It’s all in how you ask the question
One news item making the rounds today comes from a polling question. The ABC News/Washington Post poll asked Americans about a number of subjects, but the headline comes from a statement that 80% of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.
Perhaps they do, but I think some of the disagreement comes in the way the question was asked. Here’s how the poll asked the respondents on the 35th of a grueling 40-question list:
Changing topics, do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Well, shoot, when you ask it that way, I might even be inclined to oppose the decision. I wonder if the responses would’ve been different had the question been asked:
Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court decision which held that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals when it comes to political contributions?
But by couching in both political and monetary terms, the pollsters led people to what they considered the “proper” answer. It also shows that Americans are woefully deficient at understanding the Constitution because they agreed with the next question:
Would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Obviously they don’t recall the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court held money equalled speech in Buckley v. Valeo:
The Court concurred in part with the appellants’ claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures “necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”
Understanding that is the key to supporting the Citizens United decision. There are still laws on the books regarding disclosure of who contributes, and those are advisable.
What Democrats in Congress would like to do is put the genie back in the bottle for corporations, yet leave unions free to do whatever they wish. Obviously they’re a little angry that their key special interest now has to play on a more level field than they did before the Citizens United decision.
Every time someone tries to take the money out of politics, smart people figure out ways around it. When McCain-Feingold passed, millions of dollars just shifted to 527 groups who did the dirty work for politicans. At least with the Citizens United case we’ll have more accountability to just who gave money to whom, then try to figure out the quid quo pro.
If the press wasn’t worried about losing influence, perhaps they wouldn’t need to create an artificial issue by asking loaded questions on a poll. The SCOTUS may not have made the popular decision, but it made the correct one.
Supremes level the playing field
This happened late last week, but it’s interesting to collect various takes on the issue. So I have one from the left, one from the right, and then my own.
We’ll begin with Mitch Stewart of Organizing For Against America. I did a little bit of paring to get rid of the links.
(Last Thursday) morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.
It’s a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.
While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.
Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.
(snip)
The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn’t buy “issue ads” — which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates — in the closing days of campaigns.
The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.
With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans — and Republicans seem ecstatic.
While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy — and we need to show that the American people stand with him. (All emphasis in original.)
On the other hand, Bill Wilson and the folks at Americans for Limited Government were much more pleased:
Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson (Thursday) praised the Supreme Court for overturning key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign restrictions, calling the decision “a decisive victory for the First Amendment, free speech, and open and fair elections.”
“The Roberts Court will go down as the greatest defender of the First Amendment since James Madison wrote it,” Wilson declared, calling the overturned restrictions “censorship.”
(snip)
According to the majority ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Limits on independent expenditures, such as §441b, have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question.”
“Under this ruling, corporate entity restrictions on political campaigning have thankfully been overturned, as they have a chilling effect on legitimate political speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Wilson.
Wilson also condemned Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for calling the decision “un-American.”
“Chuck Schumer needs to have his head examined,” Wilson said, adding, “the First Amendment was upheld in this case. It doesn’t get any more American than that.”
In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the court ruled against provisions that restricted Citizens United from broadcasting a movie it developed, Hillary: The Movie, that was supposed to air during the 2008 Democratic Primary. In particular, the court ruled that federal restrictions on independent political expenditures by a corporation is a violation of the First Amendment.
The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United.
(snip)
Wilson said that the ruling “could set a template for groups to unhinge unconstitutional restrictions in the future through pre-enforcement challenges.”
Their release was actually much longer and featured commentary by their legal counsel, but you get the picture.
The aspect of McCain-Feingold which most gave it the perception as an “incumbent protection plan” was the artificial restriction on certain political advertisements 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election, which is generally the timeframe people begin to pay attention to the campaigns. (A 60 day period in a normal general election cycle begins roughly around Labor Day, the time conventional wisdom holds that the campaign begins in earnest.)
But the Supreme Court decision seems to indicate that the Citizens United case couldn’t be properly resolved without sweeping away other related precedent the majority found incompatible with the First Amendment guarantee on free speech. I tend to agree with that approach because when a decision is made, it’s far better to err on the side of freedom than it is to be overly restrictive. Could corporations abuse their newfound power? Perhaps, but it bears repeating that the final arbiter of their success will be the people who vote and elect leaders.
It’s also worth pointing out that unions, who typically side with Democrats on political issues, also had their ban lifted as well. Those special interests as well as trial lawyers, environmental groups, and other pro-statist advocates simply get competition from the corporate world now – and there’s no guarantee corporate interests will automatically favor Republicans. Democrats who assist in corporate rentseeking efforts won’t be the target of negative ads from corporations, and the states which do allow direct corporate contributions to campaigns don’t seem to have any greater number of problems because of that.
Vigilance is the price we pay for freedom. Instead of having legislation arbitrarily decide who gets to express their point of view and who doesn’t, it is now up to us to be more informed about who is backing candidates and why. Any journalist worth his or her salt is certain to point out that the favorable ads from corporation X are backing candidate A, and undoubtedly once word of that gets out environmentalist group Y will respond by bashing both the corporation and the candidate, throwing their support behind their favored candidate B.
