberately or just because of sloppiness), or clearly are pushing an agenda and slanting everything to support the reporter's own feelings (when their job is to just give us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions.)
Lobbyists serve a legitimate function, however in the current political system they have far, far too much power. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008 new legislation was passed to regulate the financial industry. A good friend of mine...who works for one of the major investment banks!!!...actually wrote key passages of the legislation that was passed. Congress didn't understand the issues (or perhaps corruption also played a part?), went to the lobbyists for help, and the lobbyists went back to their client...the banks. So the banks wrote the legislation that supposedly holds them in check. The same thing happens in nutrition.
There has been plenty written on all the lobbying that resulted in that food pyramid. The food pyramid that many of us grew up with was really NOT supported by the science at the time. But carbs (breads & cereals) became the base (6-11 servings were recommended in the original version! Against the recommendations of USDA scientists!!!) because of the impact of lobbyists for the wheat and corn industries.
So media and lobbyists have a HUGE impact on what the public in general considers healthy. That is not a good thing considering that these groups are not working for the public, but for specific business interests.
If you really want to be informed, read studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions about what the science actually points toward...don't accept somebody else's conclusion as "fact".
Hear hear! If you've ever been part of a news story or interviewed you know firsthand how media manipulates data to serve an agenda. I don't know if it is possible to remove bias, but it is critical to be aware of it. Government media will bias toward government. Commercial media will bias toward its sponsors. This makes it all the more important to review source data, but few have the time or knowledge to access this.
We could address the root cause through term limits and remove the occupation of professional politician, but the majority will not do this. Only a small minority are politically aware, even fewer are politically active. Those that are are so rooted into binary thinking that they cannot see beyond their personal political doctrine. People have the mindset that while Congress is non-functional, their Congressman is not the problem.
Please: NO to term limits. We implemented them at the state level (in Michigan) and it's been a disaster. The average person doesn't really learn how a complex thing like a state operates well enough to do the job with full competence and insight, within the limited time they can be in office.
Therefore, staffers and lobbyists get more power, because they stick around; the actual legislators don't know enough about the subjects to exercise integrity even if they have some.
On top of that, the limits mean that most legislators are grandstanding during their terms, sponsoring splashy headline-grabbing pandering kinds of things (because they're already running for their next office), while boring but serious business (especially the intellectually complex, difficult to understand parts) goes completely un-addressed.
No, no, no to term limits. It's poison. If you don't like 'em, vote 'em out. If they're competent, let them stay, and give some continuity to the big machine (that isn't unelected civil servants, staffers and lobbyists).
Agree 100%. If you could "throw the bums out" tomorrow, in a year they would just be replaced by more bums.
The "corrupt" politicians that everyone hates came from the same population pool as those who would replace them. They were yesterday's "reformers".
IMO, term limits, like tax freezes, are lazy approaches. Voters have the tools they need to change the government at any time. If they aren't competent to choose the right person now (see Election, 2016), why would they be any more competent to choose candidates more frequently?
There is cause for the saying "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". A regular changing of the guard reduces both motive and means for corruption.
There's another saying: "meet the new boss...same as the old boss".
I stand by my earlier statement: term limits is an overly simplistic and lazy way to run a political process. It feeds into the worst instincts of the American people--the short attention span, the thintelligence, and the love of shiny new objects. Instead of sucking it up and doing the hard work necessary to solve problems, too many Americans sit on their *kitten* and wait for the Next New Thing to magically solve everything.
Term limits is the Master Cleanse of politics.
2 -
Speaking of lobbyists, who is the lobbyist who wrote the 401(k) law in the first place? No one seems to know. It's the most popular and consequential law passed by Congress in the past 40 years and no-one serving in Congress at the time remembers any discussion about it.
Meanwhile, we all can name a few lobbyists we hate. We humans are weird that way.0 -
It would be smarter of me to let this thread die a natural death, but I really don't want to see other states, let alone the whole US, make the mistake Michigan made. To that end, this recent report is thought-provoking, even if you don't agree with all elements of it (public radio report, now stream-able, plus text, at the link).
