Topic Tuesday #32 2013/02/26 - "Yellow Journalism"

Topic Tuesday #32 2013/02/26 - "Yellow Journalism"

The term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

Why do I want to talk about Yellow Journalism? As luck would have it I found out that CNN's Soledad O'Brien is being "bumped" from her spot in the morning to an ambiguous documentary production role. Soledad has been a veracious journalist. She asks hard questions where others ask the safe "softball" questions.She is doing her job, or at least, she is being a real journalist. She should be rewarded for it. She is not. She may have made some people rather uncomfortable. If you have ever faced an authority figure (like a parent) and had them ask you the questions that you really don't want to answer, you can get the feel of this uncomfortable feeling. So it's simple: Soledad wasn't doing her job the way the establishment wanted her to.

I am not going to put on my tin-foil hat and claim conspiracy, as I don't think I need to. It's obvious. What I am going to do is draw a parallel to Yellow Journalism. As the old timers will readily say, "it's to sell soap".

The organizations that deliver, and in some cases manufacture, our news are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are in it to make money, by selling advertising time. The advertisers want to sell to you. Your senses are being sold to the highest bidder. They walk a fine line between validity and entertainment. Let's follow the money. 

1. Widget Maker wants to sell Widgets or Soap. They hire a-
2. Marketing Agency to make advertisements for widgets to the researched demographic group The Marketing Agency the buys airtime from-
3. Network Sales who claims their "Product" (TV Show, News Program, etc) reaches sufficient numbers in that target audience where consumer's eyeballs or ears are enticed to buy while consuming the product that the Network is presenting -
4. And you buy the widgets (or soap [where do you think Soap Operas came from?]) and thereby feed the Widget Maker money to continue supporting the Marketing Agency and they to continue to support the Product that you were passively enjoying anyway.

And the circle is complete. 

Here's where it breaks the last shred of integrity:

The Network Sales team must provide updated ratings of the number of people reached. If the "Product" (that will be supported by the advertising) does not maintain their ratings the Marketing Agency pulls the advertisement and goes elsewhere. Here is where the "Product" gets polished to make it more appealing to demographics. Make the hosts prettier. Make the topics gripping but not always negative. Keep the guests happy. Don't make enemies. Don't give other properties free advertising. And so on. This is why your favorite programs (Firefly) and personalities (Soledad) get cut, and why "Toddlers and Tiaras" gets great ratings. It's also why there are script writers and auditions for REALITY TV... It's a lie, to sell soap, or widgets, or home lobotomy kits.

So what we have is a structure that is not treating "news" reporting in a purely agnostic and ethical way, but a sensationalized way They are apt to pump the news up and parade it around in motley before the target demographic, to sell the the widgets. 

Special interest groups make requests, and in the interest of continuing to sell widget soap biscuits (now with added caffeine), they kowtow to those requests that are mutually beneficial. 

"Stevens, Keep in mind that the next political candidate should want to buy lots of ad time from us and they will be kind to the interests serving our company when elected. We better play it safe and not enrage a potential ally on the Hill. Stop saying negative things and pointing out the facts they don't want to make headlines. You'll loose percentage points for our 25-45 demographic in Boise."

This is how it happens. It happens all the time. 

So now that I've pointed it out, where do you get your news from?

Topic Tuesday #17 2012/11/13 - "Slicing the American Pie"

Topic Tuesday #17 2012/11/13 - "Slicing the American Pie"

States With Petitions to Secede.

After the 2012 presidential general election there came a great stir in the states that leaned in favor of the challenger from the GOP, Mitt Romney (some that ended up going to Obama as well!). This stirring is nothing new, but worth talking about. There are at the time of this writing 20 states, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas - that are seeking peaceful secession from the United States. Most read like this one from Tennessee: "Peacefully grant the State of Tennessee to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government." Not everybody who wants to secede is polite enough to write a petition. Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County (Texas) Republican Party, wrote a post-election newsletter in which he urges the Lone Star State to leave the Union, with some rather unpleasant and pointed imagery.

"We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity... Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years."

2012 Results

The whole affair of secession from the USA is largely a symbolic gesture  as the 14th Amendment signifies citizenship of being of the USA not of the individual states. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has even addressed the constitutionality of secession and how a state would go about it in a letter to a screenwriter who posed the question: "To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit." Texas does have the ability to subdivide itself into 5 states. This would give it more Senators on the whole, but as you divide a state up, there is no guarantee of loyalty to the original cause.
As with any of these type of movements, Texas in particular, the logistics is what hamstrings the entire endeavor more than even the legal ramifications. There are a great number of nationalized services that would all have to be... "repatriated" into a state government. The cost of the operation would be phenomenal. Texas would have it better off. They have their own power grid. They have enough manufacturing and population to make sustainability an option. Of the other 19 states however... Well, it wouldn't be hard to see that any sedition among them would harm the citizens far more than help them. So in the end, secession just isn't going to happen. If it does... It will be a civil war and there will be millions of lives lost. /Begin SOAPBOX/ Pretty simple. Stay and fix the things you are trying to run away from. Do it legally. It was the law that got you into "this mess" in the first place! Make good choices, and advertise those choices to everyone else. /End SOAPBOX/

What do you think? Should the states be allowed to bow out? Do they even have the right to do so? How do you think it could be done? How many infrastructures would be interrupted? Would I need a passport to get to Louisiana?

