A very short blog...

Please go vote, if you have not already done so.  Your voice matters!

VOTE

It's Entertainment...

(from http://www.jeffkorhan.com/2011/04/more-social-or-more-media.html)

Okay, I know I promised to lay off the political rants, but then this came up and I just couldn't let it go by.

At what point does the news cease to be the news and become entertainment?

Back in the day of the Iran Hostage situation, the news program Nighline began with Ted Koppel asking "hard hitting" questions.  As things changed, so did the show.  It became pretty clear that it was becoming more and more entertainment and less news and a few years ago, newsmen Koppel left the show in favor of a series of alternating hosts who did largely what would be called fluff pieces and offering things like music that influenced musicians, chef's favorite meals, and ads for cable stations owned by the network's parent company.  It is just as true of late for other news progams like 20/20, Primetime and even occasionally 60 Minutes. 

Let's face it, many young viewers get news from John Stewart and history from movies.

How long can we prolong the closeness of the election when perhaps it would not be close at all if we continue to tell people it is?  I've come to the conclusion that there is no "liberal media" well except MSNBC and all the ones on the web and there is no "fair and balanced" of course that's been true for a long time in the case of FOXnews and all the ones on the web.  On the web, for many, the truth does not matter.  It only comes on what their favorite wackadoodle commentator tells them to think.

What there is though for the mainstream - ratings, sweeps week, and the ever present advertising dollar.  Imagine how little folks would be paying attention or how low our stress would be right now or how little super-pacs would be putting out for air wave dollars if one side or the other knew they were losing.

Why not confront the statements of the candidates when they lie? Because they might stop talking to the press? No, they need the press. Why not report on local and national news when the candidates twist, mislead, and play dirty?  They still need the press, but the press needs viewers and since most get their news from TV and not solid newspapers or web sources, the press need tension.  Tension sells.  Conflict sells.  The story sells. Any good writer will tell you, conflict makes the story.  Without conflict, the story dies.  Ads don't sell.  People don't tune in. Money is not made.

So why not report the truth of every national or state-wide ad over and over until the candidate pulls the ad? The answer is simple...it's entertainment.

The news calls it the reporting cycle.  They even know when a candidate is likely to try and slip something past them by doing it late on a Friday so the it is not "in the cycle."  And so they keep it close.  They ignore the stats and pay little attention to the hardcore statisticians like Nate Silver.  They fail to point out that when someone leads in every major poll for months, it is unlikely that they will lose.  They fail to point out that the "momentum" after the first debate lasted about a week.  Not so much momentum as bump returning the polls to the the race back to where they were before the convention "bump."  Before someone argues there was momentum, go back and look at the polls and see that after the bump of the debates, there was no consistent gain.  If there was truly momentum, then there should be gain every week. That's what momentum means.

And then there was the non-reported stories.  For months, for example, folks asked about taxes.  On October 29th, a  news group, Bloomberg figured out how much Romney paid.  Had it been reported by the nation TV news, it could have cost him dearly and if that happened the conflict could end.  It took Progressive and Democrat leaning on the web groups who finally found the story to report it.  I will readily admit that the web folks who finally found this story do sensationalize it a bit.

Bloomberg did this without breaking any laws.  They did it through the freedom of information act and what journalists are suppose to do, research, question and verify.  Not one national news group reported this finding.  And so the reporting, on Sunday, after the cycle, appears just 48 hours before the election.  Too late to hurt the tension and appearing on websites that most mainstream don't read.  If you want to know how little he paid then you can read the article. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html.

And then there was the curious case of the pulling research done by the Congressional Research Center.  The Congressional Research Center is the "gold standard" of nonpartisan research.  It's job is to answer the questions of congress.  Then congress can do whatever they want with it.  Well someone asked the question - Does cutting taxes create jobs? The Research Center studied the question covering 65 years in the process and concluded that in fact there is zero correlation between tax cuts and the creation of jobs.  The rich get richer and the rest of us use it to pay off something or buy that new TV so we can watch the ads and feel the conflict.

