The Joker

He's got jokes.

Additionally, the President's comments near the end about diversified media echoed the sentiments of my posts about selective exposure and partisan news sources.

Ship of Fools

May 1st, 2003

Fight For Your Right

Perhaps the Democrats should consider a Ukrainian response to the latest filibuster threat...

If nothing else it might get CSPAN some ratings

99 Problems

UPDATE:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the controversial immigration bill into law on Friday, prompting an outcry from the White House, Democrats and Arizona residents.

Additionally, Politico author Andy Barr echoes my last post in his Friday column "What's the matter with Arizona?"

Born in the USA

Arizona has some issues.

The home state of the once-maverick Republican John McCain has increasingly become a hotbed of conservative fundamentalism. On Tuesday, the Arizona State House of Representatives voted 31-22 to require all presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate in order qualify for the state's presidential ballot. This legislation is an obvious shot at President Obama, who some still believe is not a natural born citizen. While there have been no reports on whether Governor Jan Brewer will sign or veto the bill, the mere fact that this bill passed the House is a birther-fueled abomination in itself.

In other Arizonan news, the State Senate recently passed a bill that would require any immigrant in Arizona to carry proper immigration papers and would require police, if they had a doubt about a person's immigration status, to determine whether they were a legal citizen or immigrant. If an officer has a "reasonable suspicion," they may demand proof that they person is in the country legally. This bill, if signed by Governor Jan Brewer, will result in blatant discrimination and racial profiling for anyone who looks remotely like they could be from another country.

Arizona's stance against illegal immigrants is notorious. Past bills have banned employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and have made human smuggling a state crime.In particular, Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio is one of the most outspoken proponents of legislation which cracks down on illegal immigrants. Arpaio is known for his questionable actions against illegal immigrants, such as conducting widespread sweeps in areas where immigrants are concentrated to round up illegal immigrants.

On the national political level, Arizona Senator and former presidential candidate (born on a US Naval Base in Panama) John McCain is fighting to hold onto his Senate seat. His challenger, former Congressman JD Hayworth, has dubbed himself, "The Consistent Conservative," and has gained the endorsements of Glenn Beck, Sheriff Arpaio, a number of conservative talk-show hosts (for, after all, that is his newest profession) and numerous elements of the Tea Party Movement. Hayworth, who has compared gay marriage to a human marrying a horse and has been the winner of Washingtonian magazine's "Best and Worst of Congress" titles of "Biggest Windbag" and "No Rocket Scientist," is running only 5 percentage points behind McCain as of last Friday.

While McCain has drifted towards the right from his former position of center-right maverickism, Hayworth represents a new level of right wing ideology. If elected, Arizona and the Senate will lose one of the most respected and experienced representatives in the Senate and will face the dangerously radical views of JD Hayworth. Neither the Senate nor Arizona will stand to benefit from this.

Arizona voters need to act in order to prevent isolation by the rest of the country and the risk of being known as the first Tea Party State.

Below is a pro-McCain advertisement which mocks Hayworth's radical views and general absurdity.

My Generation

The internet. That vast cyber space where any and all information is stored and easily accessed at the click of a mouse. Where anyone can publish and share data, links, and ideas freely and equally with anyone else on the planet. Until now.

The decision earlier this month by a Washington D.C. appellate court ruled that Comcast has the right to regulate types of internet traffic that use more bandwidth. By giving internet service providers (ISPs) the ability to limit access to certain types of traffic, the court decision jeopardizes the future of "net-neutrality" and will disproportionately affect the millennial generation, who utilize high-bandwidth services the most.

In 2007, the Associated Press determined through a series of nationwide tests that Comcast had been intentionally slowing the internet service of clients who used file sharing networks, particularly BitTorrent traffic. BitTorrents are used for sharing large data files directly between two internet users, without being stored on a central server. So-called "peer-to-peer" networks use a high volume of bandwidth and while it is associated with illegally sharing music, movies and software, peer-to-peer sharing can and is being used for increasingly legal purposes of data exchange.

However, because peer-to-peer traffic accounts for a majority of internet traffic, Comcast limited the connectivity of subscribers using such services. After the FCC sought to prohibit this practice in the name of net-neutrality, the principle that all internet access should be free and equal, a legal battle ensued. The District of Columbia United States Court of Appeals ruled that such conduct fell outside the jurisdiction of the FCC and that Comcast reserves the right to interfere with any of its clients’ web traffic.

The implications of this ruling are two-fold.

First, it is unclear what doors this decision will open for further discrimination by ISPs. Net-neutrality is a vague concept and the lines and boundaries of the internet are nebulous. If ISPs have the capacity to limit peer-to-peer sharing, what’s to say they can’t limit other types of high-bandwidth traffic like streaming video from YouTube or ESPN, or videochat programs like Skype? Internet subscribers using these types of traffic could be subject to slower service or higher fees in the future.

Second, the decision will have a disproportionate effect on the so-called millennial generation who helped develop and who use the majority of this traffic. While the internet has become universal in its usage, the high-bandwidth functions are used predominantly by high school and college aged consumers. As a result, it is this demographic who will be most adversely affected by slower service or higher fees. Whether it is from music sharing, watching streaming videos or video chatting with friends across the country, high internet traffic use has become the norm of this generation.