With the $1 billion-plus spent on the Presidential campaign in 2008 it’s obvious that the stated McCain-Feingold goal of getting money out of politics has failed miserably. So why not try the novel approach of getting money out of government and lessening the incentive for special interests to interfere?
America’s next great (liberal) pundit
A few weeks ago, the Washington Post decided to sponsor a contest to find “America’s Next Great Pundit.” Being one who likes to compare himself with others in his field and who likes to write anyway, I submitted an entry like about 4,800 other people did.
After reading the winning entries though, I’m not sure if the judging was based solely on writing ability or if there wasn’t a heaping helping of political slant involved. Obviously the Post has a pretty liberal editorial viewpoint but it’s hard for me to believe that many portside writers are that much better than those of us who toil on the conservative side. Besides, with twice as many Americans identifying themselves as conservative as liberal, the numerical superiority should be on our side, even in this case.
But I’ll let you judge for yourself. You can read the ten finalists’ entries here and compare them to what I wrote. Honestly, I found some fairly witty and well-written but others made me wonder what the judges were thinking. The entry bounced off a post I did about earmarks last month.
*****
Earmarks: tip of the iceberg
The other day I received an e-mail from the campaign of Dr. Eric Wargotz, one of several Republicans aiming at a chance to unseat Maryland’s longtime Senator Barb Mikulski next fall. Citing a news report, Wargotz chastises Mikulski for steering $10.5 million in earmarks to three of her largest campaign contributors as part of $42 million in pork spending she slipped into the upcoming defense appropriations bill.
This implied quid pro quo often infuriates supporters of campaign finance reform and advocates of good government, and similar practices were even a minor issue in last year’s Presidential campaign as both John McCain – a longtime foe of earmarks – and Barack Obama vowed to cut back on the practice, promising to veto earmark-laden bills placed before them.
We’ve seen the result of President Obama’s nod to fiscal conservatism, but there’s much more afoot at the people’s house than a few million dollars’ worth of what are essentially no-bid contracts.
To complain about a proverbial drop in the federal bucket when Congress is considering provisions which would balloon the deficit and enrich some favored corporations and industries at the expense of others misses a larger point. Nor can we discount that much of the new bureaucracy being conceived will take the decisions of everyday life out of the hands of individuals in the private sector and place it safely within the Beltway, empowering wannabe experts who may not have even been vetted to make economic decisions affecting all of us.
Simply put, it is not the place of government at any level to create law picking winners or losers. Naturally some adroitly adapt to changing regulations and prosper, but too many corporate entities look to government as their salvation and far too many public servants, both in Washington and state capitals, are only too happy to help because it also gives them a reason for being.
Perhaps the true intention behind the complaint about Senator Mikulski is to make a clarion call for returning to a more principled government. To Americans who are simply fed up with “politics as usual”, the only steps which may be satisfactory to them would be those taken to reduce the size and scope of government. Earmarks are the low-hanging fruit, but the tree is ripe for the picking.
*****
So what do you think? The worst offense may have been mixing metaphors, but that’s nothing I’ve not seen other columnists do.
So what will cap-and-trade cost?
Reading my online update of the Washington Times this morning, they had a story by Amanda DeBard about a new group using the new media to get their word out. Happy to oblige.
The piece details the Cost of Energy Information Project, whose website features a calculator which will predict how much your energy costs will rise should the cap-and-tax bill pass. (Hint: it’s probably more than the cost of a postage stamp per day. Mine was $853 a year!)
Much of the effort goes to posting updates on Twitter, the social networking site which boasts millions of users. For example, my Tweet this afternoon went to my 76 followers – if 10% follow through and have the math done they could reach hundreds or thousands of followers themselves, perpetuating the cycle.
If you’re curious how CEIP comes up with the numbers, so was I:
The energy cost calculator uses results from a study commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers. The ACCF/NAM study of the House-passed cap and trade bill was performed by the non-partisan Science Applications International Corporation, using the same economic modeling system used by the Department of Energy’s highly respected statistical branch, the Energy Information Administration. The study was further refined to include results on a state-by-state level. The state-by-state data is applied to your specific current energy costs to calculate your projected future energy costs under a cap and trade system.
The trick with this, though, is to continually prime the pump and give people a reason to come back. Sure, a calculator is a nice initial draw but the 24/7 news cycle demands additional content for both the old and new media (like me.)
Besides, most people have probably figured out that cap-and-tax is going to cost more money – well, perhaps that’s an incorrect statement because 8 of the 9 Congressmen from Maryland and Delaware voted for this monstrosity in the House. The lone holdout was Rep. Roscoe Bartlett from the 6th District over in western Maryland. Frank Kratovil was in the tank, of course, but Mike Castle of Delaware was one of the GOP’s disappointing “cap-and-tax 8″ which provided the margin of victory. Just thought I’d remind you. It’s also all but certain the four Senators who misrepresent our states will favor this legislation because they’re good liberals too.
