Friday, February 22, 2008

More thoughts about TV and "amusing ourselves to death"

In past entries, I have discussed the book “amusing ourselves to death” by Neil Postman.  I questioned his premise, even though I saw the potential for him to be right on target.  Something I read in the textbook for my political science class has me seeing even more clearly that he is right, we’re on a dangerous path.

 

The text book, “The Promise and Performance of American Democracy” by Jon R. Bond and Kevin B. Smith discusses how television has had an impact on the electoral process.  The prime example being that the GOP (Republican Party) changed its convention role call, done in one night, to spread it over several nights?  Why?  Because of the national TV coverage.  In other words, tradition gave way to playing for the camera.  It isn’t a part of the political process any more as much as an attempt at a television event.

 

I know this isn’t a drastic change in the discourse involved in the convention process, let alone the political process and the process of electing a president, but it is part of a larger phenomenon. 

 

That phenomenon is to get the whole process palatable for the TV viewing audience.  I’m waiting for “American Idol” to become “American President” with Simon replaced by, say, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin.

 

I’ll be the first to admit, I struggle with any kind of change.  As it is, the whole world has changed drastically in the few short decades during which I have grown up.  To see a change in something for the sake of a television audience, though, is a bit too much for me.  TV should be there to display it to the world, not indirectly or inadvertently mold it to be suitable for broadcast.

 

I used to roll my eyes and sigh with exasperation whenever I heard TV called “the opiate of the masses.”  People borrow the term that Karl Marx used to describe religion, and they borrow it to describe TV and the viewing habits it creates.  I thought that was a bit ridiculous for the longest time.  TV wasn’t going to lead to some Huxlian brave new world, either…not in my book.

 

Well, I am editing that “book” because I am seeing where it could very easily come to pass.  If we’re changing aspects of the political process, even trivial ones, to make it TV-worthy, how soon will it be before the aspects we change become less trivial and more significant?  How long will it take before the electoral process is done by viewers phoning in their votes to “American President”?

 

I could even potentially see someone deciding that perhaps TV is the way to draw younger voters…televise the whole presidential election process from start to finish, dramatize it, throw in some music by currently popular music artists, and bam!  Presidential election in the “real world.”

 

Okay, I realize that this would be a dramatic violating of constitutional principles, and hopefully our country, our society would never let it get that far.  That said, however, if the opiate known as television lulls enough people into a viewing coma, it could very well happen.

 

Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying that TV is pure evil.  It has good and bad qualities, just as everything in life does.  I guess I just wonder if maybe Neil Postman was more accurate in his premise than I once thought.  For that matter, maybe even Roger Water’s words inspired by Postman’s book are accurate and some race of extraterrestrials will come along, and they will have the equivalent of anthropologists that discover that we, literally, amused ourselves to death.

 
 

Friday, February 15, 2008

Where is the outrage?

Have Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin read the below article?  If so, where is the outrage?  I know I am outraged.  If we let McCain in as president, it's as bad as allowing Hilary in, if you ask me.  But, oh no!  The radio talkers want to gloss this over because they were focused on Romney being their candidate.  Where did that get them?  Huckabe was the best option, and now they're saying it is impossible.  More on how that is wrong later.  First, read and be angered.  McCain funded by liberals?  Unbelieveable!
 
John McCain funded by Soros since 2001
Candidate's Reform Institute also accepted funds from Teresa Kerry


Posted: February 12, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


George Soros

As Sen. John McCain assumes the GOP front-runner mantle, his long-standing, but little-noticed association with donors such as George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry is receiving new attention among his Republican critics.

In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros' Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations.

McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide compensation to key campaign operatives between elections.

In 2006, the Arizona senator was forced to sever his formal ties with the Reform Institute after a controversial $200,000 contribution from Cablevision came to light. McCain solicited the donation for the Reform Institute using his membership on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, he supported Cablevision's push to introduce the more profitable al la carte pricing, rather than packages of TV programming.

 
 

Yet, the Reform Institute still employs the McCain campaign's Hispanic outreach director, Juan Hernandez, as a senior fellow of its Comprehensive Immigration Reform Initiative.

