Political strategists have always been tempted to invoke images of past Presidents to bolster the image of their candidate. None more strongly than the notion of the Reagan Republicans, but in the present election such ploys just seem out of place and petty.  In this post by David Weigel he discusses that latest quip fired back comparing Obama to Carter. The overwhelming rhetoric for this campaign has been change and that’s exactly what we need to be focusing on. We can argue for the next hundred the Presidency of George W. Bush and entering into the war in Iraq. But guess what people IT DOESN’T MATTER. Really it doesn’t matter anymore, that one thing I wish people we get through their heads. It doesn’t matter it a reality and we need to deal with it, plain and simple. As a nation we can’t move forward without letting go of the past. So when people say they want change the campaign season I think that is what the people deserve. The Obama campaign was the first to strike such a blow saying the McCain would be Bush’s third term. Does anyone actually believe that? And really we should be basing our decisions this year not about clever sound bites and impressions of past images, we should be better than this. Unfortunately we are getting sucked back in as McCain fires back at Obama

“You know one of his favorite phrases is that I would be a Bush third term. Well I think maybe his proposals could be Carter second term,”

I really believe that this serves no greater good, everyone knows the Carter years were terrible, everyone feels dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq.  We need something new and which ever candidate can come up with that is likely going to win over the people. The message of change, however, is not the new that I am referring to, just follow this link to a short TV ad run by the Carter campaign. (Thanks Jennifer) Is it too much to ask for a simple campaign run on the merits and past records. Well when you look at it from that point of view I can understand why the Obama campaign is firing off sound bites he has little record to speak and was out campaigning for the presidency while important votes were being made in Congress. What this essentially tells me is that we are going to have to put up with BS slinging and which ever candidate gets the last slap in before the buzzer is going to be President. There is this theory however in political science that suggests that no matter who gets elected we are essentially getting the same president because after being elected the person generally will move his policies to the center to avoid further polarization. Giving that context I guess it really doesn’t matter what image you’re trying to perpetuate because they all bleed together in the end. This I feel may be the tragedy of politics in the modern era. I agree with Ms. Rubin this strategy should not work for either candidate.

]]> http://jrwc86.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/the-presidential-past-needs-to-stay-there/feed/ 0 jrwc86 http://jrwc86.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/new-obama-strategy/ http://jrwc86.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/new-obama-strategy/#comments Sun, 08 Jun 2008 06:03:17 +0000 jrwc86 http://jrwc86.wordpress.com/?p=27 ]]>

With Hilary out of the race it seems as though the Obama campaign strategy is to take the fight right to Republican McCain’s doorstep

Senator Barack Obama’s general election plan calls for broadening the electoral map by challenging Senator John McCain in typically Republican states — from North Carolina to Missouri to Montana

Thanks Memeorandum!

Over regulation has ruined this country, for none other reason it suggests that people are unable to regulate themselves. It’s like asking your self “Why should I put in the effort if someone is going to do it for me?” Clearly, this is something that the founding fathers passionately believed in. We went to war for our independence based on the notion that a free and democratic government is going to serve the people better then thousands of decrees handed down by a single authority. Our own Constitution is a limiting document, be that I mean it limits the scope and jurisdiction our governing institutions have over citizens. Why then have we developed into a tyranny that must regulate everything? We are at an interesting crossroads because what are starting to see the affects of a generation raised in this era of over regulation. People need to be left either to sink or swim on their own, life circumstance shouldn’t matter. Life is dealing with the hand you were dealt and pushing forward, not waiting for some else to come along and tell you how it is done. The blogosphere is no different, if people have and idea and want to affect change then they should have the self awareness to take the steps to guarantee they are taken seriously.

Bloggers although notorious for acting on the fringes of the “news” reporting world should not be without common sense. One of the virtues of blogging is that readers don’t have to take your word for granted as a publisher and commentator you have the ability to link and provide concrete evidence to support what you’re saying. If people want to get read and want to make a change than they should not be falsifying information because with as many eyes as there are on the web inaccuracies are short lived and most certainly black balled from mainstream blogging outlets. What this tells me is that a formal set of regulation is not only unwarranted but useless.

Secondly, how are people who clearly don’t like the idea of being part of a formal institution suppose to agree on a set of governing principles? In other words where is this new code of ethics going to come from? A third party imposing such a code seems ridiculous because it is a distinct possibility that participants will be completely void of any knowledge pertaining to blogs and the norms it follows. Furthermore, it seems equally as frustrating trying to get bloggers to come up with a uniform code because not all bloggers have the same goals. For example say one blogger suggests that every post must have the name of author. Well if that author is reporting on gas prices in the Midwest that fine, but what about the political idealist commenting on his tyrannical dictator. The latter can of course be thrown in jail or executed for such comments. Without and somewhat consistent set of goals any kind of ethical code would be impossible to impose.

Although my reasons may seem rudimentary I feel they speak to the reality of the situation. In theory an ethical code should not be needed because the institution itself does facilitate a need for one. People, I hope, are smart enough to look at what they are reading through a critical eye and be able to judge for themselves what may or may not be a legitimate argument. If deem so than he or she has a responsibility to make others aware of the falsity being portrayed. Additionally, it is just not a feasible venture. It like trying to unionize bike messengers in San Francisco, your just speaking to the wrong individuals, they are free spirits who live by different standards. By taking away a bloggers uniqueness you’re not just hurting the person but the medium as a whole. People need to learn to take responsibility for and not rely some heavily on others doing their work.

This year’s election is more important than ever. It is safe to say that we all want our country going in a new direction, and who is the best to lead that change? It goes without saying that in an ideal world everyone would be excited at the prospect of participating in such an important point in history, the sad story is that they’re not. There are still many roadblocks in the process and if we take the necessary steps to correcting these problems than I am of the opinion that we all be much better off. Consequently, in a state where we have a “no excuse” absentee voting system the next logical step is to institute a strictly vote by mail system. Switching to an all mail-in system of voting has three advantages; it is more economical, convenient, and has a better chance at reaching disenfranchised voters.

At present the cost of running what is essentially two different kinds of elections is incredibly costly and relatively useless. By eliminating most of the neighborhood polling places the cost of running an election will be drastically reduced. In King County alone there are 528 polling places staffed by over 4,000 workers. Each employee makes about $120 on Election Day plus an additional salary for the four hour training class each is required to attend. All total that is approaching a million dollars per election just for the polling station workers in King County, add to that the necessary equipment and we are throwing away vital money. We are facing several very expensive projects in regard to transportation and several other costly ventures, we can’t afford to be flushing money like this. Reports have shown that upwards of 70 – 80 percent of voters in recent elections have decided to vote through the mail. Meaning the tax payers are putting out millions to pay people to do nothing. Millions that could go to maybe the education or public services.

Additionally, having a VBM system is better able to help promote voter turnout by making the process easier and more accommodating. Having the opportunity to vote by mail allows people to vote when they have the time to seriously consider and get caught up on all the issues. Another added benefit is impact on younger generations. What I mean by this, an adult can sit their child down to watch the physical act of being civiclly engaged. I remember that I never got to witness my mother vote because she had to go during business hours and I was in school. Since mail-in ballots go out ahead of time there is ample time to ensure that your vote has been cast correctly. You don’t have the restriction of voting only during business hours. Your ballot can be cast on the way to school, the office, or after having lunch on the Ave, without worrying about missing any prior obligations. There is no need to stand in long lines waiting for a polling booth either.

Finally, by using a mail-in ballot you can reach people how are otherwise unable to make it to the polling place. Handicapped people will have an easier time of voting. For those who may not have had prior knowledge of the absentee process would be better served because they would no longer have to overcome the physical act of getting to the polls. The low-income workers who cannot afford to get the time off of work can vote. The poor are very under served in this country and it is mostly due to their being underrepresented. Studies have shown that they better off a person is economically the more likely they are to vote, additionally politicians are more likely to listen to those who give most to their campaigns. Essentially the poor are being squeezed out of the political process. This step would be a way of reintroducing them to the process. Highly mobile business people who travel a lot will have a chance to fill out their ballot on the road. Elderly people who would otherwise be unable to go to the polls would be better served. Now, some might ask about people who do not have an address. This too can be easily resolved, these kinds of people need only to register the court house as their address. Clearly, this kind of transition is warranted.

If you agree with the sentiment that I have articulated here please write your representatives in Olympia, the Governor, as well as the Secretary of State. Additionally make use of the no excuse absentee ballot and show that the people themselves are taking back their government.

Additional Resources:

Vote by mail test is proposed

Mail-in ballots give Oregon voters control

]]> http://jrwc86.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/wa-should-adopt-a-vbm-system/feed/ 2 jrwc86 http://jrwc86.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/the-humanbot/ http://jrwc86.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/the-humanbot/#comments Tue, 27 May 2008 02:36:54 +0000 jrwc86 http://jrwc86.wordpress.com/?p=22 ]]>

I love movies and I love those cult TV shows that spawn massive followings. In reading this article only one thing came to mind and that is the tag line from Transformers, “Robots in disguise.” But this is not simply an abstract catchphrase for Optimus Prime, today it means something completely different. People today are slowly changing the way they think and act in the pursuit of faster access and knowledge. Now, I haven’t taken many journalism classes but everything I have heard seems to point to headline writing as somewhat of an art. It seems to me this is really the first impression a reader will get from the writer, and we all know first impression means everything. When I am glancing through the newspaper I am more likely to read an article that is rather clever and somewhat humorous because it makes me wonder what else might amuse me in the article. However, in this world of increasing speed and efficiency that “art” is becoming quickly obsolete.

Like Clive Thompson says in his article, the humor and puns are lost on search engines and accordingly get miss filed or discarded altogether. Straight and to the point is how people today want their news but yet a majority of young people are getting their news from entertainment sources like John Stewart and Steven Colbert, this seems a bit like an oxymoron. Is this a call for more sophisticated search engines that can pick on subtle nuance or a call to society to change their consumption habits? We could start to incorporate a model similar to the BBC wherein they use two different kinds headlines, one the speaks to an audience and one that speaks to the machine. Wow, did I really just say that?? We have to write separate headlines for machines…if that is not a glimpse into the Matrix I don’t know what is. I have said many times before throughout my writing progress for its own sake can be just as detrimental to society as stagnation. This is just one man’s opinion but the richness of this society is not the promise of tomorrow but the value of our past. I encourage everyone to roll down those windows and rather than blast the latest chart topper try some Sinatra, the looks you get are quite amusing ; )

Questions

1) What aspects of a headline most often get you to read the article? In other words what catches your attention simply and direct and catchy and entertaining?

2) Why do you think our consumption habits are starting to resemble a more mechanic model? Do you think that this might only be a trend or will it only continue?

In an election season of this magnitude when each party is going to be scrapping for every vote it would make sense to select the nominee and get them out of the campaign trail as soon as possible, right? Well not if you’re a part of the DNC. Clinton who is behind and according to most correspondents defeated has vowed to continue the fight through to the convention. Recently, she has been stumping around southern Florida “pressing her case for including delegates from Florida and Michigan in the final delegate tally.” At this point according to this article in the New York Times, despite both candidates needing super delegates to put them over the top Clinton’s chances are fading rapidly. Although reports have shown that Barack has done very well in Florida voters there still have many reservations against him, this might in fact work to Hilary’s advantage. According to this article, also from the New York Times, many Florida Jews have reservations mostly because Barack’s limited voting record when it comes to the rights of Israel. What this tells me is that Barack does not necessarily have this election in the bag, being a relatively newcomer to the governmental scene is not invoking a lot of confidence in many the democratic voters out there. What’s left?

While some involved in the Clinton campaign are pushing heavily for an Obama/Clinton ticket, this article in Time doubts this will be a reality. Although a Clinton/Obama ticket would in theory unite the party there are several issues holding it back, the largest of which is Barack’s message of change. Clinton hardly stands for change as she is the epitome of the school that has lead this country for too long. In many senses the runner up is just as important as the winner because bitter feelings will most certainly split a party more fractionalized than ever. But no one can really now how this particular drama is going to play itself out.

In today’s world the notion of uniqueness carries far less weight than it did 50 years ago. Most great artists and writers frequently draw on other works for inspiration and in doing so can quite easily and sometimes without being aware adopt styles of the works they admire. In the abstract I think that everyone on some level is guilty of copyright infringement. However I do understand the need for this kind of tort. If people are not allowed ownership of their work than there is little incentive to push the boundaries of conventional reality. While the law is certainly an important consideration in any publishing venture I think that people must hold themselves to an even higher authority, their own morals and ethics. One quote that has stuck with me seems appropriate in this situation, rhetoric, defined as making an argument in the public sphere, is the act of “the good person speaking well.” If we are to be taken seriously for our thoughts and convictions then we as originators of content must be comfortable that we meet our own standards for judging credible material. It seems to me that printing a libelous comment will not only earn you trouble with the law but would in many ways undermine the intended goal of a blog meant to address social concerns of our day.

Closely related to this and as mentioned in the book, common sense can be a strong ally in preventing law enforcement personnel from knocking down your door. The American citizen in most ways is absent of any common sense which is why in my opinion such torts and concepts need to explicitly stated in the law. A reasonable running dialog that synthesizes many points of view is the backbone of our democracy and if can temper this notion with a bit of common sense it will most likely be a lot easier to act within the boundaries of law. After all libel law and mass media law is actually a very small part of an attorneys legal knowledge. It is said that most judge’s will never here this kind of case during their tenure on the bench.

Questions:

1) In what ways do you think ambiguity of internet publishing will re-shape tort reform in the United States? In other words do you think there will be a tightening or loosening of legal statutes and why?

2) Do you think publishing tools/providers like wordpress should be held responsible for user generated content in the eyes of the law?

Here is an interesting way bloggers are expressing their opinions on the 7.8 earthquake that just occurred in Central China.

As the death toll in China’s Sichuan province climbs, the nation’s bloggers have joined together in the search for a scapegoat.

The thrust of this article expresses the BBC’s commitment not just to “continued centrality and national cultural life,” but to embrace the “next phase of broadcasting’s technological future.” The BBC has been experimenting with an on-demand player, with a 5,000 in house trial with a 7-day availability mostly to accommodate and preserve the rights of content owners. At present limited access to on-demand content is available for radio broadcasts and some video content, however, not to the extent that is being proposed. This new media outlet will allow for a significant amount of content to be viewed using peer to peer interaction software and will eventually include an archive of content accessible from multiple devices. However there are some reservations particularly from those who believe the the BBC’s forays into media will make it difficult for others to break into the market. Interestingly enough it encourages diverse viewing experiences.

The combination of on demand and a wide variety of choice does not seem to lead to a clustering of interest around a handful of well-known titles. On the contrary, users go exploring.

This is very different from the serendipity of the classic public service schedule, that idea of the mass audience being led by chance or cunning scheduling into something challenging or improving. This is user-led and driven by individual curiosity or need.

One of the problems encountered was internet speed, in some cases programs did take a while to download. However option being explored is working with ISP’s to upgrade the whole UK internet.

Together with ITV we recently launched a technical trial of the multicasting technology which could achieve this.

We are broadcasting all our TV channels and national radio networks for the next six months to the subscribers of the handful of advanced UK ISPs who support this new layer on the internet.

We’ll be looking at the outcome of this experiment, together with the other options, to work out the best way of making free-to-air live TV over the Internet a reality for audiences in the UK.

In less than five years people will be able to come home and drag and drop the evenings programs in the order that they want. But by far the most important idea the the notion of a digital Britain with universal high speed broadband.

It will encourage those who are not on line to go on line. It will encourage those who are not on broadband to adopt it.

And within broadband it will encourage users to consider higher and higher speeds.

This will hopefully allow the BBC to better fulfill its commitment to the viewers.

Questions:

1) How do you think the technological push the BBC is making will act as a conduit to attract more people to the internet and/or faster broadband?

2) The BBC is suggesting that this push will lead to an ultimately wired Britain, we have had on-demand content for quite a while yet we haven’t seen that kind cultural transformation. Why or how might the British experience differ from our own?

In class we have discussed how blogs can be used as soapboxes for people to advocate on behalf of some cause or political idea. What I appreciated about this weeks readings is that it dabbled in how this medium manifests itself in other markets. I found it particularly interesting when it talked about the Russian backlash against a US company for trying to censor it political commentary. The idea that one company/nation can exercise that kind of control is quite remarkable, albeit dangerous. This clearly illustrates the age of interdependence we live in today. Last summer I traveled to Italy and participated in a class on the European Union which discussed this notion of eliminating borders between nations. My concern is that with this level of connectedness do we run the risk of losing character at the global level? Today it a US company the buys out livejournal, but what about tomorrow when a Chinese corporation buys the rights to i tunes and starts removing certain artists because of their lyrics. I think it is important that we stay mindful of the messages that we advocate and what kind of message or actions send as well.

Conversely, it is possible to get great insight from people who are removed from the inner turmoil that American is feeling. Really in no other time has an American citizen been able to find out what is being said about this country somewhere else in the world so quickly and easily. That kind of knowledge I believe can also be very influential because in today’s world credibility really speaks louder than the might of the military branch. Also as noted in the book the level to which an individual can impact treaty talks is astonishing. Rather than rely on the slow and secretive workings of the institution getting almost real time and accurate updates about what goes on behind closed doors is in fact helping put the world back in the hands of its citizens as oppose to a select few. It is certainly important to advocate for ones beliefs and motivate people to act but I think it is equally important to keep a watchful eye on how this translates over onto the global scene.

Question:

1) How do you think the internet and the idea of interconnectedness affects the marketplace of ideas on the global scale?

2) How might the US react if a social medium owned and operated by a foreign entity were to start censoring content?