Political Bias in the Media

Political Bias in the Media

Because mass media is a dominant source of information for the public, it is important that the information presented by mass media be dependable. Moreover, the information should be presented with integrity, and be devoid of political or personal bias. Mass media should be objective to allow the consumer to formulate his or her own opinions based on the facts contained within the media source. For all these standards and expectations is it conceivable to have mass media completely unbiased and objective?

The topic of the British Petroleum debacle in the gulf has been a major focus in the media. In late April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a deep sea oil rig leased by British Petroleum (BP) exploded, killing 11 rig workers (Welch & Joyner, 2010). Since that time oil has been leaking into the ocean, covering the surface waters, and carried by the currents into the marshlands of Louisiana and other coastal states. Louisiana relies heavily on its fishing and shrimping industry. Many local workers and company spokespersons have expressed concern on the damage the spill has done to the ecosystem upon which they rely for financial stability.

In an effort to combat the spill, BP used an estimated 1.8 million gallons of chemicals designed to disperse, and break down the oil slick adding additional concern to the communities on whether or not the chemicals could be found in the various plants and animals sold for food by the Louisiana companies (Charles, 2010). The question lingers on, “is the food safe for human consumption?” Many articles address these concerns with a surprising amount of variance in information.

In the article Louisiana Fisherman Slam Claims the Oil Almost Gone, Seafood Safe, written by Jacoba Charles, a correspondent for the SolveClimate news agency, many Louisiana residents express fear, and as the title suggests, are reluctant to believe reports by federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the oil is nearly gone, and the food supplies are safe for consumption. The author of the article does not express any opinion regarding the state of the oil spill or its effect on the coastal state, but instead focuses on the opinions of the local communities that paint a picture more grim than that of other articles pertaining to the same event (Charles, 2010). The stated mission of the SolveClimate agency is to educate the reader about events that either cause harm or improve the ecological state of the world. In this mission, the company does carry a certain political agenda.

Conversely, in the article written for the Associated Press (AP) by Cain Burdeau and Jeffrey Collins, the attitude is more positive. The title of the article best represents its tone: In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes. The authors cited a local ecologist as stating that, based on what he has seen in the marshlands the impact to local fisheries would not be a significant issue. In addition, the authors cited a local crab fisherman who stated that he had not seen any oil or residue on the crabs and fish he caught, which he punctuated by saying “We're going to have us a crab boil” (Burdeau & Collins, 2010). The Associated Press has long been an organization that has portrayed information in an objective and unbiased fashion, and this article is no exception.

The Reuters article FDA: Oil Dispersants Won't Foul Seafood supports the same assertion in the AP article that the chemicals used by BP to combat the oil spill will not harm those who consume seafood and other products from that region. As in the AP article, this article outlines the FDA's position on the chemical dispersants in a way that is informative and objective. The article acknowledges opposing viewpoints but does an excellent job of providing credible sources to support its claims (Reuters, 2010).

The central theme of the articles revolve around the FDA and the Coastal Seafood industry’s recent affirmation that the oil spill clean-up is under control, and contamination of the chemical dispersant to humans is nonexistent. Although most of the articles analyzed seemed to be neutral in their reporting by addressing only facts along with arguments; nevertheless, the attitude of one particular article had a different tone.

Jacoba Charles goes beyond just reporting facts. By focusing on many local voices of opposition to the claims by the FDA, Charles represents the attitudes of the local coastal Louisiana fisherman living daily with the disastrous oil spill. They claim the oil is far from gone as suggested by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Many are concerned that the dispersant will eventually come to surface, and that BP’s solution is perhaps only temporary. The tone in this article is to bring a voice to those locals who are skeptical about the FDA’s reporting that the seafood lacks contaminates along with the government and media’s portrayal that the clean-up is under control.

As the NOAA has stated the oil is 75% gone, and that there is significant growth seen in the marsh where the cataclysmic oil spill has spread. Despite these claims there is skepticism and contrary evidence being presented. Although the Associated Press is reporting a significant improvement, there are anglers who say the opposite is true. While there are reports coming forth that the seafood is not negatively affected and the oil or chemical dispersant has not hurt the seafood, there are fishermen in the Louisiana area reporting the opposite (Burdeau & Collins, 2010).

Charles (2010) found the following:

In the small towns of coastal Louisiana, the widespread consensus is that the oil is far from gone. Fishermen return from working on cleanup crews or from recreational angling trips with stories of crabs whose lungs are black with oil, or of oysters with shells covered in sludge. They take photos and carry tarballs home like talismans to show what they have seen. They talk about their fears with anyone who will listen, and often their voices are tinged with panic.

