Corruption fix: Ballot
In recent weeks, the Trib has reported on corruption within the Turnpike Commission (“8 charged in alleged turnpike corruption,” March 14 and TribLIVE.com) and elected officials collecting freebies (“Pa. lawmakers rack up $117K in freebies,” March 13 and TribLIVE.com), while the Pennsylvania Independent ran a story on the misuse of SEPTA buses (“Protesters ride to Capitol rally on SEPTA buses”) and CBS Philly led with a story about corrupt traffic court judges (“Another Judge Pleads Guilty To Fixing Tickets in Phila. Traffic Court”).
However, the real crime here is that the readers and viewers of these stories likely shrug their shoulders, take another sip of coffee and move on to the next report.
We have been exposed to this type of corruption for so long that we now accept it as a normal way of life. It is clear that nothing will change as long as we continue to send the same people into public office. Whether Democrat or Republican, the beat goes on.
The only hope we have of reversing this situation is to think outside the box when we go to the polls. We need to seriously look at candidates not part of the duopoly that is the dominant two-party system of today.
On May 21, if you live in select communities of Pittsburgh's South Hills, I invite you to cast your vote for some new blood to shake up Harrisburg.
The writer is the Libertarian candidate in the May 21 special election for the 42nd District seat in the state House.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.