Since this is a time of year utility bills are at their lowest, take a few moments to pull out your electric and gas bills and take a guess on your gasoline tab for the month ($100 is a pretty good guess since the average driver uses about 40 gallons a month to drive 1,000 miles) and see just how much more you’ll be paying to “combat” so-called manmade climate change.
Oh, by the way, this is just the monetary cost. As I described yesterday, the cost in freedom from this measure can’t be as easily calculated but it will be a cost just the same.
In print no. 9
Been awhile since I did one of these, the last was in November of 2007. I’ve been in print since but I didn’t feel the need to reprise a letter to the Daily Times. Maybe I should have, but anyway…
Yesterday I was quoted in a front-page New York Times story about Bill Wilson, head of Americans for Limited Government. My comment was in reference to ALG’s outreach to the blogosphere, which includes the Daily Grind and NetRightNation e-mail updates. It was the 23rd paragraph of the 28-paragraph story.
“They’ve done quite a bit to reach out to the blogger community,” said Michael Swartz, a writer and out-of-work architect in Salisbury, Md., who runs the conservative Monoblogue.us site. “Sometimes I use their stuff straight up. Sometimes I use it for my own writing.”
After reading the quote I decided to do a little bit of research into my site and found that I had used an ALG press release as a basis for about 20 posts and something from NetRightNation in a dozen more (although some overlap.) So I wouldn’t say I was a frequent user of their stuff but I am regularly inspired by their items as I am by many other sources for commentary.
In general what I do with their stuff (and other similar sources) is take their press release, reprint it, and then add my commentary on the intentions. That way the organization gets its message out but I reserve the right to put my own imprint on it – obviously I’m either in agreement or disagreement with their item and since they’re getting the plug on MY website I’m going to have my say.
But it was interesting that I spoke to Scott Shane, the reporter who wrote the story, on the phone for about 12 minutes last Thursday and he distilled the conversation into that short paragraph. I was told by sources at ALG that the Times may be contacting me regarding the story but was frankly surprised to be the only blogger quoted. (Given the left-leaning readership of the NYT it’s not all that surprising my numbers over the weekend didn’t jump a whole lot over a normal weekend.)
It was nice of them to think of me, though, and it’s not every day an average citizen makes the front page of the “newspaper of record.” Just thought I’d share, so check it out!
Radio days volume 15
This is my first “radio days” post since June 2008 so it’s been a long dry spell.
But I just got off the phone with Melody Scalley, who as some of you know is running for the House of Delegates representing the Eastern Shore of Virginia (District 100).
More importantly, she also hosts an internet radio show and invited me to be a guest on her show this evening – the time slot will be either 8:00 or 8:30 and I won’t know myself until later on. So just listen for the full hour, or jump right in at 7 when she starts!
Her 2-hour show, “Politics on the Edge”, airs from 7 to 9 p.m. every Monday on RFC Radio. I’ll let you know what I thought of my performance in an update afterward.
**********
I had fun chatting with Melody. I did find it odd how she chopped up our conversation at the break. In actuality we recorded this earlier today and it was one long 25 minute (or so) conversation so I was a bit surprised to hear my part coming on about 8:20. Perhaps it could have been done better if the producer had put Mark Morano of Climate Depot in the slot after Francis Rice (the lady from NBRA) and just let me roll through uninterrupted.
There were a couple points I think I could have made a little better but on the whole I think I did all right. I do talk a little bit slowly when I’m trying to formulate thoughts and arguments which explains why I much prefer this blogging medium to the broadcasting one. And quite honestly not having done this for awhile I was out of practice.
Who knows, though – this could be a regular guest appearance sort of thing and perhaps it brings a larger national readership my way. I have no idea how many people listen to RFC Radio but even if it’s just 1,000 listeners having all of them read my site daily would vastly grow my audience and give it a more national scale.
I ponder one thing as I think about the future, though. Having heard Melody and how she does her show, I wonder if things get different once she wins and gets inside the belly of the beast. Those special interests aren’t going to go down easily and they’re certainly not going to fight fairly.
I noted in the interview that I’ve become quite a bit more jaded over the time I’ve done my site. Perhaps it’s because I see a lot of good people harmed and ruined by the political process and lust for power, much as it occurs from those lusting for more wealth and/or fame. Like Melody, I used to think practically all politicians were good people and that’s still fairly true on a local level. But the higher up you go the less likely you are to find a humble public servant and the the more probable it is you find the ones who expect to be served by us.
That’s what needs to change in this country. The arrogance shown by our politicians could serve as yet another of many tipping points we see as America enters a new age. In the end, the question becomes whether that age sees morning in America rise once again as it did 25 years ago or if our sun is setting.
Random thoughts on the passing local blogging scene
(With apologies to Thomas Sowell.)
Many local residents, particularly those with children under his care (this group includes my significant other) were shocked and horrified to hear about the auto accident last Wednesday involving local pediatrician Dr. Jose Alvarado; sadly, late last night he succumbed to his injuries.
I don’t believe I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Alvarado but by all accounts his shoes will be difficult to fill and he will be missed by a wide circle of family, friends, a host of hospital associates and staff, and most particularly patients – some of whom eventually brought their children to the kind doctor they grew up seeing.
But his passing brought up a lot of thoughts and questions I have about the local blogging scene.
First, let’s go back to the day it happened. One local blogger (I’ll call him Blogger A) jumped the gun and said Dr. Alvarado had died. Obviously that created confusion for family and friends and when the truth came out Alvarado was still alive but in grave condition Blogger A had a LOT of egg on his face to wipe off (plus a retraction to make). In days of old spreading that sort of misinformation could get you run out of town on a rail.
His archnemesis, who I’ll call Blogger G, correctly pointed out that Blogger A had jumped to a conclusion before hearing the full story, gleefully bashing Blogger A. But aside from that, what contribution to the public knowledge was made?
Apparently none, because the next day the Alvarado family released a statement saying “members of our local media and local blog owners please respect their privacy”. (Emphasis mine.)
Blogger A blamed Blogger G for creating the negative perception by pointing out the mistake Blogger A had retracted, while Blogger G continued to blame Blogger A for making the erroneous statement in the first place. Again, what was learned?
The same person who told Blogger A last night that Dr. Alvarado died simultaneously (I presume based on his post time) sent me a text message regarding that fact. However, I didn’t notice this until later because I was otherwise engaged watching a Shorebirds game with Kim (my s.o.) last night. I’m not saying this as an excuse for why I didn’t post it, I’m saying this because this ongoing war of words between Blogger A and Blogger G escalated further during the accident aftermath with the family of Dr. Jose Alvarado being not just innocent victims of a tragic accident snuffing out the life of a dedicated and caring physician but also becoming collateral damage in a juvenile war that’s gone too far for too long.
In the interest of full disclosure, on at least three different occasions I have been asked by Blogger A or Blogger G to affiliate with their websites and crosspost, and on all those occasions I declined. While there would be an obvious readership increase because my writing would be placed on a different (and perhaps larger) stage I’ve politely refused because I thought the remainder of the subject matter therein wasn’t a particularly good platform for my work. I have chosen instead to crosspost with four other blogs: two are almost strictly political (one Maryland-based and the other of national scope), one is mainly political but delves into other life issues (it’s based in Delaware so many of my Delaware-based items crosspost there), and the fourth agreement mainly exists as payback to Blogger A for slighting a friend of mine – but I haven’t contributed there in over a year.
Personally I think Salisbury is growing weary of the childish games being played by both supposedly grown men. If you believe Blogger G and those who support him, the sole reason Blogger A gets readers is the same reason some watch NASCAR and root for the 14-car pileup. But if you believe Blogger A and his followers, Blogger G (and those others in this area who aren’t currently affiliated with Blogger A) has too puny of a readership to matter anyway.
I’ve also found it irksome that on numerous occasions both men have vowed to turn over a new leaf then days later returned to form. Each seems to need some bogeyman on whom to blame the issues we all face as Salisbury-area residents and they conveniently turn to assailing one or more when things go wrong. (Admittedly, the list of Blogger A targets is much, much longer.)
That’s not to say either Blogger A or Blogger G aren’t doing some good for the community, particularly in plugging local charitable events and causes. But the additional readership comes at a cost because followers on one blog may see the other’s involvement as a reason not to support the event. Is that petty? Certainly. But it’s real and detrimental to the improvement of the community they claim to love.
Another victim of this blowback could be all the great new blogs (those are a few examples) which have surfaced locally in the last several months. These two are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room with their petty battles.
It reminds me again of an incident from 2006. Three years after the fact I’m still incensed that a candidate – from my side, no less – called local blogs a “cancer” on the community because one brought up his past work on the zoo commission. That was essentially the work of one blogger but the statement tarred all of us with a broad brush. At the time, many weren’t familiar with the local blogging scene and it gave us a reputation which we are still trying to clean off that goo today. (Others seem to wallow in it – cases in point, Blogger A and Blogger G.)
I’m not naive enough to deny that most blogs have an agenda of some sort; even those which claim to be “news” will slant the stories at least a little to suit them as they see fit. (It’s why I say “news and views”.)
But readers need to consider the track record and, more importantly, the motivation of those who put out the “news” as well, particularly in this important time. Who are they trying to make look good, and how are they making the opponents look bad?
I honestly hope that the latest incident forces readers to reevaluate their local news reading habits. I’m not saying all this to toot my own horn - you don’t have to come here for breaking news because that’s not my strength. (If you want a more in-depth analysis of local political items though feel free to stop back.)
I know that sooner or later either Blogger A or Blogger G is going to win their little war. With all the other issues we have, though, the fewer people who involve themselves in that fight, the better off we will all be.
Conference call with members of the Media Fairness Caucus
On Thursday I had the pleasure and opportunity to speak with two members of Congress regarding a fairly new group that’s about a dozen strong currently, the Media Fairness Caucus.
MFC Co-Chairs Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas and Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia hosted the call, which featured their statements and a question-and-answer period. Unfortunately, because they’re fairly new to the world of blogger conference calls there was no transcript kept so I’m summarizing from memory and from notes. A transcript was something I suggested in a follow-up e-mail to Rep. Smith’s staff.
In his opening remarks, Smith opined that the “greatest threat to our democracy is a biased media” and noted the 3-to-1 bias on positive to negative stories about Barack Obama and the 20-to-1 disparity of contributions by reporters to Democrats vs. the GOP.
Kingston then chimed in by citing a Business and Media Institute study I previously noted in my latest Sunday evening reading. Additionally, he told those of us on the call that Obama’s poll numbers are falling in part “because of bloggers like you guys.”
Jack is a veteran blogger himself who was one of the first Congressmen to have a blogsite (even predating this site by a couple months) and wistfully recounted that President Bush “could have put blogs on the map” as a news source but didn’t do much in that arena.
Lamar then pointed out, returning to Obama’s polling numbers, that despite the glowing media reports on the Messiah (my term, not his) he’s on the “bottom rung of popularity”, ranking either 10th or 11th among Presidents six months into their terms depending on the pollster. And as an example of an item glossed over by the mainstream media, Smith cited the Heritage Foundation study of cap-and-trade’s impact on the Gross Domestic Product that the Congressional Budget Office’s study of the financial impact of Waxman-Markey buried in a footnote because they didn’t figure it into their overall numbers – an impact Heritage calculated could cost an average family up to $1600.
There were three participants who asked questions. First up was Pamela Geller, who writes the blog Atlas Shrugs. She wanted to see about putting together a sort of alternate system of getting information out, comprised of “higher-level people.”
This is where I wish I had a transcript because basically the Congressmen thought the idea was a good one and noted that several bloggers were already doing these sorts of things in a loosely organized way. Unfortunately, by this point I was already trying to figure out how to phrase my question so I didn’t catch the second lady and her specific question since it was sort of a follow-up to Pamela’s.
For I had two points I wanted to make when it was my turn to speak.
First, it’s not widely reported for obvious reasons that not only do reporters have a personal stake in political outcomes but many times their corporate bosses do too - take NBC as an example. General Electric has great potential business in alternative energy so it’s obviously in their interest to push that sort of legislation and report the news in a way favorable to their interests as opposed to true journalism. It’s a conflict of interest that I wanted to point out and a place to focus future blogger reporting on. (I figured with someone as widely read as Pamela Geller listening it wouldn’t be a bad suggestion!)
The second point I made was stating that as a Republican Party their interest should be in shrinking the size of government and not just changing one set of masters for another. There’s less incentive for people to stick their fingers in the pie if the pie is smaller, I remarked.
By and large the Congressmen agreed with my remarks, which I was pleased to hear. Truly it wasn’t a soliliquy because I took maybe 5 minutes of the call with my question and their answer, which turned out to be near the end of the conversation. Geller followed up by having the Congressmen pledge to make these conference calls on a regular basis.
I’d be happy to participate and aside from the lack of a transcript (which I’m sure will be corrected next time) I look forward to chatting with the pair as my availability dictates.
Troop care package redux
Last year I brought up an effort to put together care packages for our troops abroad put together by the group Move America Forward. It was this time in 2008 they did an 8-hour internet telethon to raise money and awareness, and tonight they do it again with a cavalcade of stars:
An All-Star lineup of celebrities will team up this Thursday, June 25, 2009 for a historic effort to send the largest shipment of care packages to U.S. troops serving overseas.
The celebrities, military figures, and leading politicians will participate in the “Honor Their Service” TroopAThon – an 8-hour Jerry Lewis style telethon that will be broadcast online at www.TroopAThon.org.
The TroopAThon will broadcast from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library from 1:00pm – 9:00pm Pacific // 4:00pm – Midnight Eastern.
Celebrities participating in the event include: President George H.W. Bush, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammer, John Ratzenberger, Ann Coulter, Gary Sinise, John Ondrasik, Dennis Miller, Jackie Mason, Kevin Farley, Gavin McLeod, Melanie Morgan, Andrew Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, Debbie Lee, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Greg Gutfeld, Andrea Shea King, Curtis Sliwa, Hughes Sullivan, Mark Williams, Martha Zoller, Jake Rademacher, Jed Babbin, Chuck Holton, Rich Lowry, Michael Graham, John O’Hurlsey, Tammy Bruce, Robrert Davi, Matt Sanchez, Megan Ortagus, Connie Stevens, Deroy Murdock, Ed Morrissey, Kylie Wiliams, Matt Lewis, Monica Crowley, Noel Sheppard, Pete Hegseth, Robert Spencer, Roger L. Simon, Roger Hedgecock, Ron Winter, Walid Phares, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Buzz Aldrin, Rick Allen, Gerald McRaney, Jerry Haleva, Pat Sajak, Dale Dye, David Zucker, Pat Boone, and Charlie Daniels.
It seems like a lot of people to fill an 8-hour slot, but that’s actually less than 10 minutes apiece. Most of these people are drawn from the circles of conservative media so it should be a pretty entertaining evening. It will also be interesting to see if they beat last year’s $1.055 million haul or fall short because the media’s awareness of our troops has fallen off with the change in the Oval Office.
As I noted in the wrapup piece I did last year, there was a fairly constant viewership of 2,000 to 3,000 for the 2008 troop-a-thon. Let’s see if America can beat that, despite the competition from weighty issues such as the upcoming Waxman-Markey vote and situation in Iran.
And what about the blogs?
While there are some in the local blogging world who would welcome the demise of our local paper and gleefully post any scrap of bad news about its performance, the truth is that a majority of those polled in a recent Pew Institute survey would miss having a daily newspaper in their community and feel losing the paper would hurt civic life.
On the other hand, newspapers are losing their market share in the news dissemination industry, a trend that’s accelerating among younger people asked in the study.
Aside from a handful of letters to the editor I’m not one who has contributed to the local newspaper, but I do toil on occasion in the blogging business. Unfortunately I think part of the problem with the newspaper industry stems from content rather than convenience.
There’s no question that once an edition is put to bed that it’s static and obsolete. As an example, today’s edition of the Daily Times came to most homes early this morning so if you read it upon your return home from work the news is probably at least 18 hours old if not over 24 hours past. Compare this with the instantaneous nature of television, radio, or the internet and there’s no contest.
However, where newspapers can have their place is in delivering news and commentary which isn’t necessarily time-sensitive but brings key points or analysis of a particular story to the table. For example, a newspaper can go relatively in-depth with what City Council does and why they may be acting as they are on a particular issue. Where most fall short is attempting to serve the twin masters of content which is as fresh as possible (but cannot compete with other media) and laying out every possible fact and angle to a particular story. (This area is where blogs tend to shine.)
As well, the newspaper tends to be the permanent record of that which goes on in a particular community moreso than radio, television, or internet archives which are relatively sketchy for the most part.
The biggest problem newspapers have though is steadily declining revenues. As circulation falls, the amount they can charge advertisers also ratchets downward – meanwhile, the demand for print advertising drops off as well because fewer eyes are reading the newspaper and cost-effectiveness is lost. I can see where newspapers have had to cut back and several notable ones have locked the doors for good (most notably on a local basis the Baltimore Examiner.)
But in the not-so-distant future I see a day where the actual paper in a newspaper will be rarely seen. Those who put together newspapers now will become news gathering organizations slugging it out over the internet for market share, and bloggers will be among those in the fight. It certainly will further democratize (with a small “d” and not in a partisan sense) the news industry because there’s not the overhead required of raw material, distribution, and warehousing required from a newspaper (or for that matter a radio or television studio.)
Content will still have to be king, though. That’s something I don’t see changing, but I’m hoping that journalism returns to its roots of retelling the events of the day which happened instead of becoming the news itself (as I’m guilty of by citing this poll.) Sometimes you have to work to the dark side to make an argument though, and in this case I went for the greater point by using the polling data at hand.
Could Joe be right (for once?)
Readers in my locality know that there’s a particular blogger who I am more often than not at odds with; the “Joe” in question is one who delights in attempting to hasten the demise of our local newspaper. This story is for him.
It came to me over the last few days from the folks at Pew Research. According to this report, the internet has overtaken the newspaper as a main source for national and international news. More striking are the figures for the Millennial Generation (ages 18-29) where the internet and television are dead even as a news source – 59% of young people cited one or both as a main news source.
After skimming through the report, I had two immediate conclusions.
One is that the claim of media bias in the news may pale in comparison to the chasm in conservatism vs. liberalism on the internet.
The second is that, with the lack of journalistic standards practiced in some quarters, people (particularly the youth) may be more ill-informed than ever.
In this age of wireless technology and video streaming, certainly it’s possible to witness events in real time and make up one’s mind about what goes on within the range of the camera taking the video. However, the vast bulk of news isn’t from eyewitness accounts, but from someone reporting the news. In olden days, we counted on newspapers to relate the story but often the information was at least second-hand if not more remote. This improved to some extent with the advent of radio and television; the former allowed newsmakers to speak directly with the people while the latter could be present where news was being made.
Now we have the technology that allows people to be their own reporters in real time. Certainly, the age of videotape allowed news gathering by non-professionals (one example was the Rodney King beating, caught on videotape by a person playing around with a camcorder) but that still needed the prism of someone at the evening news deciding it was a story worth relating. With the advent of Youtube and other video streaming repositories, that filter is eliminated to a much greater extent.