Dawn Nunez is a store-owner in the oil soaked Louisiana region. She is concerned about eating the seafood and will not feed it to her children. She and her husband, who has worked with oil his whole life, are both confident the oil is still in the environment contrary to other reports saying it is mostly gone. They have seen the oil on marsh grass and seafood (Charles, 2010).

Brian Zito (2010), a commercial fisherman on Grand Isle stated:

I've been working with oil all my life. Dispersant is like soap, and if you wash your hands in a bucket your water will be all white and soapy and fine. But let that bucket sit there for a few hours and see what happens – all that oil is going to come back together.

When it comes to mass media in today’s world it is always best to check different sources when certain news break. A variety of media sources is needed to obtain more than a single viewpoint. Many times the stories one sees on CNN will not be aired on Fox news and vice versa. Another reason to check different media is that each media source either covers different stories or both cover the same story from a different viewpoint. One could argue that no network is perfect. Despite their best efforts, all mass media sources have at least some level of bias, which is why it is the responsibility of the consumer to separate fact from opinion.

In today’s world journalism has changed. Sometimes it seems as though there are more opinions floating around than facts. For example, when the BP spill occurred everyone had opinions on what to do and what they thought of the situation. In many cases it appeared organizations were merely tossing around criticism assuming the spill would be an easy task to undertake. Fox news criticized President Obama. MSNBC showed President Obama as doing his best. Many local news stations focused more on the factual information relating to the state of the oil spill. CNN did well to focus on the BP spill and avoid many of the politics altogether.

Another informative media source is the Internet. One has access to a broad range of media while also being able to read other viewers' opinions in addition to posting one's own views. The Internet is a diverse media source. Within it exists news websites, blogs, online newspapers, magazines, and more. Any given story can be posted in its entirety online. One must use caution online concerning blogs as some blogs tend to take news out of context. This can lead to unnecessary controversy and misinformation spreading throughout the Internet. It does not matter which single media source one uses. It is perhaps best to use multiple sources to obtain multiple viewpoints. One can then form one's own opinion based on the facts presented in each source.

Political bias is something that has occurred through the years. Today, most news networks will say they are fair and balanced although in some cases these same networks are biased toward a certain political party. This biased attitude exists not just on television, but also on the Internet, the newspaper, and on the radio. As long as consumers accept this behavior political bias will continue to influence the media. Still, many agencies pride themselves on reporting information in an unbiased fashion. Increasing one's media literacy, and one's ability to determine fact among fiction will aid in making sense of the tidal wave of information that today's average consumer is exposed to on a daily basis.

References

Burdeau, C., & Collins, J. (2010). In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes. Associated Press. Retrieved August 14, 2010 from http://hosted.ap.org

Charles, J. (2010). Louisiana fisherman slam claims the oil almost gone, seafood safe. SolveClimate. Retrieved August 14, 2010 from http://solveclimate.com

Reuters. (2010). FDA: Oil dispersants won't foul seafood. Retrieved August 14, 2010 from http://www.newsmaxhealth.com

Welch, W. M., & Joyner, C. (2010). Memorial service honors 11 dead oil rig workers. USA Today. Retrieved August 14, 2010 from www.usatoday.com

Has Lobbying made your Supplements dangerous?

Lobbying and lobbyists have long been a source of influence on government, whether it is on a local or federal level. Companies who want legislation passed or have an issue they consider important hire a lobbying firm that poses influences and has ties to the political spectrum. This is done to promote that companies agenda. Well, what if the supplements that are on the market were passed not because they are beneficial or even safe, but because a Senator was lobbied, and even influenced?

Senator Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah has long been considered one of the most powerful lawmakers. Utah has been called the Silicon Valley of Supplements. Senator Hatch also has ties to lobbyists. Hatch's son Scott is a named partner and registered lobbyist at Walker, Martin and Hatch LLC, a Washington lobbying firm. The firm was formed in 2001; the other two partners are Jack Martin, a staff aide to Senator Hatch for six years, and H. Laird Walker, who has been described as a close associate of the Senator's (Source Watch, 2008). The pharmaceutical industry that long has benefited from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch's legislative efforts has directed large sums of money to a charity he helped found -- and still raises money for -- while also hiring the Republican lawmaker's son as a lobbyist. This all came about, when a normally confidential tax filing was mistakenly released by the Internal Revenue Service to a nonprofit database last year. In March 2003, the Los Angeles Times quoted Senator Hatch as saying that the firm was formed with his "personal encouragement," and that he saw no conflict of interest in championing issues that helped his son's clients. He has also legislated for dietary supplements to be governed outside of the realm of drugs and food additives. When the FDA was reviewing the adverse effects of ephedra, Hatch defended the supplement industry. At the time, Walker, Martin & Hatch LLC were being paid, by companies with interests in ephedra manufacturing, for lobbying Congress (LA Times 2003).

In March 2009, the Washington Times reported that the pharmaceutical industry, which has "long has benefited from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch's legislative efforts," had previously undisclosed connections to Hatch. Five pharmaceutical companies and the industry's main lobbying group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), wrote checks in 2007 totaling more than $170,000 to the Utah Families Foundation, a tax-exempt charitable foundation which Hatch helped start in the 1990s and had vigorously supported since. Walker, Martin & Hatch LLC was paid $120,000 by PhRMA in 2007 to lobby Congress on pending U.S. Food and Drug Administration legislation (McElhatton, Seper 2009).

Scott Hatch has maintained he does not lobby his father even when it involves issues that Sen. Hatch is involved with. Sen. Hatch has admitted and finds no blurring of ethical lines. Everyone should help charity. Pharmaceutical and health-product companies already rank at the top of Mr. Hatch's political supporters, donating more than $1.25 million to his campaigns since 1998. Those donations are disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. In a Feb. 18, 2008, report to the IRS listing its 2007 revenue and expenses, the Utah foundation said Eli Lilly and Co. gave the charity $25,000; medical supply company Becton Dickerson, $25,000; Barr Pharmaceuticals, $30,000; AstraZeneca Pharm LP, $25,000; drug maker Sepracor, $27,500; and PhRMA, the major health-care lobbying group, $40,000. The donor information had been available on Guidestar.org, a nonprofit organization that gets public tax filings from the IRS and charities then posts the information online. However, the company removed the Utah foundation's donor information immediately after being contacted by The Times.

Some speculation has taken place whether Senator Hatch has such a proclivity to favor these companies and this industry due to his ties to Xango, a Multi Level-Marketing company that has health and supplement style products, or due to the fact that Utah is the “Silicon Valley of the Supplement Industry.” Xango LLC has been one of the top contributors to Senator Hatch’s campaign giving $48,200 in 2008 and $46,700 in 2006. To clarify, open secrets.org, a database and watchdog site states, “This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2007 - 2008 election cycles. The organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates” (CRP 2009). This tie to the pharmaceutical and supplement industry is obviously a major influence on Senator Hatch’s lawmaking and has been one of the premier contributors to his campaign over his career. His ties to the pharmaceutical companies and supplement industry have deep roots and have obviously influenced his lawmaking and his ideals on supplements and the pharmaceuticals. The only information that was not found was Xango lobbying Senator Hatch but instead made significant campaign contributions and has found that Sen. Hatch has favor towards the supplement and pharmaceutical industry. Now, to be fair, these supplements are not harmful, but do not have to have any advantage. Many in the MLM industry have said that the important thing is the down line that is built, not the product. The product is only important in so far that is creates an income (David Griffiths, (personal communication, August 14, 2009). This does not mean that supplements can be of no nutritional value all the while making claims that they are the wonder fruit and miracle plant.
The issue is that it is up to the manufacturer to make sure these products are safe and effective, not the FDA, so there is no assurance they are safe or effective.

Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) supplements are regulated in a different way than food or prescription medication that has to be proven safe.

According to the FDA website, “Do manufacturers or distributors of dietary supplements have to tell FDA or consumers what evidence they have about their product's safety or what evidence they have to back up the claims they are making for them?
No, except for rules described above that govern "new dietary ingredients," there is no provision under any law or regulation that FDA enforces that requires a firm to disclose to FDA or consumers the information they have about the safety or purported benefits of their dietary supplement products. Likewise, there is no prohibition against them making this information available either to FDA or to their customers. It is up to each firm to set its own policy on disclosure of such information. For more information, see claims that can be made for dietary supplements” (FDA 2009).

“Various studies have found banned substances in 15-25 percent of supplements tested. Tainted supplements endanger health and risk athlete eligibility. When Red Sox slugger David Ortiz says he didn't knowingly use steroids and blames tainted supplements for his positive drug test in 2003, perhaps it sounds to you like blaming the dog for eating his homework. So maybe Ortiz is telling the truth, laughable as it may seem on its face. Even if he isn't, his case is an important reminder that a supplement doesn't have to be safe to be sold” (Meyer 2009).

Dehydroepiandrosterone, more commonly known as DHEA, is a substance found in over-the-counter supplements. This is not an illegal substance to possess or to consume. DHEA went before congress to be put on a banned substance list but never left committee. “Yahoo! baseball writer Jeff Passan… reported that Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, whose son is a lobbyist for a major DHEA production firm, killed the Senate bill attempting to reclassify DHEA” (Ziller 2009).

According to a press release from Senator Hatch he wants more regulation of supplements, but this does not seem to show in some of the laws. His press release reads, “Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) today welcomed the long-sought publication of good manufacturing practices (GMP) regulations for dietary supplements. Hatch and Harkin were the principal authors of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, which gave the FDA the authority to write GMP guidelines specific to supplements, and they have been pushing the FDA to publish GMPs for more than a decade. “I can’t believe this day is finally here,” Hatch said. “GMPs are crucial because they assure the public that the products they are buying live up to their labels. That’s why we included GMPs in DSHEA. It took a long time to publish these GMPs, and they’re more than 800 pages. So I’m going to review them very carefully to make certain they are good regulations. But every indication leads me to believe the Administration was very sensitive to the impact the GMPs might have on the supplement industry, especially smaller companies.” “I am pleased that the Food and Drug Administration has, at long last, issued GMPs for dietary supplements,” said Harkin. “More than 150 million Americans regularly take dietary supplements. I look forward to reading this rule in its entirety, but it is my hope that these GMPs will increase consumers’ confidence that all dietary supplement manufacturers are adhering to the highest standards of quality. In the absence of FDA action, many companies have taken steps to adopt GMPs on their own, and I have applauded those steps. I hope that today’s announcement can build on that work” (Hatch, Harkin 2007).


Calls to Heather Barning Senator Hatch’s Press Secretary were not returned. A webform email on his website that was sent said he would reply by mail if contact information was provided.


















Source Watch, 2008 Taken From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Walker_Martin_%26_Hatch Retrieved August 15, 2009
Chuck Neubauer, Judy Pasternak and Richard T. Cooper Los Angeles Times Mar 5, 2003 Taken From http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/300234371.html?dids=300234371:300234371&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+5%2C+2003&author=Chuck+Neubauer%2C+Judy+Pasternak+and+Richard+T.+Cooper&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=The+Nation Retrieved August 15, 2009
By Jim McElhatton and Jerry Seper Monday, March 2, 2009 EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Hatch's secret drug firm links http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/02/the-fog-of-congressional-transparency/ Retrieved August 16, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Center for Responsive Politics http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&type=I&cid=n00009869&newMem=N&recs=20 Retrieved August 16, 2009
FDA.gov Last Updated: 05/07/2009 http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/ConsumerInformation/ucm110417.htm#regulate Retrieved August 26, 2009

John Meyer. The Denver Post 8/11/09 http://www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_13034036 Retrieved August 26, 2009

Tom Ziller. Fanhouse 2009 http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/08/06/steroid-rashard-lewis-tested-positive-for-completely-legal-in-ba/ Retrieved August 26, 2009

HARKIN, HATCH: GMPS KEY ASPECT OF DSHEA (2007)
Senators Welcome FDA Guidelines for Supplement Manufacturing http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_id=a3be409c-e2a8-4322-bce1-54080c548637 Retrieved August 26, 2009

More on Chris Buttars

Read this about Chris Buttars. This man is a genocidal Maniac!! : http://sn.im/lds-gulag

Buttars and his bigotry

Senator Chris Buttars is one of a kind. One of a kind bigot. He has done it again. He made some very offensive and ridiculous comments about gays. Buttars: "What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes." And finally, this is how senator Buttars refers to the "radical gay movement.""They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of." Buttars: "What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes." And finally, this is how senator Buttars refers to the "radical gay movement.""They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of." Are you serious? The greatest threat to America? Is this man drinking antifreeze? He made some comments a year ago as well that shows his bigotry. "This baby is black...this is a dark, ugly thing."And even though Buttars says in the documentary interview,..."the ACLU - bless their black hearts...," it’s his other comments which may get the strongest reaction. So this man is a bigot and a racist. Why is it that the right breeds hatred, intolerance and discrimination, especially the religious right? It is this kind of bigotry that makes people want nothing to do with Christianity and religion. Why is that? Because it is the worst form of hypocrisy. Christ taught that all are one. There is no Jew, or Scythian, or barbarian, slave or free. He said to treat others as you would want to be treated. why does religion rear its ugly head and justify this kind of hatred? Spanish Inquisitions, Salem witch trials, Sand Creek Massacre, and several more. Apparently nothing has been learned from history.

Utah seems to breed discrimination

What is it about the conservative and religious right that breeds discrimination and fosters an attitude of hate and bigotry? The house senate on Tuesday 2/17/2009 voted down 5-8 a bill that would prohibit an employer from terminating someone for being gay. What is it about religion that creates so much bigotry and discrimination. I thought that we were supposed to love our neighbor, not discriminate and marginalize them. This kind of bigotry makes me sick and ashamed to live in this state. What a disgrace that we cannot even treat someone with equal dignity and respect even all the while having our own thoughts and opinions. I mean has this country learned nothing from the way that it treated and continues to treat Indians, then slavery and women after that. Now it's Latino immigrants and the gay community. What ever happened to the 14th amendment? Oh that only applies to those whom the lawmakers wish to give it to. What a sad thought that this country has not learned from their mistakes but just make the same ones over and over and changes their focus. Merriam Webster dictionary defines bigotry as follows: bigot
One entry found.

Main Entry:
big·ot
Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Racism as follows:

racism
One entry found.

Main Entry:
rac·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So the only difference is an intolerance of someones ethnicity or the intolerance of one's sexual orientation. So it is intolerant hatred based upon a belief of superiority in both instances. So a bigot and a racist are brothers holding hands united for the cause of fostering a superiority and oppressing those who are not of their mindset. This is love? If so I want no part of it!!!

Bailing out corruption

I have heard so much over the bailout of these companies that is makes me want to live in a cave on another planet. The tax payers have had to bailout quite a few companies to only find out that the CEOs were giving themselves huge bonuses that could have covered a large part of their debt. On top of this these corrupt businessmen were making more in a year than some will ever make in a lifetime. If they really cared about the company, the economy of this country, and the taxpayers, why did they not take a pay cut to help their company and the employees there and level the playing field a bit for the time being just to stimulate the company and the economy? The greed and corruption that has been seeping from corporate America is sickening and enough to make anyone that cares about human rights and equality to be disgusted. Now GM and Chrysler are seeking billions more in loans and GM says that it might need more in the future. What is this a socialistic country that we live in? We should have never bailed out these corrupt companies in the first place. These are the ones that oppress and exploit the innocent for their own selfish and sordid gain, and we bailed them out. What were we thinking? Or were we thinking?

Treasury plan to buy bank stakes carries risks

The current economic crisis and the failure of banks has reached epidemic proportions. Now the U.S. Government is talking about buying stocks in these banks and will sell bad mortgages to the government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. This is bad news. This is a very bad move. Let's just cut straight to the chase and say it bluntly. This is socialism in the making. Thomas Jefferson said, "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." This is exactly why when the banking industries came about Thomas Jefferson said no to making them a government institution. Now days the fanatical doctrine of our failed President Bush has permeated the thinking of the American population buy propagating that we should not question our government or criticize them. The thinking of Jefferson was one of constant criticism, scrutiny, mistrust as well disdain. He saw government as a necessary evil that needed to be contained and kept under control. Now days if we question or criticize our government we are call liberal, unpatriotic enemy combatants. "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson This is a powerful statement. This is what I believe we are seeing before our eyes, the degeneration of our government. It has long been entrusted to the rulers. Regulations, rules and government oppression is what we see riddled with corporate corruption which is oppressing the working and middle class American. AIG just spent $400,000 on spa treatments after an $85 billion dollar bailout. This is the epitome of corporate greed and oppression of the working class. Thomas Jefferson said it best, "Every generation needs a new revolution." It seems as if right now this is what is needed most, a new revolution in this generation. JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." If I am accused of being unpatriotic than I leave you with these great quotes that show that we need to criticize our government and look out for the rights of the people. Jefferson claimed that "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Teddy Roosevelt said it best:"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)" George McGovern said,"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher standard." "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Thomas Jefferson "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson This is what the American population has done, is to remain silent. Silence is a weapon of oppression. Thomas Jefferson said so many great things. His views on small government and the threat of big government are so relevant today. We face the threat of big government. Hear what he has to say. "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson A wise and frugal government is to leave us free to regulate our own pursuits in regards to industry and improvement. This is a way of saying the government needs to stay out of our business and mind their own. They are not to take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. Anything that we as a people have earned, the government shall not take this from us. We now face too much government control of the banking industry. They now have mortgages that people owe. The American population is now indebted to the government, the exact thing that Jefferson said is would NOT constitute a wise and frugal government. What have we done? OR more importantly, can we undo it? Let's hope so for our freedom and liberties.