Research on term limits shows lobbyists, special interests win, while Michiganders often lose0 -
@AnnPT77 I am in total agreement on Term Limits! Each election is potentially a term limiting event (TLE). I know this from first hand experience. The issue, in my eyes, is that when you have an ever changing elected body there is little continuity. Many of the issues brought before a legislative body are complex and take a significant amount of time to work through. When there are so many newbies in the body there is little historical knowledge of why certain things just don't work, with regards to policy. Institutional knowledge is important to have to reduce the re-work which is now becoming the norm. A legislator needs to really ask a lot of questions about any proposed legislation, such as; Has this been tried before? If so why didn't it pass? Who was for it and or against it, and why? What has changed in either the proposed legislation or the current state of affairs which will make this a more viable policy? Without these questions being asked and answered there is a strong chance for poor legislation to be passed, and good legislation being stymied (and I know what is good or bad is very subjective at times).
With a lack of institutional knowledge, coupled with the learning curve associated with being newly elected, there is a vacuum which must be filled. Generally the lobby tries to help, but more importantly the STAFF takes on a larger role. While most staffers are good and honest people, there are way too many who wield way too much influence as a result of term limits. The staffers stay while the elected cycle through, and these staffers are virtually untouchable. You can see this taking place right now at the federal level.
No there need not be term limits, and no need to restrict lobbyists, rather there needs to be more participation by the electorate. The voters need to do as many on this thread have already stated, and that is to seek out multiple sources of information, and to read the original sources of information to get smart on the policy being voted on. I would point out to the uninformed, PARTICIPATE in primaries and always, always be respectful to the person you are trying to influence. I am amazed at those who somehow believe that poor behavior is somehow going to change the button someone will push?1 -
While some of it is definitely lobbying, part of it is that nutritional science is still very young, so academic thinking on what's "healthy" or not tends to change pretty rapidly. We might be able to send satellites to orbit different planets and build a world wide network of facebook games, but we still don't know jack *kitten* about the human body.0
-
CipherZero wrote: »"Marketing isn't screwing the customer; marketing just holds the customer down while sales screws them."
Only if the customer is a willing participant.3 -
There's the corn lobby, the beef lobby, and California almond lobby.0
-
It's scary that in your mind you compare writing laws, raising taxes and making budgets to flipping burgers at McDonalds.
Most reps are lawyers, they don't need a life term to make better laws, they just need to focus on their constituency.
McDonald's staff do their job with muscle memory while I want legislators to use their brains.
The long term office holders get lazy and listen to the lobbyists instead of doing what's good for their voters.MoiAussi93 wrote: »I believe that you can't rely on the media for anything...even to get the basic facts right. Far too many of the stories I read...whether about nutrition, politics, or even an obvious terrorist attack...either leave out certain key pieces of information to lead the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, get basic facts wrong (whether deliberately or just because of sloppiness), or clearly are pushing an agenda and slanting everything to support the reporter's own feelings (when their job is to just give us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions.)
Lobbyists serve a legitimate function, however in the current political system they have far, far too much power. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008 new legislation was passed to regulate the financial industry. A good friend of mine...who works for one of the major investment banks!!!...actually wrote key passages of the legislation that was passed. Congress didn't understand the issues (or perhaps corruption also played a part?), went to the lobbyists for help, and the lobbyists went back to their client...the banks. So the banks wrote the legislation that supposedly holds them in check. The same thing happens in nutrition.
There has been plenty written on all the lobbying that resulted in that food pyramid. The food pyramid that many of us grew up with was really NOT supported by the science at the time. But carbs (breads & cereals) became the base (6-11 servings were recommended in the original version! Against the recommendations of USDA scientists!!!) because of the impact of lobbyists for the wheat and corn industries.