And while one teenager streaming video may not affect a typical family’s broadband account, an apartment of four college students sharing one internet account is the most likely to be subjected to ISP discrimination. The immediate effects of such limitations will likely only be felt by users in or just out of college who share accounts with others who are also using large amounts of bandwidth. However, in the long term, what is now considered high-bandwidth usage will eventually become the norm as the millennial generation grows older and knowledge of these relatively new technologies proliferates into older internet users.

So while this decision may seem largely inconsequential to many now, it is likely to have more widespread effects in the future. While it appears that there is little legal basis to date to prohibit the actions that Comcast has employed, it is imperative that Congress take steps to preserve net-neutrality. The internet is a valuable resource and, as the FCC v. Comcast case stated, “is arguably the most important innovation in communications in a generation.” It is also what has defined this generation, and regulations like those allowed by this decision put the full capacity of the internet as a resource in jeopardy, and with a negative burden shouldered by the world’s younger generations. It is critical that the free and full access to the internet and its content be protected and maintained.

Ain't That America

I was talking recently about America and one of our seemingly most simple entities: our currency

It dawned on me a while ago that, as far as my knowledge extends, our coins lack something that no other coin that I have ever seen does: numbers. Most people in the US are oblivious to this and whenever I point it out to anyone, they are often surprised or even disbelieving. But if you reach into your pocket I assure you that none of the American nickels, dimes, quarters or pennies will have a number on them.

This isn't entirely true. Our coins have dates on them. Interesting, perhaps, but useless if you are trying to determine their value. Pennies and nickels offer the most help, stating "one cent" and "five cents" respectively. Quarters offer the cryptic mathematical quotient of "quarter dollar," while the dime offers the most enigmatic, "one dime." Nor are the coin sizes intuitive. The dime is the smallest, yet worth more than the penny and the nickel.

These issues may seem trivial, but as someone who has travelled extensively, struggled with computing exchange rates in my head and fumbled with foreign currency, I can't imagine the dismay of not knowing English and struggling with coins without numbers.

Perhaps I'm making too much of a big deal over a few cents. But the sentiment runs much deeper than our change pockets. The United States has no official language. While English is the de facto national language, none has ever been officially declared. Yet if you deplane at most international terminals in the US, you will rarely find an alternative translation for "Baggage Claim," or "Transportation."

My favorite, and what I can only assume to be an absolute nightmare for any visitor, domestic or international, is my home airport of Boston Logan and the subsequent labyrinth known as the "Big Dig." Assuming you find your rental car and navigate your way out of the airport, you are immediately faced with a toll booth, the price of which continues to rise but what I believe is now $3.50. Assuming you know what a toll booth is, that you have American money, and that you can figure out how much 50 cents is, you are then funneled into a tunnel. Next, assuming you can read the sign that says, "Government Center/Storrow Drive," that it isn't blocked off for construction with no detour provided and on the chance that you follow the correct fork in the road, you will be spit out into a maze of poorly named and one way streets to fend for yourself. Welcome to America.

There is a reason for this American hubris. The US was long-entrenched in a policy of isolationism. It sealed itself from the rest of the world in its developmental years, determined to stay out of other peoples' business and have them stay out of ours. From its early years, Presidents Washington and Adams avoided intervention in the war between Britain and France in an attempt to solidify America's neutrality. Yet since that time we have deviated from that path. America is at the epicenter of world events and, as the only remaining superpower, is the most influential player on the world stage. At the same time, the US has become a destination for immigrants, refugees and visitors alike.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Just make sure they can speak English.

We Americans are proud of our country, our history and our heritage. But we must be careful of where our patriotism oversteps its bounds into arrogance. And while many will be up in arms at any sign of accommodation (even those who struggle with English as a first language), we must at least consider some small simple changes like multi-lingual signs or numerical values on our coins.

Penny for your thoughts. It's the brownish one that says one cent on it...

START Me Up

The Cold War is over. We won. So why should anyone care about the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty set to be signed this week by the United States and Russia? Why would we jeopardize our abilities to nuke the world into oblivion? Because if the treaty is signed and ratified, it will be a vital step forward for the Obama administration, for Russo-American relations, and for worldwide denuclearization.

The goal of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is to achieve further reductions in nuclear weapons between the two countries after the 1991 START II expired in December. But in addition to the tangible achievement of reducing nuclear arms on both sides, this START would give the Obama administration a victory in foreign affairs, it will reconcile part of the deepening divide between the US and Russia that has occurred in recent years, and it will show the world’s nuclear states that the two nuclear superpowers are still dedicated to a planet free from nuclear weapons. Ratifying the treaty will give a boost to the American reputation worldwide, which it sorely needs.

On the domestic level, the benefits will be twofold for President Obama.

First, if the treaty is ratified by the Senate, which it must be by a two-thirds vote, it will be the President’s first major victory in foreign affairs. Coming off of a controversial and hard-fought domestic victory in health care, the ratification of START would show his ability to manage both international and domestic affairs. It will also serve as justification for his Nobel Peace Prize, giving him credibility both inside and outside the country.

Second, some Republicans must ratify the treaty in order for it to pass. The initiative to ratify the treaty is being spearheaded by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively. Sen. Lugar is well schooled in the arenas of nuclear arms control and reduction and has called for the Senate to “work quickly to achieve ratification” of the treaty. This bipartisan effort could be a step towards reconciliation (no pun intended) between the two increasingly polarized ends of the political spectrum in Washington and pave the way towards more bipartisan effort on future legislation.

On the national level, the treaty would do much to improve relations between the United States and Russia, which faltered during the Bush administration.

What is perhaps the most important aspect of the treaty is not the number of weapons reduced but the transparency that will result from certain provisions intended to bolster trust and communication between the two nations. Under the proposed treaty, the US and Russia will have better knowledge of where each other’s weapons are and the status of each other’s disarmament.

With this improved trust, the United States can expect better cooperation from Russia on difficult international issues like the development of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Russia has long had issues of self-esteem and a need to be acknowledged as a major power by the rest of the world. The START treaty and its predecessors grant Russia the satisfaction of being recognized as the most powerful nuclear adversary to the United States, making them more open and affable to cooperation, while still achieving levels of disarmament.

Lastly, on the international level, the START treaty will show the rest of the world, and especially the nuclear weapons states, that the two greatest nuclear superpowers are still committed to denuclearization.

In his speech last year in Prague, the venue for the symbolic signing with President Medvedev this week, President Obama voiced his desire for a world free from nuclear weapons. While the process, as the President recognized in that speech, will take time, the START treaty is an important mileage mark on the road to nuclear zero.

America can only stand to gain from this treaty. We will still maintain a substantial nuclear arsenal, and thus an effective deterrent. Yet our country has the opportunity to show that it has a leader dedicated to an open and proactive foreign policy, a chance to reconcile partisanship domestically, the ability to reach out to a former adversary in the hopes of promoting peace and cooperation, and the power to inspire denuclearization worldwide.

If this treaty is ratified, it can be nothing but beneficial for citizens of the US and the world alike, and for our posterity, who may someday enjoy a world free from the threat of nuclear annihilation.

For What It's Worth

After reading the latest post, "Why America is FAILING," on Simply Blogical, I felt that a response was merited to refute the author's claims that United States has become a "non-constitutional republic," and that the Founding Fathers are to blame for shoddy wording of the Constitution.

The author claims at the beginning that "The United States of America was founded on the principal of the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He then states that,

"The right to the pursuit of happiness is commonly misunderstood. People commonly mistake the pursuit of happiness for happiness itself, meaning they believe that the constitution promises happiness (goods and/or services) for “free” (i.e. healthcare). What they do not understand is that the constitution does not allow laws to contradict, and that being given goods/services for free by the government in fact contradicts the constitutional right to the liberty of others."

First of all, the words "pursuit of happiness" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What I assume the author is referring to is the text of the 5th and 14th Amendments which read, "no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," the 5th referring to the Federal Government and the 14th referring to the State Governments.

What might help his cause is what follows in the 5th Amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

However, he somehow overlooks what is arguably the most famous part of the Constitution, its founding creed: the Preamble. The Preamble states, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [emphasis added]

The meaning of justice can be debated. I take it to mean that all Americans are to be treated in a way that is just and equal under the established laws. Is it just for children to be denied access to health care because of preexisting conditions? I think not, but if the author believes this is infringing on the rights of insurance companies and that a human life doesn't outweigh the values of a liberal market system then we will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of what is just.

What is harder to disagree on is the meaning of the clauses, "provide for the common defence," and, "promote the general Welfare." For instance, the first clause may serve as a justification for the draft. I will use WWII as an example because it is the last instance of a direct attack by another nation on the United States, thus truly requiring "defence." While the draft may impose on the liberty and even the life of a citizen, it is sometimes necessary for the common defence of the nation. (I do not advocate the use of the draft in the Vietnam conflict because I do not believe it was necessary for the defense of the United States.)

General welfare is the same idea. These clauses were not written with loopholes, nor were they written carelessly without thought for the citizens of the nation. The Constitution was established for the people of the United States collectively, not individually. The Founding Fathers realized that a country cannot be strong unless all of its citizens are strong and thus sought to promote the general welfare in addition to securing the blessings of liberty for the people of this country.

Now to address the author's claims that, "Taxation violates the constitution as it contradicts the right to liberty." Taxation is the only way to maintain a government and infrastructure, and therefore a country. When the Constitution gave the Congress the "power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," its goal was not to deprive citizens of liberty but to provide them with a functional society. Taxes pay for schools, military, infrastructure, police and fire services, prisons and a myriad of other things necessary to keep a society functional and able to provide its citizens with safety and security.

The author argues that while some taxes may be necessary, "once it is made possible to impose taxes for certain things, there is no basis for stopping more taxes from occurring" However, there are ways to protect the citizens from taxes they feel are unfair. The first is simply that they can vote for a representative who will oppose taxes that would violate the liberty of his or her constituents. If this fails, the other option is to file a legal case against the government to be decided in appellate and, eventually, the Supreme Court. There is a system of checks and balances purposefully implemented so that no one person or branch can impose tyranny upon the country. The Supreme Court holds the power to decide what laws and regulations imposed by Congress are and are not constitutional.

Today's America is not tyrannical. It is not a dictatorship and it is not authoritarian. To think otherwise, and to write a post about the Constitution without a single quote from that document, well that's just Simply Ilblogical.

Don't Tread on Me

The Tea Party movement is destroying my love of American history.

As a young student growing up in Massachusetts, I learned of the politics, the battles, and the patriots of the American Revolution which had begun just miles from my home. I woke up before dawn on April 19th to watch reenactments of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. I visited landmarks like the Old North Church, the Bunker Hill Monument and the Old State House, just outside of which the Boston Massacre took place. I memorized Longfellow's "Paul Revere's Ride," and saw the gravestones of the famous Boston patriots.

Over Christmas break, I took a day to re-walk the Freedom Trail, the 2.5 mile brick pathway that winds through the streets of Boston and the North End, passing by some of the most important landmarks of US history. It made me proud. Proud to know that this was where our country began. And it made me sad.

It made me sad because I have seen defiant symbols of the American Revolution exploited by the Tea Party movement. I would have liked, if it were not undergoing renovations, to have visited the Boston Tea Party Ship and Museum. This is the site where the real, and in my mind, the only, Tea Party took place. It is where, in the dead of a cold December night, dozens of patriots, led by Samuel Adams, boarded British ships disguised as Indians and proceeded to ax and dump boxes of tea into Boston Harbor.

The scene was not a riot. There was no shouting, no pitchforks, no torches. The men worked efficiently, diligently, and quietly, then left in the morning, fearing that they might be attacked or arrested for treason. Yet their protest against Britain was strong and symbolic. The Boston Tea Party was a public demonstration against a British tax on tea, levied against the colonist without their representation in British Parliament. It was a protest inspired by the adage that every American schoolchild learns in history class: "No Taxation without Representation."

Yet now, the recent populist and anti-federal government movement has taken on the name of what is arguably the most famous political protest in our country's history. The Tea Party Movement, while still largely disjointed and comprised of members on a wide spectrum of anti-government sentiments, is dedicated to the opposition of a large federal government, government spending, and taxation.

While I respect every American's right to dissent and to voice their opinion, I find the efforts of the Tea Party protestors to invoke the spirit of the American Revolution a shameful and contemptible comparison that sullies the great history of this country which I have known for my entire life. The patriots of American colonies opposed the taxes imposed on them because they had no voice in Parliament with which to express dissent.

In today's America, every citizen is represented by a Congressman and Senators who are elected to represent their constituents in Congress. Citizens are taxed. However, they are also given a voice of representation. The fundamental difference is that the Tea Party participants don't want to pay the taxes that are implemented fairly and legally.

Indeed, historians acknowledge that a more accurate historical reference point to the Tea Party movement is Shays' Rebellion in 1786. Shays' Rebellion was an uprising of poor farmers in Western Massachusetts, angered by debt and taxes, who modeled their rebellion off of the recent Revolution by trying to use the same tactics of the Sons of Liberty. In many ways, the Shays Rebellion is similar to the Tea Party movement of today. Preceded by a financial crisis, the Rebellion was aimed at the government of Massachusetts and its agents across the state. It is to this movement that the Tea Party is similar. Yet they compare themselves to the greatest American patriotic heros.

And they have also tarnished symbols of that Revolution.

Many Tea Baggers, as they are called, show up to rallies in tri-cornered hats while prepared to besmirch another life-long interest of mine: flags. In particular, the Tea Party movement favors the Gasdsen flag. The famous yellow standard features a coiled rattlesnake with the motto, "Dont Tread on Me." Named for Christopher Gadsden, a Sons of Liberty leader in South Carolina and later a Colonel in the Continental Army, the flag was presented to Commodore Esek Hopkins as a standard for the United States Navy by Gadsden in 1775. The motto served as a defiant warning to the British not to impose their rule on the colonies, and the flag served as a symbol of the Revolution.

And now this patriotic symbol is being exploited to promote the Tea Party cause. Attempting to incite sentiments of "true patriotism," protestors wave Gadsden flags and 13-star American flags. As if the Obama administration is as oppressive and tyrannical as the British Empire, and they equate to the patriots who formed our country.

So as the Tea Baggers march and wave their flags and call the President a Marxist, a Fascist, a Socialist and any other "-ist" that they can come up with, they stifle a little bit of my love of history. But while they can try to justify their hatred of government as patriotism, they'll never crush the true spirit of the American Revolution that I know and love.

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap Part II

Meanwhile, outside the Congressional chambers, there are larger scale problems with the conservative base. Disagreeing with policy is fine. It is every citizen's right to hold their own opinions and to dissent when they disagree with a certain policy. However, the hatred and ad hominem attacks have reached despicable and deplorable lows. Bob Herbert shares his opinion on the topic in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html?src=me&ref=general

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

Conservatives have recently taken to claiming that the Democrats, President Obama and the health care legislation will fundamentally weaken the foundation of our country. Yet the GOP has done a fairly good job of making a mockery of a cornerstone of this democracy: The Congress.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34838.html

Unsportsmanlike conduct, defense, four more year penalty, first down Democrats.

Baby, It's a Wild World

The Problem

Our country has reached an unprecedented level of political partisanship. In a recent story on NPR.org, Andrea Seabrook cites a Congressional Quarterly report that found 2009 to be the most partisan year in recent US history (they began their analyses in 1953). According to the study, 72% of Senate votes in 2009 were partisan, with a majority of Democrats voting against a majority of Republicans, the highest percentage in history. But it is not just our government that is plagued with partisanship. American society is also growing increasingly divided.

I believe there are three major reasons for this division, although they are inherently intertwined. First, there is a widening gap of partisanship in Washington, driven by politicians who are more interested in reelection than issues. Second, I believe that as a result of the information age, the practice of selective exposure, or choosing which sources of information one exposes oneself to has grown exponentially. With millions of sources available on the internet and the prevalence of 24-hour news media, the public is able to pick the news, or more importantly the opinions, that it wants to hear. Lastly, I believe that the increasing partisanship of the mainstream media has and will continue to drive the schism of the right and the left. By selectively reporting on stories they know will play to their viewers emotions and be agreeable with their beliefs, stations like MSNBC and Fox News will only exacerbate the problem of partisanship in the current political climate. It is the responsibility of these three entities to work to repair this fractured situation in their own respective ways.

The Divide, Part 1: Politics

It can be debated whether the increasing partisanship of the government is a cause or a result of a politically divided society. I am inclined to believe it is a result. In my opinion, politicians in the past were less constrained by special interest groups and by constant media coverage. To illustrate this point, my memory is drawn to a particular anecdote in Senator Ted Kennedy’s book True Compass in which he remembers an encounter early in his Senate career (circa. 1963) with Virginia Senator Willis Robertson. Robertson, after delivering a speech fervently in favor of a bill, voted against the same piece of legislation. When asked by Kennedy why his vote conflicted with his speech, he replied, “Well, Senator, in my state, the people are evenly divided on this bill. To those who favor it, I send my speech. To those who are opposed, I send my vote.”

Today, it is unlikely that Senators could get away with such ploys. Accountability in government is a necessity, but only to an extent. Sometimes it may be in the interest of a Congressman’s constituency or even his personal convictions to vote outside of his party’s lines. Yet in today’s polarized climate, any vote that defies party standards is seen as a betrayal and as a potential detriment to reelection. As I mentioned in a previous post, “John McCain recently voted against a bill that he co-sponsored ‘that would have formed a task force on the deficit to try to force tough choices on Congress.’ Facing a challenge from a Tea-Party sponsored candidate in his upcoming Senate race, McCain was forced to vote against his own bill so as to not alienate potential voters.”

Indeed, a trend of polarization to the left or the right is evident. But if this trend is the result of a divided society, where is the root cause? The answer lies in the increasingly partisan news media.

The Divide, Part 2: The Public and Selective Exposure

In the past, news was much simpler and much more objective. Before television and radio, people would open the pages of a small number of major news publications, such as the New York Times, for their daily news. Later, with the advent of television, there were very few options in news, limited to the major networks like NBC, ABC, and CBS and a viewer’s preference was largely motivated by who they would rather hear talk for an hour. In 1980, CNN was launched as the first 24-hour news station, only the beginning of the media barrage to come. In 1996, Rupert Murdoch and American CEO Roger Ailes launched Fox News, whose “Fair and Balanced” news and commentary has since drifted strongly to the right. As a counterweight, MSNBC became increasingly liberal in its reporting and its commentary with personalities like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow being balanced on Fox by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and now Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

In addition, the internet has opened a floodgate of information on political news. In my personal opinion, this overload has furthered the sectarian divide by allowing readers to chose partial and biased (and sometimes blatantly false) news sources. In her article, “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting Selective Exposure,” Natalie Stroud defines selective exposure as “the selection of media outlets that match [a person’s] beliefs and predispositions.” She also acknowledges, “as people’s media options increase and they find outlets offering more congenial perspectives, the potential for selective exposure arguably increases.”

A 2004 New York Times article about selective exposure outlined the issues of “Media Myopia.” The author acknowledges the problem that selective exposure can have on our political climate in reporting on the opinions of Cass Sunstein’s book, Republic.com.

“Democracy, he argued, depends in part on people's being exposed to information they would not necessarily have chosen for themselves. So, too, might the concept of gut rationality be endangered in a filtered world, where people see only what they want to see, hear only what they want to hear, read only what they want to read.”

Yet the problem of biased media is a cyclical one. As certain demographics of voters trend towards certain news outlets, those news outlets will in turn become more biased in an effort to attract viewers of a similar persuasion. This self-perpetuating cycle has led us to where we are today and could prove even more divisive in the future.

The Divide, Part 3: The Media

Particularly in the last decade, the divide between liberal and conservative media has become more apparent. Fox News, one of the most controversial entities when it comes to media bias, is an example of a network that has shown an increasingly conservative trend. Originally, Fox was more subliminally conservative, trying to portray itself as truly “Fair and Balanced,” with shows like “Hannity and Colmes,” attempting to give two sides to each story. “Hannity and Colmes” eventually became just “Hannity,” and Fox has since begun to hire conservative heroes, such as Glenn Beck in January of 2009, and Sarah Palin in January 2010. The story is the same with MSNBC on the left.

Both sides have recently reached new lows. Commentators and pundits have resorted not only to reporting news with a biased tone, but also to directly criticizing each others’ reporting and taking cheap shots at their counterparts. Not only does this detract from actual, important news, it also further entrenches the opinions of its viewers that the other side is fundamentally wrong.

In addition to solidifying these polarized beliefs, the media has adopted a tactic for enticing viewers which proves most dangerous to the future of our political climate: playing to the emotions of the public rather than to their intellect. The emotional appeal has long been a tactic of political campaigns, for instance the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry that managed to paint a war hero as an unpatriotic dissenter. As Drew Westen asserts in his book The Political Brain, “[emotions] can motivate the worst in human nature, when people come to associate entire classes of people with emotions such as rage, contempt, and disgust. And as we have seen, emotions can distort the way we reason.” However, where the media has historically been the objective voice of reason, it has recently succumbed to similar emotional appeals. Glenn Beck is notorious for such appeals. Known for whipping up tears to show his love for America and his fear that it is being destroyed by liberals, Beck is also a major driving factor behind the Tea Party movement, a movement driven predominantly by emotional dissent for government and little by actual fact.

And in this appeal to the emotions of the public, the media has toed the line of the ultimate faux pas of journalism: false reporting or reporting of fiction. For instance, in efforts to enthuse and energize the recent conservative movements, Fox News has repeatedly reported exaggerated numbers of attendees at political events and a Sarah Palin book signing, sometimes showing footage of wholly unrelated gatherings. Fox also was responsible for pandering to the emotions of its viewers last summer when it advanced Sarah Palin’s concept of “death panels,” the baseless idea that health care reform would involve panels of doctors deciding whether elderly people lived or died. MSNBC has also been accused of falsely reporting racist quotes by Rush Limbaugh and misrepresenting the intent of armed protestors at political rallies.

The Solution

The road that we are on is a dangerous one. We have seen, in recent attempts to pass legislation, the detriment that partisanship plays in our political arena. In order to amend the partisan schism and to achieve any semblance of the political system we once had, all three parties above must be held responsible.

First, our politicians must focus on policy, not politics. Instead of refusing to vote independently of their parties and suffocating legislation in an endless quagmire of filibusters, it is the responsibility of our representatives in government to do what is best for the American people, not for themselves and their reelection campaigns. It may take an act of political courage like those outlined in John F. Kennedy’s book “Profiles in Courage,” to break the current cycle. It may take a joint, bipartisan effort to agree that policy for the people should be most important. Whatever it may take, it is a necessity.

Secondly, it is the responsibility of the media to provide the public with facts, unbiased and without political editorial comments. In an article entitled, “Hyper-partisanship: What the media could do about it,” Richard Doak suggests to the media that,

“The next time a bill passes Congress, devote most of your stories to telling readers what's actually in the bill. You might even quote the actual wording of the legislation and consult disinterested experts about its effects. Skip the snarky quotes from partisan combatants. Describe the legislation and let the readers decide for themselves what to think about it. If lawmakers have nasty, partisan remarks to make, let them be entered in the Congressional Record, but journalists should feel no obligation to treat boilerplate talking points as news.”

If the media is able to curb the amount of political bias and appeals to emotion in its broadcasts, the public will be able to better form their own opinions on issues. They would be able to make decision using their guts and their brains, rather than their hearts.

Lastly, it is our responsibility to interpret the information that we hear accurately and take media reporting with a grain of salt. Additionally, the public must do some research of political news on its own rather than having it fed to them by their favorite news outlets. We must educate ourselves, form our own opinions, make our own decisions and write to our Representatives and Senators about our feelings on issues. We, the People, have the undermining political role in our country and it is our responsibility to prevent its demise.

Bibliography

Doak, Richard. "Hyper-partisanship: What the Media Could Do About It." Des Moines Register 14 Feb. 2010: Web.

Goolsbee, Austan. "Lean Left? Lean Right? News Media May Take Their Cues From Customers." New York Times 10 Dec. 2006: Web.

Harwood, John. "If Fox Is Partisan, Its Not Alone." New York Times 01 Nov. 2009: Web.

Kohut, Andrew. "More News Is Not Necessarily Good News." New York Times 11 Jul. 2004: Web.

Seabrook, Andrea. "CQ: 2009 Was The Most Partisan Year Ever." NPR 11 Jan. 2010: Web.

Shakir, Faiz. "Fox News Displays...." ThinkProgress 18 Nov. 2009: Web. <http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/18/fox-crowd-shot-palin/>.

Stroud, Natalie. "Media Use and Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure." Political Behavior. (2001): Web.

Westen, Drew. The Political Brain. New York: Public Affairs, 2007.

We Are The World

In today's Op-Ed section of the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof proposes an idea which coincides well with my most recent post: a Teach for the World Program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/opinion/11kristof.html?ref=opinion

Rockin' In the Free World

In his 1960 Inaugural Address, John F. Kennedy called upon the people of the United States to aid those in the lowest economic levels of society, domestically and worldwide. "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." He famously pleaded for Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." In one of his first actions as President, Kennedy established the Peace Corps, a program which gives young Americans the opportunity to volunteer in an underdeveloped society somewhere in the world with the hopes of promoting sustainability and development.

Kennedy realized the danger of a divided society in which the top percent of the population controlled an overwhelming amount of the wealth and means. The Peace Corps was one of his first attempts as President to close the equality gap, later followed by his push for a New Frontier of improved education for all, civil rights, Medicare and economic aid for rural regions. Since then, similar Peace Corps-like programs such as Americorps, Teach for America and City Year have helped hundreds of thousands of Americans domestically through volunteer work. Hundreds of other service organizations have had an impact both at home and abroad.