As WND reported, Hernandez serves as a non-paid volunteer for the McCain campaign. A dual Mexican-U.S. citizen, he was a member of former President Vicente Fox's cabinet, representing an estimate 24 million Mexicans living abroad. Hernandez, with a "Mexico first" message, has argued aggressively against building a fence on the Mexican border, insisting the frontier needed to remain wide open so illegal immigrants could easily enter the U.S.

The July 6, 2001, homepage of the Reform Institute archived on the Internet lists founder McCain as chairman of the group's advisory committee.

Prominent senior officials on the McCain 2008 presidential campaign staff found generously paid positions at the Reform Institute following the senator's unsuccessful run for the White House in 2000.

Rick Davis, McCain's current campaign manager, was paid $110,000 a year by the Reform Institute for a consulting position, according to the group's 2003 Form 990 filing with the IRS.

In 2004, Davis advanced to the position of Reform Institute president, with an annual salary of $120,000, according to the group's 2004 Form 990.

In 2005, Davis remained president, but his salary dropped back to $45,000 a year, with a time commitment of five hours per week, according the 2005 Form 990.

Carla Eudy, a senior advisor on McCain's 2008 presidential campaign who until recently headed fundraising, was paid $177,885 in 2005 to serve as the Reform Institute's secretary-treasurer.

Other McCain presidential campaign staffers who have found employment at the Reform Institute include Trevor Potter, McCain's 2000 legal counsel, and Crystal Benton, the senator's former press secretary, who served as institute's communications director in 2005 for an annual salary of $52,083.

The Reform Institute regularly has supported McCain in various legislative efforts, including on campaign finance reform, global warming and "comprehensive immigration reform," all efforts widely opposed by many in the party's conservative base.

Arianna Huffington, syndicated columnist and creator of the HuffingtonPost.com, has served on the Reform Institute's advisory committee since the group's inception.

According to FrontPage Magazine, Teresa Heinz Kerry has provided more than $4 million to the Tides Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by anti-war activist Drummond Pike in 1976 with a history of funding causes such as abortion, homosexual-rights activism and open borders.

Financial contributors while McCain was chairman of the Reform Institute also have included the Educational Foundation of America, a group that supports abortion and opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

The Soros-Kerry funding connection with McCain was first exposed by Ed Morrissey at the Captains Quarters blog in 2005.

Subsequently, David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetworks.org website and Michelle Malkin's blog gave renewed attention to the Reform Institute's funding ties.

Media wishing to interview the author of this article, please e-mail Tim Bueler.


 
 
Okay, so I don't have to say that what you read above, about McCain is wrong for McCain on so many levels.  If he really wants the conservatives that he needs to win so badly, he better distance himself from this and quick!
 
Now, as to how Huckabee can win, and the concept of him winning being a mathematical impossibility is so wrong-headed, watch the following You Tube video.  You'll see how possible it is. HucksArmy.com put this out, and it makes sense to me. 
 
I understand wanting to stop Hilary as Sean hannity wants to do, believe me, that's my goal, too.  I fear, however, in his quest to do so, he lost sight of the candidate we should have been supporting all along...Mike Huckabee.
 
 

 

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Graduating from the electoral college.

Before I raise the question on my mind, let me say that I have no real opinion, especially since it is something I have only just begun to ponder.
 
As anyone who knows American history knows, the electoral college was put in place by the founding fathers for checks and balances in elections by the people.
 
Here we are in the 21st Century and in the midst of a presidential election that is, so far, showing no clear cut front-runners for either party.  It would seem, for a number of various reasons, that the system put in place by our founding fathers is becoming less effective, reliable and also less trusted.
 
Have we, in this day and age, grown too big as a country for the electoral college to serve our needs?
 
In addition, are there too many people with personal agendas running for office who make the system inherently flawed?  That is to say, are candidates with truly political motives and huge "political machines" making it more difficult for the electoral college to work?
That said, however, what other system could we use?  I firmly believe in what the authors of the constitution set out to do.  Is there really a better alternative?  If so, what is it and how on earth would we implement it?
 
Okay, those are my rhetorical questions for the night.