On the other hand, as a society we still must by necessity gather our news via a second-hand source who relates events to the reader, listener, or viewer through their eyes. Obviously my post is one example – I’m taking an event which happened (a survey of adults concerning their preferences for learning about the national and international news affecting them) and shaping it in a second way, the first being what Pew Research chose to report on. In this instance, I’m adding my opinions to the mix about what I feel was newsworthy and why it was so. Unless we happen to be witness to a momentous event in person, practically everything we gather as information will by necessity come as at least second-hand knowledge, regardless of whether we read it in the newspaper, hear it on the radio, or see it on television or the internet.
And here is where a nonbiased view and accuracy come in; that is, journalism in the truest sense of the word. Sadly, that seems to be lacking more and more in the 24/7 news cycle we now live in. What good is all the incredible amount of information we can gather if it’s presented in a slanted manner which highlights only one side of the story? Even worse, if people act in a particular manner on information which is later found incorrect, the future direction of society can be altered negatively.
In 2008, America had a Presidential election where even the most hardened observers noted the coverage of candidates was slanted negatively toward one and positively toward the other. (Pew did some research of election news and how the candidates were perceived within that coverage.) While there were opportunities to hear what the candidates had to say directly in joint appearances - to the extent that a moderator shaped debate questions he or she felt were appropriate for the electorate to hear – there was still spin afterward as spokesmen and network coverage talking heads let everyone know what they needed to think about what they just saw.
While I’m fairly pleased that the medium I dabble in most is beginning to penetrate a greater audience, the truth remains that those who look for news generally just go to the website of whatever news source they trust instead of flipping to their channel or buying that particular paper at the newsstand. It’s unfortunate that Pew apparently didn’t ask further whether the internet sources used by respondents were connected in that manner; however, much of my sourcing to do monoblogue comes from sites affiliated with either newspapers or television networks, and for the near-term future bloggers will rely heavily on those same sources to put their own spin on things.
If we denizens of the internet really want to be informative and take advantage of the growing audience, we need to put an emphasis on accuracy and hold ourselves to the journalistic standards which seem to be missing from more and more news outlets who’ve become cheerleaders for one side or another. It’s a goal I strive for when I report on events and if more sites would take that into account when they place what they do for all of us to see, we could turn America into a more well-informed nation.
Odds and ends no. 15
It’s time once again for another compilation of items that aren’t necessarily worth a full post but sparked my interest nonetheless, a post I call ‘odds and ends.’
First of all, this is from a group I’ve supported before, the pro-troop group Move America Forward. I’ll allow spokesperson Kristen Schremp to pick things up from here:
Move America Forward, the nation’s largest pro-troop grassroots organization, is conducting a nationwide tour to support sending care packages to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“With Americans focused on the economic problems facing our country, we have to ensure that our troops in harm’s way are not forgotten during the Christmas and Hanukkah holiday season,” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.
Traveling on the tour will be Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee, – whose son Marc Alan Lee was the first Navy S.E.A.L. killed in Iraq. Lee said, “I remember his feelings of pride for serving our country, but also the loneliness troops endure during the holiday season. Instead of celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah with their families, many military men and women will be spending the holidays this year protecting our freedom in far off lands.”
To show the nation’s gratitude and support, Move America Forward’s Debbie Lee and singer/songwriter Diana Nagy (who will perform her hit song “Where Freedom Flies” at each stop) will be on the road encouraging people to send care packages from December 13 – December 19.
In their case, the tour itinerary runs through the southern part of the country, but readers can still donate regardless of where they live by going here.
The next little item is a method to rate bills before Congress from a fairly new group to me called the Sunlight Foundation, a group whose goal is to make Congress more accessible. Blogger Ellen Miller explains:
OpenCongress has just launched Battle Royale, their new feature that collects all the data about Congress generated by users of “My OpenCongress” since January 2008. David Moore, OpenCongress’ director, describes it as a “Billboard Chart” for legislation or a “Digg” for Congress. Battle Royale lets you see what bills people are loving or hating. It will gauge their user community’s views on legislation by stacking up all the bills, issues, and members of Congress. “This new tool is a key part of our work to harness the social wisdom created on OpenCongress and make it accessible and useful across the Web,” David wrote in an email. One purpose of Battle Royale is to give a bird’s eye view for researching the public’s opinion of Congress. Check it out and you’ll find a list of the top ten most supported and most opposed bills of the past 30 days on OpenCongress.
Perhaps the only thing I don’t care for about Battle Royale is having to log in to express your views; it’s probably holding participation back to some extent. We’ll have to see where the concept goes in the 111th Congress that begins come January.
At this time of the year, there’s a whole lotta listing going on. Yesterday, even with 20 days left in 2008 to come up with a real doozy like the auto bailout, The Business & Media Institute (which is an arm of the Media Research Center, for those of you keeping track of the myriad organizations lobbying inside the Beltway) came up with the Media’s Top 10 Worst Economic Myths of 2008. What surprised me was the amount of depth and linkage placed in most of the categories (all but one had three or more outside links to either their own blog posts or “mainstream” media outlets.) I may have flip-flopped #1 and #2 for starters since the #2 myth affected the election more, but on the whole I can’t quibble a lot with their picks.
