Talking Without Listening

I'll never forget the opening ceremony to the Olympics in 2004 in which Matt Lauer and Katy Couric proceeded to talk through the performance of Bjork, choosing to comment on the length of her dress rather than let the viewers watch the performance. She's a singer for god's sake!

I wrote a letter to NBC in frustration, which in my opinion did result in less chatter during the closing ceremonies.

However, the trend of talking without listening seems to spill over to other areas. Such an example might be made of tonight's debate. Wolf was talking incessently with Candy Crowley, even as he sat down to moderate the debate. Even as candidates tried to talk seriously about immigration, Wolf chose to bait Obama into mocking Hillary. Even as Hillary tried to talk about her war vote, Wolf continued to bait her about a 'nieve vote'. Thus causing the audience to 'boo' the moderator, further distracting us from the conversation.

Had he been in the moment, rather than attempting to turn this into a sound-bite, conflict laden debate, (sorry South Carolina will only happen once), he might have noticed a full blown substanative debate was taking place for the benefit of those of us trying to make a rational decision. Just as Matt and Katie fucked us over in Atlanta, so did CNN in Hollywood. Too much talking, too little listening.

This is why CSPAN is far and above the best network. You get to be in the room, a fly on the wall, a judge. As boring and non glamourous as CSPAN might be, it teaches us to watch and listen. Without talking.

Rudy - C'mon....

So I sat and watched Rudy's concession speech tonight. I sincerly hope that whoever came up with the Florida Strategy was either a democrat, or was fired. Either way the fella that embraced the 'politics of fear' has been ousted do to fear over the economy.

In his concession speech, he talked about how he was happy he lead an "Uplifting Campaign." Moment's later he was making the case that we stay on offense in the islamo facist war against us. Yes, constant warefare is truly uplifting. Nothing like uniting under a common enemy to make us feel American huh? Uplifting...

It was also uplifting for him to talk about his ability to deal with Hurricane's better than other candidates. Now C'mon, Chuck Norris could kick the shit out of a hurricane.

If Rudy was to campaign in other states, he'd have to find out what their fears were. Some examples are:

California - earthquakes, single payer healthcare, and oilspills
Idaho - potatoe famine, and boredom
Wyoming - Dick Cheney might move back
Arizona - That's easy. Build the fence to save our society
New Mexico - Same as Above
Kansas - Well they have a democrat governor, they need someone uplifting to distract them.
Nevada - Missed Oppertunity

Well thankfully he promised that his movement won't end. This is the equivalent of those freaks on American Idol that scream into the camera - "YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST OF ME."

Yes we have. (And again to paralell Idol, we're stupider for staying tuned this long)

Sometimes Symbols Mean More

I feel like this speech was more about what hasn't been done, than what we're going to do. Let the proffesionals throw out all the other bullshit. They are already talking about the presidential race again, with the words "State of the Union" on the bottom of the screen. Nice huh?

Still the moment tonight has a purpose. It presents a rare oppertunity to really think about the very structure of our government and our country. In attendence today were both houses of congress, 4 supreme court justices, the vice president, the joint cheifs, the cabinet, the president's family, and many other diplomats and dignitaries. Together they sit, and listen to the president agenda, embrace it or not, it's quite simly NEAT!

Also, Kansas, Democratic Governor - nice!

Candidates and Platforms

I find the way candidates are forced to talk and lay out the details of their programs in the manter they currently do.

Example, both Barack, Hillary, and Edwards have a universal health care plan on their websites. Each of these plans is similar in it's intent - greatly increasing the access to healthcare for all Americans. Where they differ is in the area of a mandate - meaning the federal government can require you to have healthcare coverage, much the same way your state requires you to carry auto insurance. Both Edwards and Clinton are mandating the plan, making sure everyone is covered. Barack favors dramatically reducing costs, therefore truly making it affordable to all. Each program will also leave Medicaid intact, giving coverage to those who can't afford any premiums.

So at the end of the day, for the democrats, they all agree on universal coverage, or at a minimum changing they system. What people don't seem to realize, or ask themselves, is when is the last time a president has been able to pass the exact plan they propose during a campaign? What are the chances of that?

Sure a starting point is important for measuring our candidates - but lets not forget about the difference between a real argument and a false one.

Also, don't forget that Rudi Guliani wants to decrease taxes by around 1,000,000,000,000 while increasing spending on the military. Nice one!

Shot in The Dark

Over the past 2 months I've had a little bit of time on my hand. I had a minor back surgery which has kept me sidelined from the sheer invigoration of my job in the insurance industry. Ever since I was a kid I've had a general fascination with world events, both present and historical.

I've always wanted a form to express my viewpoint, and to engage in conversation with others. Well after lying on the floor watching every political show on planet earth for a few months, I've realized something. Many of these experts are just wrong, and further they are motivated more by hyping up a particular story, than helping the listner learn about the issues.

My diet of TV news included, Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman (the only one worth a dime), Wolf Blizter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reily, Jim Leher, and Tim Russert.

The great majority of on air perspectives really seek the entertainment angle first. These networks are under pressure to draw viewers, and sell ad space. This pressure causes our media to put an emphasis on the entertainment value of important political and social issues, therefore eliminating the possiblity that proper time is allocated sifting through what are very complex issues.

In the end we end up making our judgements on inaccurate information - keeping the electorate uninformed, and unmotivated to seek improvement where improvement is needed.

Is blogging our only cure? Is their any productive value to this method of communication?
How can we improve our access to succint accurate information on social, economic, and historical issues?

There has to be an answer or opinion somewhere.