So media and lobbyists have a HUGE impact on what the public in general considers healthy. That is not a good thing considering that these groups are not working for the public, but for specific business interests.
If you really want to be informed, read studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions about what the science actually points toward...don't accept somebody else's conclusion as "fact".
Hear hear! If you've ever been part of a news story or interviewed you know firsthand how media manipulates data to serve an agenda. I don't know if it is possible to remove bias, but it is critical to be aware of it. Government media will bias toward government. Commercial media will bias toward its sponsors. This makes it all the more important to review source data, but few have the time or knowledge to access this.
We could address the root cause through term limits and remove the occupation of professional politician, but the majority will not do this. Only a small minority are politically aware, even fewer are politically active. Those that are are so rooted into binary thinking that they cannot see beyond their personal political doctrine. People have the mindset that while Congress is non-functional, their Congressman is not the problem.
Please: NO to term limits. We implemented them at the state level (in Michigan) and it's been a disaster. The average person doesn't really learn how a complex thing like a state operates well enough to do the job with full competence and insight, within the limited time they can be in office.
Therefore, staffers and lobbyists get more power, because they stick around; the actual legislators don't know enough about the subjects to exercise integrity even if they have some.
On top of that, the limits mean that most legislators are grandstanding during their terms, sponsoring splashy headline-grabbing pandering kinds of things (because they're already running for their next office), while boring but serious business (especially the intellectually complex, difficult to understand parts) goes completely un-addressed.
No, no, no to term limits. It's poison. If you don't like 'em, vote 'em out. If they're competent, let them stay, and give some continuity to the big machine (that isn't unelected civil servants, staffers and lobbyists).
Agree 100%. If you could "throw the bums out" tomorrow, in a year they would just be replaced by more bums.
The "corrupt" politicians that everyone hates came from the same population pool as those who would replace them. They were yesterday's "reformers".
IMO, term limits, like tax freezes, are lazy approaches. Voters have the tools they need to change the government at any time. If they aren't competent to choose the right person now (see Election, 2016), why would they be any more competent to choose candidates more frequently?
There is cause for the saying "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". A regular changing of the guard reduces both motive and means for corruption.
But what happens with term limits is you really, really quickly burn through the people with intelligence, integrity, and willingness to serve, and end up with the Keystone Kops. I guess it's an advantage that often their corruption is so freakin' transparent that a child could see it.
Here in term-limited Michigan, a recent favorite of mine was two married (to others) tea-party-affiliated legislators who had an affair, even sharing an office and staff in the legislature. Then the male half of the team asked his flacks to whisper a rumor that he was gay, an easily-righteously-refuted claim, to cover up this extra-marital affair (no, that idea doesn't make sense to anyone but him). This news was leaked, leading to much amusement and/or chagrin by spectators inside & outside the legislature. Ultimately, both were booted by their colleagues. Last I heard, the female was suing them because she had understood that if she admitted guilt, she'd be censured but not ejected. One or both of them - I forget which - tried to run again (they weren't limited out yet). It didn't go well.
Seriously, when these folks can only serve a couple of terms, they don't need to be bought to be corrupted. They know so little about what's going on that 'friendly' lobbyists can hoodwink them just by providing biased information that they don't have enough experience to vet competently. The lobbyists can also buy staff members (who are serial-monogamous employees over time of different legislators from the same party, and therefore get cozy with the lobbyists). These staffers have sway over the clueless legislators, stack the deck, and can't be voted out.
The other thing we're seeing is family dynasties: Guy runs, limits out, wife runs, limits out, daughter runs, limits out . . . .
You know that experience you have when you go to McDonald's and the whole crew is new, then you order something only just slightly unusual and they fall apart? Our legislature acts a lot like that, on a society-changing scale. Every problem a state faces is way more complicated than a Sausage McMuffin with extra egg, and they face problems across a huge range of subject matters.
Term limits are a disaster.
If you need the guard changed, vote them out.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions