Tag: connections

How New Media is Changing News

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

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

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

culture National

Wash Your Hands

[quote]Dr. Peter Pronovost sought to reduce the incidence of hospital-borne infections by promoting a simple checklist of ICU procedures governing physician hand-washing and other sterilization procedures.

Hospitals implementing Pronovost’s checklist had enjoyed almost instantaneous success, reducing hospital-infection rates by two-thirds within the first three months of its adoption. But many physicians rejected the checklist as an unnecessary and belittling bureaucratic intrusion, and many hospital executives were reluctant to push it on them.

When David Goldhill learned of this very shortly after his own father died from just such an infection he began to investigate the real problems in our health care system. As a grieving son, he wished for a culprit only to find that there really is no bad guy, no incompetent doctors, greedy insurance or drug companies, or any other scapegoat. The problem his research exposed was a system of perverse incentives and unrealistic expectations (like expecting that hundreds of thousands of deaths per year from hospital infections is acceptable or unavoidable and expecting someone else to pick up most of the cost of our care). Like Goldhill, anyone wishing to tackle the issue of health care must wash their hands of pre-programmed political prescriptions and rampant half-truths being promoted by people on all sides of the debate.

Tags connections, Elevated, health care, issues, legislation

National

Nobody Wants the Status Quo

Post author By David
Post date August 17, 2009
8 Comments on Nobody Wants the Status Quo

photo credit: planspark

Proponents of the current health care proposals charge that those who oppose these proposals only want the status quo. No honest Democrats have stepped forward to admit the truth that opponents of these measures have been offering alternatives and decrying the status quo. The leader among dishonest Democrats today is none other than President Obama (whom I have tried to refrain from specifically criticizing) who not only will not admit the truth about opponents of his preferred reform package but who goes further by holding “town hall meetings” where no opportunity for discussion is even considered (as do many of his followers) – these are not chances to discuss and enlarge public understanding of the issue, they are opportunities to indoctrinate the masses one town hall at a time.

Nothing I have said excuses the behavior of some protesters at many town hall meetings who are equally disinterested in any actual discussion, but any real leader would have to rise above such rabble and be willing to engage and explain rather than pontificate and cajole.

Among those speaking against the current reform proposals there is a common belief that has never been addressed by backers of the proposals – that the current prescription will actually be worse than the status quo (which they agree is not an acceptable situation). Not only are they speaking against the dangerous potential of the current direction but here are a few of the ideas that are not being offered to considered by our current leaders.

Tags civic participation, connections, discourse, Elevated, health care, Jim DeMint, Obama, Ron Paul, Wall Street Journal

National State

Constitutional Amendment 20

Post author By David
Post date August 14, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment 20

The 20th Amendment is essentially a technical correction to the Constitution specifying a new ending time for terms of office and also a standard procedure for filling the presidency in case of unforeseen circumstances (such as the death of a president-elect).

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

A similar technical amendment was adopted in the state constitution of Utah just last year (which came in handy just this week).

Tags amendments, connections, documents, history, Utah

General

An Inside View on the Honduran Situation

Post author By David
Post date July 10, 2009
2 Comments on An Inside View on the Honduran Situation

It’s always nice to have my positions validated by someone with more inside information than I have. I just learned that Tegucigalpa Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has taken the same position as I have expressed on every point of the situation in Honduras. (You have to read my posts and my comments afterwards to see me express each of these positions.)

Rodriguez issued a statement in a televised address declaring Zelaya’s ouster legal.
He recommends seeking a peaceful solution to the political crisis.
He has rejected international criticism of Zelaya’s ouster.
He has condemned the manner in which Zelaya was kicked out of the country.

To me that’s even better than scouring the Honduran constitution to back up my views on the situation (although that has been done as well).

Tags Cato, connections, current events, Honduras, international

General

It’s About Us

While posting about Cheney’s Worldview, Tim Lynch captures the perspective that drives my thinking on subjects such as torture and indefinite detention:

So we shouldn’t let the terrorists see us get “caught up in arguments” about the wisdom of our foreign policy, about whether our country should go to war, about our country’s treaty obligations, about the parameters of government power under our Constitution? What is this former vice president thinking?

Does it matter if Charles Manson appreciates the fact that he got a trial instead of a summary execution? No. It does not matter what’s in that twisted head of his. Same thing with bin Laden. The American military should make every effort to avoid civilian casualties even if bin Laden targets civilians. Similarly, it does not matter if bin Laden scoffs at the Geneva Convention as a sign of ”weakness.” The former VP does not get it. It is about us, not the terrorists.

An obsession with the mentality of the enemy (what they see; what they hope for, etc.) can distort our military and counterterrorism strategy as well. (bold emphasis added, italics original)

If we are to act and not simply react it must always be about us. We must make our decisions based on what is right, not based simply on what others are doing or how they might interpret what we choose to do. I think it is important to have discussions about these issues and I appreciate that mine is not the only perspective.

At times I will learn that I was wrong, and that there are things I had not considered. More often than that I am likely to learn that I have not been clear in stating my position. But I am confident that we will go wrong every time if we decide that the discussion itself is dangerous or without merit. If we stop discussing the issues we stop deciding what to do and begin following blindly wherever we are lead. No matter how honorable our intentions, blindly following will always ultimately lead to actions that are destructive not only to others, but more importantly to ourselves and our standing in the world.

Tags connections, discourse, Elevated, principles

culture

Use the Proper Tool

I have written before about our national propensity to use government when it is not the proper tool for the job. Scott summed my point up very succinctly in a recent post:

There is a proper tool for every job. Use of the wrong tool often produces substandard results. Sometimes it is necessary to make do with what you have. That’s called innovation. But regularly using the wrong tool when the right tool is available is just plain stupid.

One of the basic tenets of classical liberalism is to regard government as a tool to be used only where it is most appropriate; the chief role of government being to safeguard and expand liberty. Many people (from all over the political spectrum) view government as a big stick to be employed in forcing others to conform to their particular view of good.

Government is not the only tool that we often use inappropriately, and sometimes the wrong tool is employed not because it is the tool of choice, but because we refuse to use the proper tool. Such is the often the case with regard to schools disciplining children.

A large number of schools use potentially dangerous methods to discipline children, particularly those with disabilities in special education classes, a report from Congress’ investigative arm finds.

In some cases, the Government Accountability Office report notes, children have died or been injured when they have been tied, taped, handcuffed or pinned down by adults or locked in secluded rooms, often to be left for hours at a time.

Some people would be quick to blame the authoritarian, impersonal schools for their outrageous methods of discipline and while I am far from a believer in the infallibility of schools I think that such blame is misplaced in the vast majority of cases.

The real blame lies in the fact that many parents fail to enforce discipline in their homes and even among those who do enforce discipline in their homes all too many make themselves unavailable to take on that responsibility when their children require more discipline than can reasonably be applied by a teacher in charge of more than a dozen students. What’s worse, is that we cannot even safely place the blame fully on the shoulders of the individual parents. Too many of them are forced into situations where they cannot devote themselves to parenting full-time. (Sometimes they just feel forced into those situations.)

As a society we have set too low a value on the role of parenting – placing it completely secondary to economic productivity. We have set expectations too high for our material and economic standard of living – where the luxuries of yesterday must necessarily be necessities today. Consider cell phones for every family member over the age of 10, cars for everyone over 16, cable TV, computers, game consoles, television sets in every room, dance-lessons, sports, and hobbies for each day of the week.

None of these things is intrinsically bad, but together they form unreasonable and unsustainable expectations and they destroy the possibility for most stable families to keep at least one parent available to take care of their children when needs arise.

Not only that, but we expect the schools to provide many of those hobbies through requiring gym, art, and music classes as well as extracurricular sports. The result is that even where there are parents at home and available the children often spend too many hours under the care of their teachers and not enough under the influence of their parents. This serves to lessen the parental influence and offers incentive for parents who would otherwise be available to commit themselves to other activities lest they feel they are wasting their time.

The problems are complex and interwoven so that any hope of identifying the solutions is dependent on our recognition of how and when any given tool can be used and insisting on using each tool in its proper place rather than finding favorite tools and trying to make this reduced tool set suitable for all our needs.

Tags children, connections, Education, Elevated, family, government, ideal, NPR

National

Federalist No. 85

In the last of the Federalist papers, Federalist No. 85, Hamilton concludes by arguing that the preceding papers should demonstrate that the proposed constitution is fundamentally sound, and that it should be ratified regardless of any few faults or reservations that people might have because revision prior to ratification would be more difficult than amendment after ratification.

In making his argument Hamilton made reference to Article V. In light of a recent discussion where Connor argued the potential dangers of a modern constitutional convention I read through Article V again. While there is always the possibility of people organizing their efforts to remake the government the dangers that Conner discusses are in excess of the provisions of Article V. If such a convention were called it under Article V it could do no more than propose amendments to the existing Constitution. Once such a proposal (or proposals) is made the ratification process is the same as for amendments proposed in Congress – they would need to be ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures. Such amendments are also limited in that they cannot propose to deprive any state of equal suffrage or representation in the senate without the consent of that state.

Based on the words of Article V as well as my resolute faith in the principle of agency I no longer have any shred of discomfort with the idea of a modern constitutional convention. The outcome of such a gathering would either be illegal or have limited impact. The risks posed by a legal Article V convention are no greater than the risks we face from Congress every day. As for the risks posed by an unrestrained (illegal) convention – we face those risks from Congress every day as well.

Tags change congress, connections, Constitution, documents, federalist, history, unconstitutional

State

Hoping History Holds

Nobody with a political pulse in Utah could be surprised at the news that Sens. Bennett and Hatch plan to run again, especially considering that they both have their campaign websites up and running already (yes, even Hatch for 2012). I have often been discouraged by the assertions of a trusted friend that Hatch is unbeatable for as long as he chooses to run after being in the Senate for over 30 years. My hope that he is wrong got a boost from that Deseret News article.

Holly provides a good rundown against the "seniority is everything" argument of our two senators and we have the next 3 years to disprove Hatch’s assertion that "Sen. Bennett and I work as hard every day for Utahns as the first day we set foot in the U.S. Senate." (They undoubtedly work hard, but the more I look at their records the less I am convinced that either of them work for Utahns anymore like they did the first day they set foot in the Senate.) I would like to provide a proactive argument for why both of our senators should be replaced now even if you believe the seniority argument.

First of all, neither of our Senators is getting any younger so they will have to be replaced sooner than they would like to admit. While they would both like to be compared to the LDS apostles since few people among their voters would care to think of the apostles in a negative light, the fact is that there is a vast difference between the temporary election of a political officeholder and the permanent appointment of an ecclesiastical leader. We know going in that the apostles are there for life, not so with the senators.

Secondly, the Republican party is out of power right now (especially with Arlen Specter switching parties so that the Democrats will have the 60 vote margin to end any attempted filibuster) which diminishes the value of any seniority they have amassed in their decades in office. The Democrats may maintain the 60 seat majority in 2010, but even if they don’t they are virtually assured of maintaining control of the senate. That means that now is the time to elect some new senators so that they can start building their seniority in advance of 2014 (the earliest that Republicans have any real shot at regaining control) rather than waiting until 2016, 2018, or whenever one of our senators fails his immortality test.

Tags 2010, 2012, Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, connections, Deseret News, Orrin Hatch, Pennsylvania, senate, seniority, Utah

General

Considering Secession

An intriguing discussion erupted after a recent post by Connor. I was soon asking what history would have looked like if the South had been allowed to secede rather than fight the Civil War. Later another commenter asked an even better question:

By allowing the South to secede, wouldn’t that be setting up a dangerous precedent? If any state decided to leave just because Congress passed a law they didn’t like, what would have happened to the nation?

Under such an interpretation, what security did the nation have beyond what the Articles of Confederation provided? The Articles weren’t working. That’s why they created a Constitution that gave more expanded powers to a central government.

Considering recent comments regarding Texas choosing to secede and polls that a surprising number of Texans seem open to the concept I’d like to take a crack at answering what might have happened in those circumstances and I would be very interested to know what others think of the question or of my answer. For the sake of this supposition let’s assume that we are talking about an alternate history where the people of the United States accepted the premise that secession was a legal option and not a cause for war. We are also not talking specifically about secession by the southern states – just about a nation in which any state could decide to leave just because Congress passed a law they didn’t like and that the remaining states would not resort to violence to keep them in the union. In other words there might be arguments against secession in general or in specific cases, but no military action. With that background, here is what I believe would happen.

Any state that chose to secede would immediately relegate themselves to a position with all the disadvantages they had faced under the Articles of Confederation as well as the disadvantage of not having between 12 and 49 (depending on when in history this happened) other states upon which to lean for support. They would be required to provide for their own protections (economic and military) without assistance from their neighbor states. In all likelyhood they would very quickly be looking to form alliances with other states and other nations. In some cases they would likely begin very soon to consider the possibility of rejoining the United States. In such cases they would find themselves facing the requirements for joining the union. Having antagonized the other states in the union they would have to convince the congress to allow them back into membership within the United States. That and their experience under the Articles of Confederation would act as a deterrent to states that wanted to secede for light or transient reasons.

Assuming that there are no major holes in my reasoning above I think it is safe to say that there would be few if any cases of individual states seceding. That leaves us to consider the potential of blocks of states seceding such as the southern states in 1860. In this case we can easily see that a block of states seceding together would be inclined to form a union not unlike the one they were leaving. If two similarly structured nations composed of soverign states were to exist in close proximity to each other and to unsettled land waiting for expansion I think it is safe to assume that the two nations would be driven to compete with each other to become more politically and economically powerful and attractive to the settlers of new lands so that new political entities would chose them over their counterpart when they decided to become a member of a larger political entity. I don’t suppose that the nations would exist entirely without animosity, but they could peacefully coexist as the United States and Canada have done for nearly two centuries.

If legal secession were a political reality any number of possibilities might exist. A single state residing outside any other union would be highly unlikely, but North America could be divided into any number of unions made of sovereign states. In fact a policy allowing for legal secession could leave the door open for Canadian provinces or Mexican states joining a union as sovereign states. I believe that eventually legally accepted secession would have resulted in one or two strong unions of states in which the central government was limited more closely to what our Constitution outlined – focusing on foreign relations, military defense, and interstate issues and leaving states to independently tackle other issues and learn from each other. In the case of two stable unions existing I would give better that 50% odds that their relations with each other would be fundamentally peaceful.

The short answer is that I do not believe allowing the secession of the south would have been setting a dangerous precedent (at least from the angle of how viable the central government would remain). That leaves the question – have I missed something?

Tags Articles of Confederation, connections, Constitution, history, questions, secession