Imagine though the effect of reporting such a story on the favorite talking point of every Republican and some Democrat candidates.  The notion that cutting taxes, supply side economics, show no significant boost to economy or jobs.  What would that do to the presidential campaign?  So, by questioning not the veracity of the report but its wording with a host of attacks from "Republican congressional staffers" the report was taken down off the website despite the recommendations that it stand from the center's economic leadership team.  The report, was by a little newspaper called the New York Times.  It's here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html.

And this is the report http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf. Once on the web, it's always on the web.

How many of the regular news organizations, knowing the importance and impact that such a report would have, reported on this. None, it's entertainment.

You now know why you should do your own research.  Equity of reporting has nothing to do with it.  It all boils down to what will sell.  At a certain point, it's not news...it's entertainment.

Making the Choice and Sticking Others with It

(from http://blog.astrolome.com/2011/06/eclipse-of-the-moon-%E2%80%93-living-with-our-choices/)

Depending on how my brain works, I will be taking a break on some of the political stuff.  I will keep track of things going on and let you know, I cannot help myself, but with voting occurring soon, there really isn't that much left to say.  Besides, writing every day may not be possible for me to maintain.  My rampage of blogs may need to lessen a bit...

And so...

I worry about who the real Mitt Romney is and exactly why he wants to be president.  I worry about Obama's leadership and what his plans are for cutting the deficit.  I worry about the wackadoodles having too much control and a congress that the majority of whom have signed a pledge to someone outside the Constitution.

I worry about how polarized the two main parties and our country has become.  I don't know how often I've had a discussion with someone who announces how nice it is to have a civil discussion and that this is how it should be.  I worry about the meaning that so many of the ads are not just playing loose with the truth; they are out and out lies.  What does it say about us as a people if the person with the most lies on TV and radio wins?

I worry about the reasons someone votes.

There is many a discussion on the news and more ads than we can count in the swing states, that are not about why we vote for someone but why we should vote against someone. This has become the nature of politics.  Back in July, CBS had a poll showing that at the time 80 plus percent of Obama ads were negative and 90 plus percent were Romney ads. It is worse now in the last days. What is more though, I have talked to very few who tell me why they are voting for someone as much as they are voting against.  One idea that has come up again and again is that young voters are not as likely to turn out because the choice is a candidate who they are less enthusiastic about his record vs. a candidate that no one seems to be able to figure out where he stands.

I try to pick a candidate who I can support in any election.  I read their stances and look at their records.  I really do try to ignore ads other than to check about the facts.   I don't buy the hype about "liberal media" or "fair and balanced" stories.  I do my own work.  Since my retirement, I am probably better informed than I have ever been.  I am comfortable with my choices and the logic of my decisions.  I admit on the down ballot candidates I look more at where on the spectrum most of the candidates stand.  I look for someone who appears to be more to the middle and eliminate those who court or announce they follow the beliefs of the extreme right or left.  I really try not to vote for someone because I am casting my vote against. In one race this year, I did not vote on either candidate because they both looked extreme to me.

And so...

Please realize when you vote against a candidate without looking hard at the one you are giving a vote to because of your opposition, you may be sticking the rest of us with someone who should be the loser if it wasn't for your dislike of the other guy.  Weigh carefully your decision.  Vote for a candidate you can support  and will support.  No problem that is national, state, or local is likely to be solved overnight.  Candidates who are "one trick ponies" will cause more problems than they will solve. If you vote only against instead of for, you will inevitably get what you pay for.  I know, if you vote for a third party candidate who actually is closer to  your beliefs, you probably believe you are throwing away your vote.

I've voted for third party candidates and many folks do.  They know that their candidate will not be likely to win. On the other hand, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were both ran as out of the mainstream candidates.  Independent senators and congressmen are third party candidates.  Libertarians and Green party candidates have influenced elections.  It is these votes that make the main parties aware of other points of view and often it is how issues become national issues.  I've voted for third party candidates because in my little idealist way, I sleep better knowing that I voted for what I believed and not against someone I am dissatisfied with.  I have tried not to stick someone with a choice I don't want because I didn't like the other guy.  I want the person to be some one I am voting for and not against.  I don't choose a candidate because of party lines.

I choose to vote for...I choose not to vote against...

Imagine how important other candidates might become if we all did that.

But please vote and make your voice heard.