As Stephen Mack points out in a recent post, studies have shown that the more unequal a society is, the more volatile it becomes. While socialism theoretically produces the highest level of equality in a society, it is clear that socialist structures like those of the Scandinavian countries would never be possible in the United States. While it is easy to disagree on whether we should "eat the rich" and "redistribute wealth," it is impossible to argue that showing compassion, or as Mack puts it, fraternity, to those less fortunate wouldn't help narrow this growing schism of inequality.

No matter your political or economic tendencies, we can all agree that such selfless service helps our domestic and world societies. And while much inequality is economic, many solutions are not. Whether it is two years of service in the Peace Corps or 3 hours volunteering at a soup kitchen, expressions of fraternity for our common man reduce inequality even if it is by the smallest of margins.

So when questions arise such as those of public options and tax cuts for the rich, those so entrenched in ideals and rhetoric that they are bound to be endlessly battled out legislatively, ask not, and do more.

Shallow be thy Game

Here is an excellent editorial by Sen. John Kerry about the state of the Senate, entitled: Not A Game

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/not-a-game_b_482093.html

Mo Money Mo Problems

Recently, I wrote about the potential implications of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Since the ruling, several counteracts to the outcome have been proposed to retain some semblance of order in the campaign finance system. To recap, the ruling in favor of Citizens United overturned standing laws and limits on campaign finance by corporations. As a result, corporations will be allowed to spend freely on political campaigns out of corporate treasury funds. I, like many, believe this decision will be detrimental to the fairness of the political process.

Last week, Senator Chuck Schumer (D- NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D - Md.) designed a bill, which Schumer introduced to the Senate, to amend the ruling. Schumer, who called the decision, "one of the worst the Supreme Court has ever issued," voiced his desire to pass a bill immediately so that the upcoming 2010 midterm elections are not as vastly affected by the changes in FEC laws. "If we don't act quickly, this decision will have an immediate and devastating impact on the 2010 elections."

The bill aims to prevent foreign corporations from contributing to political campaigns, and ban companies who received bailout money from contributing unlimited funds until they have paid back their federal debts. Additionally, the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation would add transparency to the practice of corporate contributions. It would require corporate disclosure on donations, require that candidates be entitled to equal airtime to rebut corporate advertisements and lastly, and I believe most importantly, "implement stand-by-your-ad provisions on corporate-backed ads."

While I believe the Supreme Court ruling will prove disastrous to the American political system, my last hope lies in the fact that all publicly traded corporations, too, are comprised of individuals with a voice. If Congress passes legislation requiring CEOs of corporations to appear in advertisements and state that they approve the message, there are two potential outcomes that could deter corporations from flooding the market with their funds. First, CEOs and boards of directors would be reluctant to run ads in the first place because of their fear of appearing biased or partisan and losing either investments or business (or both). Secondly, if companies did indeed run ads and shareholders disagreed with their public message, they would sell their stock in that company.

While the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation provides a strong yet reasonable, first response, others are seeking a more aggressive strategy of reform.

Recently, the Fair Elections Now Act was introduced in the Senate by Arlen Specter (D - Pa.) and Dick Durbin (D - Ill.) and in the House by John Larson (D - Conn.) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R - N.C.). The legislation proposes reforms for the public financing of Congressional elections. In addition to a limited amount of federal election funds, candidates would receive four to one federal matching funds for any donation under $100, encouraging them to run grassroots campaigns and involve large amounts of donors in their community and districts. Additionally, Fair Elections would help to offset the cost of media by providing them with media vouchers and by giving participating candidates a discounted rate for broadcast rates.

As Agnes Gund, a philanthropist and noted political donor, acknowledged in a recent editorial for Politico.com, the Fair Elections Now Act targets the fundamental issues of campaign finance, while the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation is more of a temporary measure. "It’s a good start but does not address the root of the problem: the never-ending chase for campaign cash and the influence of special interests in our political process."

As I stated in my previous post, "it seems to me that the Public Financing system is the only way to maintain any semblance of fairness in our election system." While I support the measures outlined in the Schumer-Van Hollen bills, I believe the Fair Elections Now Act is an important step forward in the reform of campaign finance, which I believe is a necessity.

Come Together

There is no denying that today's political climate is one of the most fractured and partisan in American history. Perhaps not since the Civil War has the divide between two parties in American politics been so volatile and in such disagreement. Fueled by economic crisis, a controversial health care debate and a rebellious right wing movement, Washington partisanship seems irreparable.

However, in his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama voiced his intent to inspire bipartisan action. He called for "a bipartisan Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad." In his latest efforts of bipartisanship, the President has proposed a bipartisan summit on health care to hear the concerns of both sides. While conservative pundits have been quick to denounce the offer as a "trap," the effort by the President is a necessary and welcome step forward in a climate of political divide.

The use and the threat of use of the filibuster in the Senate has grown to uncontrollable levels. Originally instituted by accident when the Senate voted that they didn't need to vote to vote (think about it), the filibuster has become, in reality, a tyranny of the minority. Instead of a simple majority of 51, the Senate is restricted by the "magic number" of 60 seats to be filibuster-proof.

In addition to the constant threat of filibuster, the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement has jeopardized partisan politics by exacerbating the repercussions for voting outside of party lines. For instance, John McCain recently voted against a bill that he co-sponsored "that would have formed a task force on the deficit to try to force tough choices on Congress." Facing a challenge from a Tea-Party sponsored candidate in his upcoming Senate race, McCain was forced to vote against his own bill so as to not alienate potential voters.