Topic Tuesday #16 2012/11/06 - "Getting Accepted to the Electoral College"

Topic Tuesday #16 2012/11/06 - "Getting Accepted to the Electoral College"

Here in the United States, we utilize the Electoral College to elect the President. It's kind of a funny system, and after this, you may really hate it. It made sense to the founding fathers when it emerged from the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was a hybrid of the Virginia Plan, the Connecticut Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise. It was chosen, in equal measures for it's "fairness" to smaller, less population dense states and due to legal slavery which was prevalent at the time but political suicide to rebuke at the time. Essentially a popular vote would just have been overly biased towards the most populated states. James Madison and James Wilson both argued for the popular vote. The original plan was to have the representatives of the Congress to elect a president. this was deemed too "intrigue" provoking, feeling that then a small group of men would have too much collusion and influence. The design of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:

• Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
• Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
• Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of President and Vice President.

The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress. So it was amended and changed to what we have now, as a "winner take all" state by state model. Now into the nuts and bolts... Some definitions:

• Voter: You and Me - proud citizens of the republic.
• Candidate: The person that wants to run the country for the next 4 years.
• Elector: The people that have been chosen by the Candidate's Party to do the actual vote in December. Electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party. These Electors can be anybody but Senators or Congressmen. They are usually very politically active and well connected. What the Electors are supposed to do, is cast their votes based off the Popular Vote, which is what "We the People" do with that ballot. They are, in most cases, not strictly obligated to do so, but have 99% of the time. 
• Elector Slate: The full list of the chosen Electors for a given Candidate.
• Popular Vote: The actual voter ballot tabulation that is greater than all others.
• Electoral Vote: How many points your state has to give the Candidate. Each state gets one Elector per member of House & Senate that the state is allotted, or a minimum of 3, in the case of Washington D.C.. There are presently 538 Electors. To win this horse race, you have to hit 270+. 

Here's what happens:

1. You cast a vote for, say the Purple Teams Candidate.
2. The vote you cast for the Purple Candidate is assigned to Purple's Elector for your district (or some nomenclature to that effect)
3. The popular vote is tabulated and the Elector for the leading candidate of the Popular Vote in the District is awarded the District wholesale. Majority rules, winner take all. 
4. At the State level, the districts are tabulated, majority rules again, and the State's number of Electoral Votes goes to the Candidate. Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation".
5. The above continues until all the ballots are counted. Once someone has 270 Electoral votes, it's all over.
6. We all assume that whoever won. We are almost always right, and it is the popular vote - by proxy through proportional representation.
7. Paperwork - After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your state’s electors’ votes are recorded on a “Certificate of Vote,” which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your state’s Certificates of Votes are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. 
8. Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
9. The President-Elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the Presidential election.

So as you can perhaps tell, this is a convoluted process that simultaneously make it easier to calculate with the use of the Proportional Representation model, and ludicrous as it subjugates the power of your own vote to  to someone else, who we then trust will vote according to the vox populi (voice of the people).

So what do you think? Should the electoral college be mothballed and go with a true popular vote?

For more information on the Electoral College and it's methods, visit http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

2008 Election Results

Topic Tuesday #14 2012/10/23 "The Signal and the Noise"

Tuesday #14 2012/10/23 "The Signal and the Noise"

Last night was the final debate of this presidential election season. (I am going to refrain from partisan support in this post, but those that have read my work before will inherently know where I lean.) The talk was heated, but fluffy through most of the debates. All of the debates were far less about facts than they were puffed chests, interrupting the moderator, going over on time, and the ever so important last word. They were quite entertaining, and even sickening at times. Overall, I would give them 2.5 stars out of 5 for a you should have seen them, but didn't need to since it wasn't anything new, AT ALL. 

This leads into today's topic. 

We are getting a lot of noise through the media outlets and mailings and signs in years, and graffiti on said signs, and stump speeches and rolling roadblocks when they come to our cities etc... How do we filter the noise to get the right signal? I have been talking to several colleagues about the polls and who is doing well where and it never fails that when I bring up a website or media outlet, it is immediately disparaged and dismissed because of their slant. I bring up another, and another, and another; then dig deeper to find where they get their data and show how they arrive at their conclusions. This is to little avail other than showing that I am actually fact checking and not talking out of my arse. Overall, the chat has been civil, if not mind-numbing. And that's the problem-There is too much noise and not enough substance for the signal. The most bi-partisan organizations still seem to lean one way or the other, or at least someone will tell you they do and dismiss them as biased. It seems the only way to know what you need to make a rational decision is to do your own digging and sifting. It takes time. It takes patience. It takes booze in many cases...