Searching for Waldo...Misplaced Friends

(from http://blog.wellcomemat.com/making-video-search-discovery-great-in-53-minutes/waldo/)

I find that I've grown somewhat nostalgic.  It actually started last year before I retired.  I'd joined Facebook and began looking for friends.  You see, being in theatre, folks have a tendency to come in to your life and then when working on the play or whatever the project, they move on to the next play, the next performance, the next project.  The same is true for teaching.  Few stay in place as long as I did and few teachers last as long as I did.  I still remember the large lecture style class I took on education.  It was one of the huge required classes for all teachers and I don't actually recall the name of the class.  The only thing I do recall was the professor on the first day saying one thing.  "There are about a 100 of you in this class.  Look around. Five years after you graduate  twenty of  you will still be teaching." So I learned that people will come and go.

It is this wondrous technology called Facebook, Google +, search engines, twitter, and on and on that lets us look for old friends and even a few who just passed through.  It is fun to find them and see what has happened, especially this time of year.  Some post conservative thoughts on Facebook and others the opposite.  I don't object as long as their post isn't too crazy.  I hope that none have become the wackadoodles I write about, but the odds are still good that one or two is.  They just haven't, as Dr. House would say, presented yet.

What I find though is that I find them in groups.  That could be because one will have found friends that I knew and then I will find more.  I send requests asking if it is them.  If it is I ask them if they know what ever to so and so.  Sometimes they know.  There are a few I would love to find but haven't and a few that I've written asking if it is them or to "friend" me that never bother to reject the request or answer my email.  I suspect there are a few of those who are the ones that signed up for Facebook or Twitter or Google+ used it once or twice and then promptly ignored it.  I read once that Twitter has the fastest growing number of non-users of any of the social networks.  Still I live in hope that on one of my group runs I will find one of those people I've misplaced.

Last week, I found someone else and was thrilled.  He was my college roommate.  I've not seen him or talked to him since 1979 and then on a random Google search there he was.  He doesn't do any of the networks --  too much like his work he says -- but he does do email.  We have written long letters talking about our families and emailed pictures of our children and in my case grandchildren.  It was glorious to find him.  He is one of those that throughout the years had been on my mind.  So much water under the bridge or over the dam or through or down the drain or (ever noticed how many trite metaphors there are involving water?) and now we have written and perhaps one day we will see each other again because seeing someone is still the only true social network.

Now if is can just find...

The Amendment Part 3...Electoral College and Oath of Office

(from http://tomnichols.net/blog/2012/09/07/al-gore-calls-electoral-college/)

In four elections the candidate who won the popular vote lost the presidency.  In 1824 neither candidate had enough electoral votes to win and the house picked the president, John Quincy Adams who had actually lost both the popular vote and had the fewer electoral votes became president.  The others were Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W Bush (2000). It could conceivably happen again this election. In the advent of a tie, it is conceivable that an electoral college delegate could change his or her vote to break the tie or send the choice to congress. While some states require that the member follow the state's popular vote, there is actually no constitutional or federal law making that vote mandatory.

It is perhaps time the "we the people" become a part of the election in total.  There have been some 700 attempts to change the electoral college.  Only the 12th amendment has altered it.  There is no electoral college in the constitution.  It is actually referred to as the electors. The elimination of the electors to a direct vote would do several things.  It would eliminate the swing states.  It could open the door for third party candidates who do poorly because of the way the electoral college is handled.  It could mean that candidates would turn their attention toward the more heavily populated east and west coasts and ignore small population states such as Wyoming and Montana and even Colorado and Nevada, with exception to Denver and Las Vegas.  On the other hand if you look at the electoral map, it is though center states and low populace states combined which tend to be more conservative gives different parties their strongest base.  Given the technology today and the more educated populace, the electors as stated in the Constitution needs to be repealed.  But with this change there is also a loss.  The electoral college does protect us to some degree from becoming even more divided that we are now.  Imagine an election like the Bush-Gore election in 2000 and what the battle might have been like without the buffer of the electors in the constitution.  With great change there could be great risk.  The question is does electoral college serve the purpose it was intended or is it an archaic and useless part of the Constitution?

