Month: September 2009

Questions for Those Who Would Represent Me

Post author By David
Post date September 18, 2009
1 Comment on Questions for Those Who Would Represent Me

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I like to ask questions to all candidates who would like to represent me in any capacity in order to determine where they stand politically both on specific issues and in their political philosophy in general. I have decided to maintain a list of the basic questions that I will ask the candidates who wish to represent me at the federal level. I plan to ask variations on some of these questions to those who would represent me at other levels of government (city, county, state) and hope that others will feel free to use these questions either directly or as inspiration to ask the candidates who wish to represent them.

I am open to suggestions of what questions need to be asked for candidates at the federal level. One of the things that I will do with each of the questions I post will be to answer the question myself so that my positions on these issues are not hidden and those who are or would be candidates can know where I stand on the issues I will ask them about.

I will also post the answers that I receive from candidates on every election. My intention is that this will be a consistent feature for every election cycle.

Tags candidate questions

National State

How and Why to Expand the House

Post author By David
Post date September 17, 2009
21 Comments on How and Why to Expand the House

I find it appropriate that on Constitution Day (“happy” 222nd) there is a story about a lawsuit seeking to expand the House in the name of fairness for voters across the nation. Of course, I am in favor of expanding the House but let’s look at this lawsuit summed up in two paragraphs:

The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761.

Tags change congress, Delaware, Elevated, fourth seat, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

culture National

Carter’s Race Card

When I heard the news this morning that Jimmy Carter thinks Obama critics are racist, my initial reaction was to reject the idea. Then I decided that it was only fair to consider the idea before choosing to accept or reject it. First, here is what he said:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.

I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way. I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude towards minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans – and that racism inclination still exists.

Upon a brief examination I realized that my impulse to reject that idea was based on the fact that the opposition that I have expressed to various actions by the Obama Administration is based on ideological perspective, not race. The weakness of that rejection is the same as the weakness of Carters assertion – it is a hasty generalization because I am no more qualified to know the motivations of other people than Jimmy Carter is (that would be “hardly qualified whatsoever”) and therefore other people can be motivated by racism even when I am not. In fact there is no doubt in my mind that some people are in opposition precisely because of their racist feelings – although I believe the worst offenders will openly admit that fact.

The real question then is not whether racism fuels opposition (anyone who has an anti-black attitude will be in opposition to Obama) but whether racism represents “an overwhelming portion” of the opposition. Here is where I really doubt Mr. Carter – although I admit that where he lives (whether that is “in the South” or “in side his head”) racism being an overwhelming portion is more likely than in other places.

The other half of my reflection was why I was so unhappy with the mere suggestion of racism. Carter would certainly argue that it is because I am a closet racist (doubtless he thinks every white person is). The truth is that I dislike Carters use of racism as a red herring. His comments encourage us to drop the issues that divide us and concentrate on the motivations behind our differences. Of course our motivations can be an important factor in how we deal with differences, but claims of racism almost always cloud the issue in question when they are made rather than clarifying the issue.

Confusion is definitely not in short supply which is why I dislike the charge so much. Thanks Mr. Ex-President – you’ve just done another (dis)service for the country.

Tags current events, discourse, issues, Jimmy Carter, media

culture National

Re-Founding America

photo credit: Why Tuesday?

I don’t pay attention to talk radio because even though I am very conservative I find that the conservative perspective shared on talk radio is generally laced with too much thoughtless and inflammatory perspective that is designed to stir reactions rather than provide information. Despite that general disinterest I was intrigued when I heard about Glenn Beck calling for a re-founding of America. The idea fit so well with what I have been focused on that I thought I would share my perspective on the idea here.

On January 1, 2008 I wrote that what America needs is a new birth of freedom. Before I wrote that, and even more since then, I have been looking for exactly that within our nation. The final answer is as difficult as it is uncomplicated – we need people to be converted to the idea of America – no more is it enough to be born here – we must individually be converted to the idea of liberty that our founders fought and died for. During the last couple of years I have found two groups that give me hope for a way forward in giving this nation that new birth of freedom.

Tags connections, Downsize DC, Elevated, liberty, patriotism

General National

Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

Post author By David
Post date September 15, 2009
2 Comments on Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

The last of the four amendments I would like to see is actually an idea that is not ready for implementation. I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed – just like I would like to see the 16th repealed except that I’m not sure how I would deal with the issues that the amendment was designed to address.

I have previously discussed the problems caused by this amendment which is why I would like to see it repealed and true federalism restored. The two major issues that would have to be addressed if it were repealed are corruption in state legislatures that can arise based on their power to chose senators, and deadlocks within legislatures when attempting to make their choice. As far as deadlock goes, I think that states can learn to deal with deadlocks or suffer the consequences of being underrepresented in the Senate. Where corruption is concerned my best guess is that reducing the power of the Federal government and placing more power back in the hands of states might help to alleviate that problem so that picking senators is not important enough to generate corruption.

Tags amendments, Constitution, federalism, future

General

Future Amendment – Representatives in the House

Post author By David
Post date September 14, 2009
No Comments on Future Amendment – Representatives in the House

Not unrelated to the issue of whether the people of Washington D.C. should have a voting representative in the House is the issue of how the size of the House is set. Few people probably even consider that the number of representatives in the House is set by Congress and fewer still are aware that when the first Congress drafted the proposed bill of rights that Article the First, the first of their proposed amendments, was designed to answer the needs of an expected growth in population and that along with the second of their proposed amendments (later adopted as the 27th amendment) this proposed amendment was not ratified with the original bill of rights.

After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

When James Madison wrote the first draft of this three months before the final proposed Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress he included two changes to his proposal that I would include in any current discussion of the issue. First, he left the numbers blank besides that which had already been specified in the Constitution – thus allowing for the framework to be discussed and the final numbers to be arrived at by consensus. Second, he specified that after the first census each state should have a minimum of two Representatives. I would also add that with our population filled out to over 300 Million we may not need a multi-tiered approach anymore. We might be able to safely skip to the final proportion of the amendment. With those changes the proposed amendment would look like this:

The proportion of voters for each representative shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than [First Blank] Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every [Second Blank] persons, but each State shall have at least two Representatives.

One of the major changes that this would produce would be that Congress could no longer directly regulate the number of members of Congress – they could only regulate the proportion so that as the population grew (or even shrunk in some extraordinary circumstance) the size of Congress would automatically adjust accordingly.

In my previous writings on this topic I have suggested that the second blank could be 200,000 (a number I adopted from the Daily Kos) but I am more concerned with the principle that Congress be limited to regulating the proportion than with any particular number.

Tags amendments, Constitution, fourth seat, future

culture technology

My Experience as an Example of Old and New Media

Post author By David
Post date September 11, 2009
2 Comments on My Experience as an Example of Old and New Media

I realized after writing earlier this morning about the way new media is changing the news that my experience was a perfect example of the way that old and new media can interact to augment each other. It also pointed me to one of the key factors that is hurting existing media organizations and thus a possible way to reverse the trend in theory. Unfortunately I am unable to identify a business model that would take advantage of this theoretical key.

Consider the example. A newspaper journalist decides to do a story on the impact of new media on our political system. He interviews someone who has used new media to follow a political campaign in a way that traditional media sources sis not provide. He contacts elected officials and other people connected with government. He contacts a political blogger (me in this case). he takes all the information that he has gathered and using his own experience and his skill in the art of written communication tells a story showing how new media is changing the face of politics and what it means to citizens. He turns the story over to his editors who take that story, assign it a place in the paper, edit it for content and in the interest of meeting size limitations on their physical page trims part of the story – the part that explains what this means to the average reader. It has now become a story without a moral – not because the journalist failed, but because of space limitations.

After that happened I, as a blogger who is not constrained by any physical space limitations in what I write, posted the entire list of questions I was asked as the journalist prepared his story and my full answers. This is the unfiltered data from one source which the journalist used to create his story. One symbiosis between traditional journalism and citizen journalism is that those who are interested in what the journalist wrote could look into the raw questions and answers that produced the story and decide for themselves what more they can learn than the paper was able to publish.

I realized this morning as I reflected upon the process of producing that story from fact gathering to publication that a key factor that is hurting old media organizations is that they are trying so hard to put out the maximum amount of information within their limited physical space that they have sacrificed the moral to virtually every story (that’s easy to do because taking out the moral can also make them feel more objective) and the result is that readership declines (especially paid readership) not because reporters are doing their thinking for them, but because almost all thought is expunged from the final product in the interest of keeping a maximum amount of data.

The theoretical way to reverse that trend would be to use digital media with traditional reporting to again publish the whole story – without space limitations. Those organizations interested in having a physical paper could use the paper as a gateway to the digital content – showing teasers of stories with the full story online and/or only printing the top story or stories in the paper while printing all stories worth printing in the digital version. The digital version could be augmented with complete references and links where possible to the original sources on each article so that readers could dig deeper as they were so inclined. By doing this the organization could even begin to learn in more detail what stories and sources their readers were most interested in and follow up on those with more traditional reporting. This encourages the new media ecosystem which them serves as a valuable tool and resource for the traditional media.

Like I said at the beginning, I don’t have a firm business model for how to support this (how to fund it being a major missing component), but I think I am getting a picture of how these “competing” interests can and should work together.

Tags blogging, insights, media, Press Bloggers

culture Local

How New Media is Changing News

Post author By David
Post date September 11, 2009
No Comments on How New Media is Changing News

Yesterday Holly asked if print media was on its way out. She was quoting from an article by Dave Duffy about the decline of newspapers and the rise of citizen journalism. In it he apparently made this hopeful statement:

I believe that it will lead to the salvation of freedom in America because more people will become better informed about what is really happening in the country.

As a long time blogger that’s a flattering idea, but as someone who has watched many bloggers and much online discussion as a participant and from an academic standpoint I think we need to be careful how much we expect from the impact of citizen journalism. It is an important shift in public discourse, but I think we would be misguided to think that the disappearance of traditional journalism is either necessary or positive. Not long ago I was asked to contribute to an article about the way new media is changing the world of politics. While the reporter did a great job and was kind enough to send me a copy of his story, the paper trimmed the story for publication to meet space requirements and removed all quotes in the article that did not come from elected officials or the person whose experience was meant to illustrate the point. In doing so they removed all reference to what these changes really meant. I’d like to share all the questions I was asked as well as my responses here (which is more than the reporter could have done even if he was so inclined).

What are the benefits of politicians maintaining a blog?

There are many benefits that come from a politician maintaining a blog, both for themselves and for their constituents. The primary benefit is that they can maintain communication with their constituents in a way that they can control (in other words, they are not dependent on space limitations or the biases of an outside news organization). A good blog would enable them to create a firsthand record which they can use to explain or defend themselves from later accusations as opponents may take things out of context and voters often forget the details. (Even the politicians can forget the details without a timely record.)

What are the drawbacks?

The only universal drawback is that it takes time. Also, if the blog allows open responses there is a risk of hecklers and trolls. Not all people are able to deal with those negative elements of such digital communication forums.

How has blogging changed the face of politics for politicians?

I don’t think we really know the full answer to that yet. So far we have been able to see that blogging makes it impossible for anyone (politicians or others) to absolutely control the message that people receive. Blogging makes it so that there are a wider array of information (and misinformation) sources available to everyone so it becomes extremely important to be able to sort through all that information and be able to accurately discard the misinformation. The upside to blogging is that it has very low barriers to entry so politicians can make themselves available as a primary source of information for their constituents more easily than when their only options were media coverage, town hall style meetings, direct mailings, and other less efficient means of communication. Overall I would say that it has had a leveling effect on the political playing field but it also means that it takes even more work to keep on top of the political process.

How has it changed politics for constituents?

See above – there is more information to sort through and constituents must also hone their ability to sort the truth from the garbage, just as their elected officials have the opportunity to become primary sources of information for them they can use blogging to open themselves up as primary sources of information for their elected officials, etc.

I understand you participated in Blogger Press. What do you make of it? What do you see in the future for forums such as this?

I have participated in a couple of blogger press conferences and I think there is great potential there. Bloggers are different from traditional media sources because they do not have the luxury of getting a paycheck for their work. Sometimes this results in better information – often is doesn’t. It virtually always results in a different perspective than is found from professionals in the media industries. I have heard some people argue that bloggers depend on the mainstream media for their information and that they are just acting as a secondary filter. In many cases it’s true, but there are many bloggers who go dig up original information and stories as well. I don’t think that bloggers can or should replace the traditional media, but I do believe that it is very valuable to have the second perspective that bloggers provide alongside the perspectives offered by more traditional news sources. I think there could be a lot of give and take between bloggers and journalists to provide a much richer public discourse than either group could provide alone. I hope to see more blogger press conferences in the future and expect that if that happens we as bloggers, press, politicians, and the public will discover ways that those events can improve our public understanding and dialog around political issues.

My point is that citizen journalism and traditional journalism will best serve society if they complement each other rather than expecting to compete with each other.

Tags blogging, connections, media, Press Bloggers, reactions

National

Takeaways From the Health Care Speech

Post author By David
Post date September 10, 2009
22 Comments on Takeaways From the Health Care Speech

photo credit: sgroi

Let’s pretend that we are starting from scratch on the health care overhaul push – that none of the existing proposals will be used as the template for a reform bill. In other words, let’s assume that the plan outlined in President Obama’s speech is the primary blueprint for the reform bill that Congress will have to consider. As I predicted he tried to strike a balance between being bold and rocking the boat too much calling both better and worse plans than his “a radical shift” that would be too much for something as economically large as the health care industry.

Now that I have read the entire speech I have four non-starters, one gem, two contradictions, and five questions after his speech that deserve public reaction. I’ll start with the non-starters because they are not non-starters put together, each one must be addressed before anything he proposes can be considered in any degree.

Tags current events, Elevated, health care, legislation, Obama, questions, reactions

General

Predictable

As a political junkie you would expect that I would be endlessly fascinated by all things political and that I would be very excited to listen to a speech by the President (even if only to find things to contradict when I disagree with him). Once upon a time that would have been true, but not anymore. While I am still anxious to be engaged in politics and the political dialog I find that too much of politics is very formulaic and predictable. I can easily say what the speech by the President will be like without even listening to or reading the transcript or any report about it.

In his speech tonight the president will talk about the importance and of Health Care reform. He will take time to rebut some of the more ridiculous rumors that have been circulated by his opponents and he will make his approach to health care seem perfectly reasonable – in fact he will be trying to strike a balance of being bold while not rocking to boat too much. The overall effect of the speech will be to make many people more comfortable with the approach he is taking while conveniently masking the fact that nothing in the current Health Care reform proposals actually addresses the real issues that plague our system of health care.

The only thing I can’t predict is whether enough people will be assuaged (or lulled into a false sense of security) to get a health care bill passed as the President hopes. While I will always hope for every president the best of success for the nation, this effort by the President shows no indication of promoting what is best for the nation (except in his words) and so I continue to hope that this effort flounders until the leaders of the country are ready to look at the actual problem and craft a solution to that problem within the limits of their authority rather than looking at their political goals and trying to convince the rest of us that their goals will solve real problems.

Tags change congress, current events, health care, legislation, Obama