Now I’ll shift from the biggest issue of the recent election to one which was predicted to be a much bigger issue a year or so back, and one that could have sank John McCain’s bid had the debate occurred a little later: immigration. This item is a couple weeks old, but the information the Center for Immigration Studies put out is still valid unless and until the laws regarding this change:
Each year, tens of thousands of United States citizens and Legal (LPR), at both home and abroad, meet and marry foreign nationals. Spouses of American citizens have priority over most other immigration categories, making marriage the quickest way to receive a green card. As the new Obama administration prepares to take office, the long dormant debate over levels of legal immigration is sure to resurface, but that debate is unlikely to include discussion of fraud amongst the most common path to American residency. The prevalence of such fraud contributes to illegal immigration, poses potential national security vulnerability, and clogs the system for legitimate applicants.
The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit research organization, has released a new Backgrounder detailing the ways the marriage-based green card categories are exploited and offers recommendations to protect the system from fraud. “Hello, I Love You, Won’t You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage Phenomenon,” was written by David Seminara, a former Consular Officer with the U.S. State Department who has adjudicated thousands of marriage-based green card applications in several countries. (Emphasis in original.)
Being a single man, I’ve actually had experience with women finding my Yahoo profile and sending me instant messages wanting to get to America. But as Seminara (whose work I’ve discussed before on this website) notes, while there are thousands of cases where love was found across oceans or continents, in too many cases the marriages are a scam designed to bring someone to America for whatever reason.
On another side of immigration, a group who I regularly get e-mail from but generally don’t use sent me this piece regarding a pair of Border Patrol agents who are a cause celebre amongst immigration hawks and pro-law enforcement citizens, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Antonio Compean:
Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) already has filed not one, but two friend of the court briefs (here and here) for Ignacio Ramos and Jose Antonio Compean. In those briefs, GOF has pointed out to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that the 10-year conviction of the two agents is for a crime which doesn’t exist.
(snip)
The two agents were convicted of the “Discharge of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence” — something which is not an offense, rather it is a sentencing enhancement after the government has established illegal gun possession, use or carrying.
Of course, if the Feds had gone for that kind of charge, they would have run into the problem that the agents were required to possess, use and carry guns on them while on duty. That is why the US Attorney, Johnny Sutton, went for, and succeeded, in making up an offense that would not force him to explain away that the agents are required to be armed.
One of the reasons the Border Patrol requires agents to be armed is so they can use their guns against armed drug smugglers such as Osvaldo Aldrete.
Even if the Supreme Court reverses this injustice done to Ramos and Compean, they could expect to sit in jail for upwards of another two years — for a crime that was impossible for them to commit.
GOF was a friend of the court in a similar case before the Supreme Court. Our position was upheld nine-to-nothing. It involved a drug dealer who took a gun in payment for a bag of dope. The Feds gave him many extra years because he supposedly had “used” a gun in a crime. The Supreme Court agreed that such a view was ridiculous and clearly not the intent of the law. The Fifth Circuit has simply overlooked these fatal flaws in the government’s case.
George Bush is thinking about his legacy. We have a chance to convince him that his legacy is on the verge of staining his reputation with the miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the federal prosecutor, Johnny Sutton. Keep in mind that Sutton lied to the trial court and to the appeals court about Aldrete’s connections with the drug trade. He also concealed from the jury that he was paying Aldrete for his testimony against the agents.
Hopefully, President Bush does not want to be known as one who stood by while innocent men — and the wives and children — suffered because of a blatant injustice.
All gun owners should be alarmed at what the government has done to these two agents. If they will do this to police officers, we cannot assume they will treat the rest of the population any better.
While I do happen to think, along with the GOA, that this pair should be pardoned for a so-called crime committed in the course of doing their assigned tasks, the question I have is open to other bloggers who may be on the mailing list of the entity called Special Guests, or to the company itself.
In looking at their site and their “about us” section, it appears the focus of their operation is placing clients on radio and television as “special guests” – hence the name. Fair enough. SG’s clients pay a fee to get their word out, such as a book to promote. In the case of this e-mail, the client is GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, who is promoting a new book he’s written.
As readers have probably figured out, one thing I enjoy doing is a short-form interview (Ten Questions.) What I wonder is whether Special Guests is pondering doing the same in the blogosphere, or if I’m just the lucky one who gets their e-mails? Obviously they wouldn’t need to charge a client as much to secure an interview with a website like mine (which is small, but seeks to grow in readership and stature) as they would for a larger, more read website.
There’s times where I get e-mails from people who want to get their word out soliciting interviews with bloggers – this is how I got the last two I’ve done, I just responded to their offer nicely. The good thing for me is that these provide a basis for securing more and better interviews, because I’d like to make Ten Questions at least a monthly feature. You need to start someplace!
It’s a question I thought I’d ask and a good way to wrap up this method I use to clean out my “blog ideas” mailbox.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
News from the loony left:
