Tag: reactions

An Island in the Midst of an Ocean

Post author By David
Post date October 16, 2009
2 Comments on An Island in the Midst of an Ocean

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

When I complained about the tone of the Sean Hannity show a couple of weeks ago Frank Staheli pointed me towards the Neal Boortz show broadcast on Freedom 570. Over the last couple of weeks I have been listening to the station. I have heard many of the shows as I have listened at various times and found that I was really enjoying the tone of the shows being broadcast – it was an essentially civil island in the midst of the ocean of conservative talk radio. Neal Boortz is not my favorite of their shows, but his tone was so much nicer than Hannity.

Today I discovered a mud puddle in the midst of the Freedom 570 lineup. I drove home earlier than usual today and heard the Todd Schnitt show for the first time which had more of a Hannity tone. While it may not be fully representative of the show I was disappointed to hear Schnitt’s coverage of the apparent uproar over a picture of Meghan McCain that got posted on the internet (by Meghan apparently). Schnitt had to take the time to rave about Meghan’s physique and insist that the picture get a more prominent place on his website.

I have not seen the picture, but I have enough information from what I head from Schnitt before turning the show off to comment on the situation. Schnitt has demonstrated his immaturity and lack of class by the types of comments he felt compelled to make. Meghan has shown her naivety by even posting the image and acting as if the uproar was not predictable. Apparently some have called her a slut – without even going to see the picture I think it’s safe to say that she was just plain foolish. The only good that came out of it is that I now know to pass on opportunities to listen to Schnitt.

Tags media, reactions, Sean Hannity

culture

My Way or the Highway

I have come to the conclusion that any broadcast news is going to be full of content that is designed to help listeners think their are being informed when in reality there is no substance to the content. Usually the headlines are enough to get the point across. That’s why I like getting news from feeds where I can glance at the headline and only take time for the full story (video, audio, or text) if the headline promises information that I don’t already have.

Because of this conclusion I no longer leave the radio on the same station all the time (for what little time I listen to it). Today I found myself listening to Sean Hannity and within 10 minutes I had confirmed why I avoid talk radio. When I first tuned in Sean was busy making sure that his listeners knew how stupid some of his previous callers were in disagreeing with his position on the news story of the moment. Seeing as I agreed with Hannity on that particular story I let it go. A few minutes later a caller voiced an opinion on another story that Hannity disagreed with. This time I had heard the caller and I got to hear the way Hannity responded to him – it was disgraceful.

Hannity badgered his caller and ignored everything the man said that he did not agree with. In this case I could not ignore Sean’s tone for two reasons – first, I heard the caller so I knew what Hannity was responding to; and second, I disagree with Hannity and think that besides being wrong he is doing a great disservice to conservatives everywhere by ruthlessly shutting down debate with anyone who disagrees with him. I accept that there are many people who believe as Sean does on that later issue and although I strongly disagree with that position I could not consider myself a decent human being if I were to shut down any opposing voices as ungraciously as I heard Sean doing today.

Tags conservative, media, news, radio, reactions, Sean Hannity

General

No Individual Mandate. Period.

Post author By David
Post date September 23, 2009
8 Comments on No Individual Mandate. Period.

photo credit: wstera2

When I responded to Obama’s Health Care Speech I said the following about the potential inclusion of an individual mandate in whatever health care overhaul bill is eventually debated in Congress:

In a nod to the necessity of compromise and political expediency (I do have a pragmatic bone in my body – somewhere) I will keep it out of the non-starter category and say that if it is extremely limited, as liability-only car insurance is, I could accept an individual mandate.

Scott challenged me on that position and I defended it as politically expedient. Now that I have had more time to think about it I believe that I can conclusively demonstrate why the president wanted to rush the health care legislation through before the August recess. His reason was that he understood that the longer people have to process the issue the more people will realize how little government can legitimately do to address this issue and how dangerous it is to allow Congress to employ tools that are not legitimately theirs in order to “fix the system.”

Tags Elevated, health care, legislation, reactions, thoughts

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

culture National technology

I Pledge

With all the uproar over the showing of this video to elementary students I have been asked to weigh in on the video and whether it was appropriate to show it to the students. Of course others will have their own opinions and you are free to view the video yourself and let me know if you agree with me, or why you disagree with me. (I have no doubt that different people will disagree with me for very different reasons.)

Let me say right off that I don’t believe that the video should have been shown to children without informing their parents in advance. Parents are always the primary decision-makers with regard to what their children should be exposed to in matters of values and this video was definitely a matter of values. Having said that, I don’t believe that this was a particularly devious or pernicious video (regardless of what Gayle Ruzika believes).

Some who are opposed to the showing of this video believe that it is an attempt to brainwash the children. I doubt this is the case. The message is actually addressed to the President as a show of support. Distributing it among children was meant to encourage them to pledge to do some good of their own choosing.

If the makers of the video intended children as their audience then they have no idea how to go about it. The fast scrolling words and constant movement at the beginning of the video will fail to get any massage to such an audience. On top of that, the pledges in the video will either make no impression or they will confuse a younger audience. If it is as harmless as I am suggesting why would I object to showing it to children who will be either confused or unaffected by it? Because at best it is a waste of school time. Why should my taxes and my childrens time be spent watching something that has no positive value for their education? At worst showing the video opens the door for teachers to take over a parental role in discussing the various pledges as they try to reduce them to a level that could be understood by a 5 or 7 year-old. Again, why should my taxes support that?

If the target audience was for older youth (teenagers and college students) then the video is well made (meaning it would connect with that audience). It still has the problem of promoting some dangerous biases of the creators (confusing service to the president with respect for the president as one example), but it will always be necessary to compensate for the biases of those who are promoting ideas because the promotion of ideas is a values issue by definition – which again is an area where the parents are always primarily responsible until their children reach adulthood.

So here’s my pledge.

I pledge to continue to believe in the good intentions of others, whether they be elected officials or simply socially and politically active individuals and groups, even when I fundamentally disagree with what they are trying to do. I pledge to be civil no matter how passionately I disagree with anyone and to treat other people with respect and decency in all my interactions. I pledge to fight for what I value and seek to make my country, state, community, and neighborhood a better place. I pledge that no matter how much I may want something I will not make promises that my grandchildren will have to keep in order to achieve it, nor will I ask other to do so.

And I don’t have to go to usaservice.org (which is actually serve.gov) to make or keep that pledge.

Tags civic participation, discourse, media, public service, reactions

General

Free and Strong America

I got an invitation yesterday to donate to the Free and Strong America PAC. The stated goal of this organization is to “advance conservative social, fiscal, and foreign policies.” Considering that this is Mitt Romney’s organization I had a bit of a laugh. Romney might advance conservative social policies (depending entirely upon your personal definition of “conservative”), and could probably be depended on to advance fiscal policies that are conservative to one degree or another, but I doubt that he would recognize a conservative foreign policy if it camped on his doorstep or picketed the central office of the Free and Strong America PAC.

The invitation declared that they could only accomplish their goals with my enthusiastic support. I wonder what they will be able to do with my utter indifference?

Tags conservative, reactions, Romney, spam

National technology

White House Viral Email

The White House has decided to use a viral email (or at least an email they hope will go viral) to spread their health care reform message. In it they offer:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

It think it is important to get a non-spin version of their 24 points (really only 21). I will assume, as much as possible, that their claims are true and show what those claims really mean to the nation. As usual it’s not nearly as straightforward as any partisan claims would have you believe. (For example, they only offer 7 unique ways reform provides security, 7 unique myths – including one I had never heard, and 7 reasons for reform now – plus one generic platitude.)

Tags current events, health care, legislation, media, Obama, reactions

National

The Paradox of Government

Today I read Paul Krugman writing about t he paradox of thrift. As is often the case, I found it interesting to read and to notice the assumptions that Krugman bases his positions on. While anyone can go read what he wrote I’ll give a quick overview of the paradox of thrift – increases in personal savings can have an adverse effect on the economy causing a net decrease in actual savings overall.

The first assumption made by Krugman is that savings come in the form of currency with an assigned value but with no real intrinsic value – paper money. If savings come in the form of debt reduction or in acquiring real goods for future use then a bad economy increases the value of the savings rather than decreasing that value.

The second assumption made by Krugman is that government should be a significant force and substantial contributor to the economy. This is a man who argued that the government was doing the wrong thing and not enough of it when Obama got his stimulus bill passed (ARRA). While I often disagree with his assumptions I absolutely trust Krugman to be able to read the numbers and do his math so I won’t attempt to do my own numbers. I will link to the source of his numbers and then play with his graph to show how things look under new assumptions.

Tags economics, Elevated, government, national debt, Paul Krugman, reactions, savings

culture life

Human Rights

A post at the Utah Amicus this morning shared a short video based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The video and the overall message is good, but starting at 2:51 in the video the message departs from the reality of human rights and enters the Utopia of idealism. I think it is important to recognize the difference between the real and the ideal if we are to have any hope of establishing true liberty. Of all the categories which this declaration lists as distinctions which cannot alter basic human rights there is one category which they fail to list which tears some of their "rights" to shreds – placement in history. We have no rights today that were not also the rights applicable to our great grandparents. I do not mean to say that those rights have never been infringed upon, but if we call something a right today which could not have been delivered in all ages of civilization then it is not actually a right.

Those who subscribe to the Conservative/Libertarian philosophy would rightly point out that there is no such thing as gay rights, womens rights, or minority rights of any kind – there are only individual rights. In other words, membership in any group, majority or minority does nto grant any rights that are not equally applicable to those outside the group. The same holds true of responsibilities. Society, nor any group in society, has no responsibilities. Only individuals have responsibilities.

So, while it is nice to say that society has a responsibility to help you develop the truth is that for better or worse society does help you develop. It is the moral responsibility of every individual to encourage those they interact with to develop in a positive way according to their individual capacities. In other words, a teacher can help a child to learn and a police officer can encourage a child to respect the law. The teacher and the police officer may have some influence outside those spheres, but we cannot expect one to fill the role of the other. The real truth is that we cannot expect society to take on any responsibility – we can only expect ourselves to take on any necessary or desirable responsibility (and we can encourage others to do the same).

There is no right to employment – only the right to receive the fruits of your labor. It is the responsibility of others to treat you fairly, but that does not entitle you to a any given job nor does it mean that employers must make work for you. I can appreciate the idea of a right to a fair salary, but I am confident that the meaning of those promoting this Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean a social guarantee of some minimum salary – which is not a right and cannot be enforced without taking away true liberty.

The happy sentiment that each workday should not be too long is completely meaningless. First we must define "too long" and second we must find a way to enforce it. A standard definition of "too long might be 8, 10, or 12 hours per day. Tell that to those who produced their own food on a family farm when an 18-hour workday was little better than subsistence. We no longer live in that age, but it goes to prove that needs, resources, and capacities are outside the control of society and thus the "too long" workday cannot be artificially defined or equitably enforced. The same argument holds true wtih the reference to "a decent standard of living."

The right to go to school was not available in any for for long ages of many societies and that lack had nothing to do with oppression – it had to do with subsistence. I have the right to be treated fairly regarldess of my economic curcumstance, but I do not have the right to go to school when school is not avaliable or when I do not have the capacity to go to school and still meet my real human needs. The same holds true for participation in the arts and sciences of my community.

While it is nice to think about an education that promotes peace and understanding among all people the reality is, again, that this tries to place on society a responsibility that every individual has to treat (and teach others to treat) all people with respect and dignity. Education (meaning public or formal educaiton) should focus on academic disciplines and teach/promote respect and understanding by example more than indoctrination.

In short, there are no group rights or responsibilities. We must each shoulder our responsibilities – which include protecting and respecting the rights of others. Second, real rights are rights regardless of historic reference point. Any right which could not be enforced (as distinct from simply "was not enforced") at all points in history is not a right, no matter how noble or desireable it is.

Tags liberty, reactions, rights