I have said it a few times, but I would encourage you all to read the platforms of the main parties, since until campaign reform happens, there is little point in casting a vote for another candidate (sad but true). Keep in mind that an evolution of ideals has happened and these ARE NOT the same political groups we grew up with. They certainly are not the ones your family has supported for generations. 

Some further advice: 

• Read the platforms - But do it alone, but aloud, first. If the language is difficult to get through, you are not supposed to get through it and it is deceitful by intent. Your challenge is to... 
• Critically Compare - Take a highlighter and red pen to the platforms and mark the heck out of them. Compare which side believes what. You may need to translate the legalese doublespeak into plain english. This usually makes the paragraph a sentence. 
• Look to the future -  The one that is elected will be setting policy for decades to come. Not only that, but the likelihood that they will pick Supreme Court Justices (2 are most likely this time) will weigh heavily on law going forward for a long time. Laws can be overturned and our lives directly affected by this decision. 
• Science & Education - As the song said, I believe the children are our future. If we do not educate them correctly, we lose as a nation. What is being taught is as important as how it is taught. Examine the tail tail markings of where the education is going and ask yourselves if that will hurt the next generation. The best technology that we have came out of the furnace of scientific exploration of space. This is a cold and rational endeavour that is filled with wonder. There is no place for superstition in science. Tossing salt over your shoulder or whispering an enchantment will not replace an antibiotic to make your ear infection abate. Act accordingly in this regard. It's your grandchildren's futures you will be deciding.
• ASK - If you are still left asking questions, then do not keep them to yourself. ASK EVERYONE. Communication is key. You may get some rather interesting answers but you may do a service by prompting others to ask the same or other questions. Remember back to your days in school how a single question in class could derail a lecture and make everyone engaged. It's exactly the same in real life, just you are both teacher and student. This principle is for everyday, not just politics.

In conclusion: 

Educate yourselves and Vote. If you do not vote, I don't want to hear a single complaint about the next 4 years; beyond, "Man, I should have voted!"

How do you sift through the noise to get the signal?

Political Commentary: The run for the White House in a nutshell

Political Commentary: The run for the White House in a nutshell: No matter who runs, it is a fallible human that will take the seat. I believe that most people genuinely want to do the best they can. What must not be overlooked when examining any election is once in the oval office, the ultimate outcome of things related to the president are usually as follows:

• President has a "plan" (Idea, concept for change, reform, etc.) Named "Plan A". 
• Plan A goes to the House of Representatives and is voted down, or re-written.
• Plan A then goes to the Senate as (Plan A rep1). It is summarily executed, or edited again and become "Plan A sen1" and then goes back to the President.
• The President has to then veto his own Plan, or let if fly with the changes to not look like a blundering idiot before the people, because he voted down his own Plan, even though it was hacked to death twice before it his his desk again. The people only hear, President vetoes Plan A. (Not 'Plan A rep1', or 'Plan A sen1') 

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I just know that they are all out of their minds, and rightly so.
Try to do good in one hand. Have too much money in their faces to always do what's right by those that need it most in the other... The human equation...
"I want to help you, so I must stay in office until I can (it does take time), but that requires massive amounts of money to get reelected and then I'm indebted to the people that gave it to me; to... not help you..." This is why money needs to be taken out of politics. Anyone that has to raise millions of dollars to win and then to keep their job 4 years latter, isn't being elected on their ability to do the job. They are being elected on their ability to tell you how much better than anyone else (especially that person over there) they can do the job. I am positive i have glossed over many, many, many, many intricate details, on purpose, to illustrate; just because he has a plan, doesn't ever mean he CAN make it happen. Sadly, opposed to doing what is right and just by their people, representatives in the opposition will try to torpedo every bit of legislation that comes out of the White House. I applaud any representative that sticks to their guns and isn't afraid to go across party lines and vote for what would be best (in their opinion) for their constituents. I applaud them even if I disagree.
The lines are blurry on who is for what and why. It is intentionally so. When this is the case, usually the populace will just not think about it and vote with their party affiliation, regardless of benefit or detriment to themselves. Others will find the issue that is their match head and vote for whoever has the best talking point to that cause. This has become the nature of the best, and I hope that this may open your minds to a little fact finding and strolling across party aisles to see what all the hubbub is. More importantly, before you judge the man in the chairs job by the promises he didn't keep, check to see how he did at trying to make them happen. I bet you'd be surprised.
Personally, I lean to "none of the above". ~Andy Cowen