The last of the amendments I would offer is an addendum to the oath of office requiring all members of legislative and executive branch to denounce all written pledges or sworn oaths that are not expressly in the constitution.  This would make it an impeachable offense if while in office any elected official signed a pledge like the Norquist pledge.  In addition we might also consider adding that every supreme court justice sever ties with any political party.  No more Democrat or Republican judges although they would still be conservative or liberal, it could become a crime for either party to influence a Supreme Court Justice.

That said, having discussed four ideas for amendment: limiting campaign length, limiting money in the campaign, repeal of the electors and changing the oath of office, getting these done is incredibly difficult.  An amendment must first be ratified by two-thirds of both houses or state convention and then ratified by three-quarters of the states either by convention or by state legislature.  Congress may choose which method will be used. Of all the ratified amendments only the 21st amendment  (repeal of prohibition) used the convention method.  This may surprise a few presidential candidates who have said they would sign an amendment into law that their signature is not needed and has no impact on the ratification of an amendment. Only "we the people" have the power to make those changes and that is why it is so difficult to pass an amendment.

There are right now technically four amendments that have been ratified by congress but not rejected or ratified by the states.  One amendment, the Corwin amendment, has languished since 1861 since it has no expiration date for ratification -- most amendments do.  If it had been passed, it is doubtful that it ever will, it could override the 13th and 14th amendments which abolishes slavery and expands voting rights.  It has only been ratified by three states. Since 2000 there have been 13 amendments proposed in congress. Everything from the repeal of the 22nd amendment (limiting terms) to the elimination of the electoral college have been proposed. Few actually make it out of committee.

There is one other way to get an amendment than sending it through congress.  Two-thirds of the states may apply for a national convention to amend the constitution.  Once the convention meets, the amendment must still be ratified. Passing an amendment was not meant to be easy.  Change is hard and our framers wanted to be sure that the change must be needed and made by more than a majority thereby ensuring that the individual is not steam rolled.

The likelihood of changing for our amendments of limiting campaigns, controlling funding, or getting rid of the electors in the Constitution and 12th amendment are not good, but a few of can dream.

The Amendment Part 2...the funding of campaigns

(from http://www.ufcw324.org/Current_Events/News/Archive/October_2010/)

Imagine the difference if you had a billion dollars and you are extremely altruistic.  Now you received the billion at birth and you will live the average life span of 78 years. You decide to higher teachers in a school at the national median salary of $54,633.  To spend all 1 billion dollars you would have to spend $35,100 per day over the next 78 years to spend it all.  In other words, you could higher 1 teacher for a year every other day and still have $15,567 which means roughly every 7 days you could add another teacher to the list (you would actually be short about $148 of doing it).  Just think about how many teachers you could support over your life time. Now I know that the median will go up or go down over those years, but still, it would be an astounding number.

Or

You decide to build a hospital.  A two to three story hospital of brick and concrete construction cost in 2008 (only figures I found and it was apparently the "hay day" of hospital construction) about 12.5 million dollars. You could build 80 hospitals. To spend a billion dollars at 1 dollar per second year in and year out you would need 31 years, 259 days, 1 hour, 46 minutes and 40 seconds to get rid of it all.

A billion dollars is a lot and it could do a lot of good.

The presidential election campaigns will pass the 2 billion dollar mark it is estimated.   More money comes from the Super-Pacs; however, they are not required to disclose how much they actually spend nor are they required to disclose who contributed or how much.  The total money could be near $6 billion by the time the dust settles according to CNN.  This is for television ads, ground game offices, internet ads, campaign buses, signs, bumper stickers, etc.  This figure includes all elections.  It is in a very real sense a staggering sum.

We spend too much money on elections and most of that money comes from a very few people.  We must overcome the supreme court ruling and limit not only campaign financing but the amount of propaganda that all campaigns put out. We have so many political ads, it is a wonder that there are enough advertising minutes in a day in the battleground state to play all. What is more there seems to be no control over the accuracy of the information put into the ads.  It's not just the using of the facts or in many cases the abuse, the so-called action committees and for that matter the campaigns themselves do not have to pass any sort of truth test and for some odd reason, slander and libel also do not seem to apply in the political world. If this continues could it mean as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid  put it in July that "17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they've just bought the country"?

The point is that Citizen United ruling by the Supreme Court has had significant impact.  Whether you agree or disagree with the ruling is not relevant. The Supreme Court did its job in interpreting the Constitution.  It is now up to the one group that no branch of the government can control to do its job.  If we want to control this astounding spending and force honesty into the advertisements, then we need to make this a Constitutional problem.

In addition to limiting the campaign length which could also limit money, we need transparency in the campaign and in those who support the candidates.  The super-pacs must if nothing else reveal their donors and the amount of money they spend.  I personally believe that the campaign needs to be in control.  Both candidates have received the brunt of attacks for something that a super-pac has put on TV, radio, etc. and they have no control over this. If nothing else, a super-pac ad should not be considered use of non-profit funds and should also meet rigorous standards of truth in advertising.  To mislead or lie should result in criminal and civil prosecution.  Furthermore, political advertising should have limits on the amount of time they may use.  I will admit, being in a battleground state all the money thrown has probably improved our economy, but my sanity has taken a beating with the number of advertisements that have been spewed out by all the politics.

This amendment need not be that complex.  All it needs to do is to give congress both Federal and state the right to regulate campaign contributions and the transparency of those organizations.  They can revoke, as they should, the charity status of money used in support of these campaigns.  Giving to a candidate or super-pac is not charity by any stretch of the imagination.  Congress if they so desire could even limit how much in total may be spent by campaigns or outside organizations on candidates or issues.  The cost has become such that it is apparent the average wage earner could never become president.  He or she simply doesn't have the money. Such limitations would cause less spending on advertising because the limitations would cause campaigns to consider how they spend their money and we now know in a close election, that it is not about the advertisements as it is about the ground game.

It is time for "we the people" to take back our elections.

The Amendment...Part 1: Limiting the length of a campaign.

(from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/07/us-elections-2012-barack-obama)

It has got to stop.  I am not one in favor of putting limits on anything in the Constitution.  Amendments should correct unforeseen changes or expand definitions.   One of the times we used the Constitution to restrict something, alcohol, it was a disaster.  By the time it was repealed, we had established the Mob and a culture of violence in many major cities.  Names like Al Capone and Dutch Schultz had become household names.  No limiting the Constitution  has not gone well.  Still something must be done.    There was one that many think of as successful" limiting the term length of the Presidency. This limitation was more of a political correction than a moral limitation.  Perhaps that is the key for limitation; to correct political abuse and stay away from legislating morality.  For the most part though, the amendments have expanded, clarified, adapted or abolished.

There is a limit or two I would place on the Constitution.  The Elections amendment should be such an amendment.  This country has become obsessed with elections. Presidents cannot govern well while running for the job.  We get maybe one year for the House of Representatives before they are back on the campaign trail and the Senate, despite being elected in alternating cycles every six years, become all but useless during national campaigns, especially during the Presidential election.  Most candidates are beginning their campaigns years before the actual election.  The primaries start in January, but the actual campaign begins well before this.  There is a joke roaming around that Romney has been running for six years, but if you think about it with his run in the 2008 primaries, that's not so far off.  Others seem to run for at least two years.  At both conventions, pundits were already discussing who would run in 2016.

And so I come to the Amendment.  It could be something simple like giving congress and the president the power to limit the time used for campaigning for office.  The control could be something like this.

No person running for Congress may present advertisement, debate or spend money for obtaining a congressional office for more than three months before the US elections dates.  In the case of primaries a candidate for congress may campaign for one month before the primary.  If the primary is held before the three month mark, the selected candidate must wait until the three month mark before the election.

Prior to the three month mark the House and Senate shall maintain reasonable in session hours for the conducting of business of the United States, not to be less than 200 days per year. No using these extended adjournments for political gain.

No person running for President of the united states may begin advertisement, debate or spend money for obtaining the office of President more than six months prior to the election date.  This time line shall include all primaries, caucuses, and conventions or events of a like nature.

No organization that is not controlled by the campaign shall be allowed to place advertisements or campaign in surrogate before one month before the election.

States shall maintain individual control over the election of all non-federal candidates.

I am not saying that I know anything about the wording of such an amendment, but you get the idea.  It is time for politicians to do their job and to limit the distractions of campaigning.  We know that most citizens don't even become "tuned in" until at least the conventions or even the first debates.  Other countries limit their campaigning time and there is no reason that the US cannot successfully do this as well.