With any hope, the upcoming health care summit will be able to reconcile both issues of the health care bill and broader issues of partisanship. As President Obama annunciated in his State of the Union, "We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Apparent Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Money

In his 2005 book, "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power," Joel Bakan writes, "Democracy requires, at a minimum, some measure of equality of opportunity to participate in the political process. Yet profound inequality is the result when corporations - huge concentrations of shareholder wealth - exercise the same rights as individuals in that process. Today, warns Robert Monks, we face a "situation of great precariousness"; we are "dangerously close to the co-optation of government by business." "Unless we are extremely attentive to the inclination of business to dominate government," he says, "it could well be that the institution [of government] will fade."

On January 20th, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision prohibiting limitation of corporate spending in political campaigns. It is likely that this ruling will fundamentally change the way that campaigns are run and will prove a serious detriment to the fairness of elections.

Until this point, corporations were limited in the amount of money that they donated to political campaigns or candidates, and when they were permitted to run TV ads. However, in the ruling, the majority opinion found that, "if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing any citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Essentially, the controversial ruling deems that corporations have the same rights under the Constitution as an individual citizen. This distinction is a difficult one to make when one considers the position of a corporation in the context of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. It is difficult to imagine applying the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, to anyone other than an individual. However, it has been established that corporations do have the capabilities to sue or be sued and are protected under the 14th Amendment of equal right to due process.

But the issue here is the disproportionate and disadvantageous position of the American individual. Can governmental elections truly be for the people and by the people if a corporation is able to throw millions of dollars behind a candidate of their choosing?

In the 2008 election, Barack Obama became the first candidate to opt out of Federal Public Financing, raising and spending records amounts of money. But with the recent ruling, it seems to me that the Public Financing system is the only way to maintain any semblance of fairness in our election system. I believe that money and corporations should not drive elections, candidates and ideals should.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Corporate Free Speech - Chris Dodd
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Eyes of the World

The idea of a “public intellectual” is open to wide interpretation. Generally considered the highest authority in their respective field, the public intellectual also faces the stigma of being regarded, often scornfully, as self-importantly elite. Throughout history, public intellectuals of sorts have existed and have often been criticized by society. In more tyrannical times, intellectuals such as Socrates or Galileo have been persecuted for their strong belief in their ideas. Today, public intellectuals have unprecedented access to means by which research and promote their ideas.

Yet the public intellectual walks a fine line between proliferating their discoveries and theories, and self-promotion. Additionally, many have addressed the issue of the “decline of the public intellectual” in recent times. In his essay entitled, “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectual?” Stephen Mack critiques self-proclaimed public intellectual Richard Posner’s article about the demise of the public intellectual. Mack uses Posner as a “quintessential example,” of a modern public intellectual, “hyperventilat[ing] about class purity, or the ‘appalling decline’ in quality of most other public intellectuals.”

I agree with Mack that the quality of the public intellectual is not in decline. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, there arises an array of issues that affect a greater number of people. In the past, public intellectuals were likely to analyze issues which affected only their local society or domain. Yet with the technological revolution that has occurred since the creation of the internet and the personal computer, diverse and complex issues that affect the global society have surfaced.

Issues such as climate change and nuclear proliferation have the potential to have devastating impacts on our entire planet and have paved the way for a new generation of public intellectuals to study their potential impacts and courses of action that the global community can take to avoid future calamities.

One such public intellectual is Graham Allison. A lifelong Harvard scholar, professor, and one-time dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Allison is one of the foremost scholars on the topic of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. In addition to his work at Harvard, Allison has also served on the Council of Foreign Relations and contributed to Foreign Affairs magazine.

But while Allison has published his fair share of work on the topics of foreign policy and nuclear proliferation, he has gone beyond the realm of academia and has served as an analyst for the United States government. Recognizing that the threat of nuclear proliferation to rogue states or terrorist organizations is one of the gravest dangers facing Americans and the global community, Allison has served as an adviser to the Pentagon since the 1960s. He has recently served on the Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, and is the only person to ever have been twice awarded the Department of Defense's highest civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service Medal.

In all of these ways, Allison is truly a public intellectual. It is difficult then, with such examples, to deny that the public intellectual community still very much exists.

I believe there is in no way a decline of the public intellectual, but a hyper-increase in information in the world. In my previous post, “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” I cited the issue of an information overload from the internet and social media as the damaging factor in the public’s interest in the political process. I would argue that the same problem exists with regard to the public intellectual.

The quality of the public intellectual has not decreased. What has declined is the public’s interest. In the same way that political apathy has grown, interest in academic matters, even ones that will eventually affect the entire world, is equally sluggish. While I agree with Mack on the fact that the public intellectual is not in decline, I would disagree with his quote, “The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.”

In his most recent Foreign Affairs article, Allison says that the odds of a successful nuclear or biological terrorist attack in the next five years are greater than ever. He goes on to describe how Pakistan likely poses the greatest danger in the proliferation of nuclear materials to terrorist groups. Yet the American public, a majority of which are most likely unable to find Pakistan on a map (even though we’re fighting a war next door), doesn’t seem to know and doesn’t seem to care.

But although the public intellectual may no longer be the public’s intellectual, individuals like Graham Allison are proof that such a profession still exists.