Won't Someone Please Think About the Children?

How can we improve civic engagement? The answer to this question is perhaps much simpler for some than others, because the truth is there are endless possibilities as to how to improve the political process. Collectively throughout the semester, we have learned that no matter how sound a political argument may be there is a good chance that the opposite side’s argument may be just as well formulated and just as valid. On the other hand, both arguments may sometimes be rooted in nothing but fear or misconceptions.
Pinnacle to the act of civic engagement is the act that we consider to be sacred, the act of voting. Our right to vote is something that this country has seen people die for time and time again. The ability to cast a vote, no matter how small the position is, has been an integral part of our social norm for over 200 years. People have made their careers on the elections, being able to predict them, to win them, to destroy them for someone, American’s take for granted this civic duty in many ways. The best example of how precious and important this process can be was the documentary Please Vote for Me, which centers on the democratic process’ application among 8 year-olds.
This film showed how effective certain parts of the process can be, as well as some of the democratic processes flaws. It’s amazing how the honesty of children can show the dishonesty of a practice that many of us have never chosen to view as corrupt. The entire election process is heavily scrutinized throughout the film, from polling to how people base their actual decisions on. When we are able to see an election on a smaller scale, it’s easier to realize how what works and what needs fine tuning, not only with elections, but how we approach them and how we prepare our citizens to participate in them.
During our discussion involving The Center for Public Deliberation saw one predominant ideal brought to the conversation consistently. Education at an early age was suggested by practically every group. Do we educate, truly educate, citizens about the repercussions our votes have, and how responsible participation is the best way to improving civic involvement. Much like in the above mentioned film, schools across the country should have children begin to participate in the democratic process at an earlier age than the common high-school class elections.
We saw in the film, how ruthless the children could become, resorting to name calling and accusing their opponents of false acts. This seems childish and wrong, but the truth is, we see this in elections every day. We see attack ads that accuse candidates of horrible acts, we see candidates resort to name calling, though perhaps not a blatant. What seemed to be child’s play among the Chinese children of the film illustrated our own democracy’s flaws.
We saw the film address debates, although in the film the debates we unstructured. The candidates were given ample time to state why they would be effective class leaders, but resorted to bickering and name calling eventually, the so-called “mudslinging” that candidates swear to avoid. We’ve all seen it before, the older politicians get, the more effective they are in making the mudslinging appealing.

Perhaps the worst part of the debate is that the moderator, the so-called liaison between the public and the politicians is the one who initiates the mud-slinging. Again, this is not as blatant as children calling the other fat and lazy, but its sophisticated enough to wear the public doesn’t see it as mudslinging.
Attack ads are another form of the political process that is deemed immoral and in poor taste yet we allow them to take place constantly. Again, the children of the movie display how attack ads can be detrimental in many ways. The children rally their classmates to chant horrible things about one another in order to garner support and create decent among the class. These scare tactics they use are often meant to completely disengage a public in a person’s campaign.

Yes, because electing anyone other than LBJ would definitely result in nuclear holocaust. Now this seems ridiculous to us, but at the time the country greatly feared the impending results of the arms race with the Soviet Union.
How can we avoid these practices, and vote as responsible and informed citizens? We need to educate children from an early age. Although the democratic process the film engages in may seem messy and disorganized, but it teaches us a lesson in children’s concepts of democracy. If we encourage children to learn about this process past the lowly American Government classes in high-school, we can give children the critical thinking to skills that will allow them to not fall victim to the political system as they get older.
By educating the younger generations, we also will enhance their “Bull-shit” meters that many of my classmates would agree anytime the 24 hour news channels find their way into the national dialogue. The pundit happy networks allow commentary and opinion the blindly cover fact and common sense to the point where people find themselves believing something is “fair and balanced” when in-fact the news stories are as bias as they come. It’s extremely important to give children the tools to engage responsibly and have an opinion that’s based in fact and logic, as opposed to allowing fear mongering aristocrats to control the national dialogue as they see fit.
It has been proven that early education regarding language has worked with children from a young age. Why wouldn’t civic engagement courses and as well as media literacy courses work as well as the early education programs used at the elementary level already? In Thomas Hollihan’s Uncivil War: Political Campaigns in a Media Age the author states “low rates of voting and political participation by young people suggest that civics education is not meeting its goal of increasing political interest and efficacy” (Hollihan 61). Hollihan later states that “schools are important to the political socialization process… Students learn through interpersonal communication when interacting with teachers… students also interact with peers, who’s values they generally mirror” (Hollihan 64).
If we continue to ignore education as a real and permanent solution to our country’s civic engagement issues, then we will never see the youth of America reach their full civic potential. By implanting programs that encourage civic participation in a responsible and educated manner, we can further develop civic engagement into the fair practice we all want and hope it to be. Beyond that, the responsibility to implement these programs falls on the voters of today and their willingness to understand the system’s imperfections. By addressing these flaws, citizens will be better equipped to participate and contribute to the National dialogue.

Debating Debates: Are They Really Effective?

Have the presidential debates really helped civic participation or have the presidential debates created an opportune forum for politicians to exercise their sound bite media speeches. By allowing the candidates to dictate the terms that the debates take place under, Americans are missing out on true debate and lose out in the end. According to Thomas Hollihan’s Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, “these debates attract attention because they come as close to “good television” as political discussions ever can. They have a sense of confrontation and clash, there is a media buildup of anticipation and then, of course, there is a fallow up discussion of who won the debate. Most important for many viewers, there is a real sense of drama and the very real possibility that one candidate or the other will commit a major gaffe that might derail his or her candidacy.” (Page 223)
IF we fallow this flawed model, then no one wins in the end including the viewer. By framing the debates as a winner take all showdown surrounded by a three ring circus, it becomes impossible for viewers to truly decipher a candidates message make a judgment. In the end, potential voters find themselves watching another reality TV show, except the implications of this one don’t center around one million dollars, but they center around the potential leader of the country. If the debates continue to focus on spectacle and theatricality, then good decisions about candidates and their platforms will never be reached by the general public.

This clip of Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale in their debate shows just how the spectacle of such an event can dramatically hinder the public thought based on a sound bite that was witty and well placed at the time. Ronald Reagan was an actor of great talents, he is also considered by many, or a select few depending on the side of the aisle, to be one of our greatest presidents. But this quote essentially killed Mondale and cemented Reagan’s bid to the White House. If we judged everyday occurrences on society on 10 second sound bites and not on the facts, then we would have much bigger issues at hand. Consider this video clip for instance:

In “Mr. Griffin Goes to Washington” Peter is able to rouse the crowd of dissenting opinions with a simple “come on” which is essentially what Reagan is doing. He’s committing a fallacy of not addressing the question but in fact flipping it in his favor. This is seen as god TV for the commentators who hope to “pick a winner” but by running this clip over and over, the media just reinforced the fallacy and boost the vote for Reagan cause “gosh darn it he’s funny!”
More recently, we saw the same line of attack used in the vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Palin again uses some “provocative” language to drive home her point and yet delivers it with a candor that would have you believe she is competent and well informed on many issues:

Wow, “raping the environment,” by using such crass language Palin is able to avoid elaboration and exact numbers in explaining herself which she’s done of a lot of since, and hopes that a witty comment will win her an election. As we know, McCain and Palin lost the 2008 election, and in later events the former governor of Alaska chose to resign for “personal reasons,” thank god going rogue has been such a success, oh wait… Well there’s always 2012.
This is partially to blame because of the speaking time limits candidates are given, it’s like an amateur comedian going on at a night club knowing he has 3 minutes to deliver some laughs. According to Hollihan “many critics have also complained that candidates in these debates are given little opportunity to develop sustained and well-reasoned arguments because their speaking times are so short.” (Page 228) A study done on audiences during the Carter-Reagan debates during the 1980 presidential race looked at “when a candidate used evidence or analysis to support his position and whether the use of either evidence or analysis actually enhanced the appeal of the better-supported argument.” (Page 229) The results concluded that viewers could correctly identify support versus analysis, but were just as likely to be influenced by an argument without evidence as an argument with. (Page 229) So if the general public are not able to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid argument that takes place in a debate, how are they making the correct and informed decision when they make it to the polls?
A problematic effect of these debates is what Hollihan refers to as mixed data that results from these debates. “The data are mixed in terms of explaining how a candidate’s debate performance will affect voter choices.” (Page 233) This stems from fact that most people who watch the debate are already partisan in their views and is in-fact watching to reinforce their choice and not be swayed according to Hollihan. So if political debates are shown to be just as ineffective as the campaign commercials that flood the airwaves, why are they framed as the monster sized events that they are.
According to Hollihan, in 2004 John Kerry was seen as the winner of all three debates over President George W. Bush, but the title of “debate winner” did little to help him win the election in the long run. Again, if one candidate can be seen as the “winner” in a debate and yet walk away from the election the loser, should the national media put so much emphasis on the debates. By framing them to be grudge matches and boxing titles, aren’t we cheapening the experience of allowing the candidates to talk on an open platform about important political and social issues. We limit their time for them to get their “punches” in and then ring the bell when we might actually see a leveling blow.
“Observing televised debates and then talking about the issues that emerge in those debates informs voters about the issues, mobilizes them towards action, and helps citizens develop the skills necessary for self governance… Participatory democracies require these conversations,” according to Hollihan, but at what point as a people do we decide that sometimes the framing of these issues is not properly done? Are we as a people having the right discussions after debates or are we allowing the media to shape their agenda by framing the debates in their own way? Can we be considered a responsible democracy by allowing the discourse that takes place about the debates to be framed and shaped by the very rules that create the sound bites within the debates? Or as citizens is it time for us to realize that the debate is only as informational as the media and candidates want it to be, and do we take the initiative to find the information for ourselves and ignore the witty banter to get to the bottom of a campaign platform?

God: The Best reference a Politician Could Ask For

It doesn't matter how you worship god, as long as he is the Judeo-Christian god, the one who fathered Jesus Christ, our "lord and savior." As long as God is on your side, you can make it to the highest areas of government. But if you are a sinner or god forbid (no pun intended) a godless, faithless candidate, then you can kiss your nomination goodbye. Some of the most successful political campaigns and candidates in history aligned themselves with god. Unfortunately the probability of nomination is slim to none if you don't have the "Big Guy's" endorsement, in-fact it's damn near impossible. Without aligning one's self with a predominantly Christian religious group, election to an office in government is extremely difficult.

If you disagree with this statement, then I invite you to Google search Atheist and Agnostic politicians. This shouldn't be a difficult process because you won't find any member of congress or high elected office that does not have a religious affiliation within these two categories. Why is it so important to align with God as a politician? Does his vote push every candidate over the edge? Or does he secretly tell all of his disciples that voting for a friend of his is a vote for him?

What makes this pattern of political success and a candidate's affiliation with God is the statistics of Americans who are polled would have you believe that political success has little to do with religious affiliation. According to the Pew Forum, Americans are becoming increasingly diverse in the religious affiliation. Over 35,000 Americans were surveyed in 2008, and of that number, over 16 percent considered themselves "unaffiliated." But when we dive deeper into these numbers only 1.6 percent of the cohort considered themselves Atheist and 2.4 percent identified themselves as Agnostics. Interestingly enough, the younger the poll participants were, the higher the "unaffiliated" numbers were. The highest identified groups in the study were in-fact Evangelical Protestants at 26.3 percent and Catholics at 23.9 percent.This explains American's tendencies to vote for a candidate that shows "unwavering" religious devotion. According to Thomas Hollihan’s Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age “religious political activists, especially those drawn from conservative and evangelical Protestant faiths, have been much more actively involved in political campaigns in recent years.”(page 68)

Many voters of former president George W. Bush may recall the president's devout Methodist beliefs. What many of the supporters may not know of Bush's path to Christianity and how effective (or ineffective) he was while in office in staying on his path of "righteousness." Bush claims he found God, as seen in the July 25^th 1999 article published in the Washington Post, entitled Bush's Life-Changing Year. The article chronicles Bush's struggle with alcohol and his subsequent "religious re-awakening" at the age of 40. This came during the summer of 1986, a time in which his father was just beginning his campaign for president (coincidence?) The article accounts numerous times where Bush's alcoholism negatively affected his business and personal life, "In the end, Bush said, the key to giving up alcohol was the new spirituality he had begun to embrace the year before. Bush is not a particularly introspective man, but whatever soul-searching there was to do; he had started doing in the summer of 1985, after a conversation at the family summer retreat in Kennebunkport with the Rev. Billy Graham, a longtime family friend and spiritual adviser."

Hollihan might attribute this change because "people tend to associate with other people who share their values and worldviews, which are in turn reinforced by their increased interactions with those people."(page 69) Billy Graham's political involvement is well noted within the Republican Party, from his days in the 60's into the 70's and his involvement in the Nixon's administration and the "moral majority." What is even more interesting is despite Bush's faith and beliefs, he only once attended church while office. An interesting note is that frequent church-goers tend to identify with Bush's policies more than non-church-goers according to the Democratic Underground. Oddly enough, many Republican voters claim they identified with Bush's devout religious views and practices and cited those as reasons to vote for him. So if his mere association with belief, without proof of constant church attendance, can offer a solid religious platform for him to relate with voters on, what happens when a candidate sites themselves as "Unspecified."

According to a survey of congress conducted of the 109^th US congress, the United States Congress and Senate are comprised of 535 Senators and Representatives. Of those 535, only four representatives considered themselves "un-affiliated." The title of unaffiliated does not mean atheist or agnostic, but just means no identification with a particular religious sect, but they still worship God, the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God. That is less than one percent of Congress, all four were democrats; included in that list were Tammy Baldwin the Congresswoman from Wisconsin, John Olver and John Tierney from Massachusetts, and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. Again, it is important to remember that "unspecified" does not constitute a non-believer, but someone who is not self aligned with a specific church. It is almost impossible to find a prominent political figure that completely and purposely disassociates with predominant churches in this country.

Perhaps the most prominent politician/ political activist to say he has no religious affiliation is Gore Vidal. Vidal has been quoted as having said such memorable atheist lines as "I'm a born-again atheist," and "Once people get hung up on theology, they've lost sanity forever. More people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world." The latter Vidal was quoted in the Secular Humanist Bulletin in the summer of 1995. Vidal has said time and time again how detrimental to society monotheistic beliefs have been. Vidal has been a consistent contributor to the Democratic Party and was a major player in the 1950's and 60's, especially when he ran for congress in New York's 29^th congressional district, which at the time was considered highly republican according to PBS. Vidal also ran for U.S Senate on the California ticket in 1982 at a heavily Republican time in the nation's history with the recent election of Ronald Reagan, the former Governor and high profile Republican of California.

Many attribute Vidal's lack of success politically to his outspoken stance as an atheist. This clearly shows that in order to run successfully for any spot in high-profile government, one must be affiliated with God. Vidal's contempt for organized monotheistic religion proved to be his downfall, although he is considered by many to be one of the most brilliant people of the 20^th century. But in contrast to candidates who listed themselves as "unspecified" Vidal has been known for his staunch stance on Atheism as well as his view of religion's detrimental structure and its negative effects on society. This in turn shows how specifying nothing or claiming to be "unspecified" is better than specifying one's self as a non-believer or Atheist or Agnostic. Vidal's political failure stems from what Hollihan substantiates as Americans being "the most religious people found in western democracy (as measured by church attendance). Americans are for religious than our European allies."(page 69) That being the case, many would argue Vidal never stood a chance.

In the end, it appears to be more convenient to miraculously find God as a sinner, to deny his very existence as a politician. As long as America is a God fearing country, then our elected officials must be seen as the same way, as Vidal would put it "Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth. One God, one King, one Pope, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home." Without this structure which emphasizes belief in a great power over non-belief, society will never truly advance beyond its God fearing ways. To be seen as a "moral" politician, one must put their faith in a higher being that essentially usurps their power and in turn keeps them "honest." This in turn protects the people from the heathen, God-less people that would only harm our precious society.

New avalanche 3rd Jersey

I know this doesn't fallow the theme of the blog, but what better way to get the word out to everyone, i have the first official photo of an Avalanche third jersey. It's a youth size, so some minor differences but overall what does everyone think It was in a shop in Fort Collins, I don't want to give away the exact location in case of early release penalties from the NHL.

Polls Are For Dancing: The Problems of Network Polls

In recent years, political outlets have found it increasingly easy to reinforce what their follower’s value by using their own polling centers and controlled polls for their programs. I believe that because of this “quick polling” via outlet websites, that truthful and accurate polling have fallen by the wayside. As an outcome of this, Americans are more misinformed about the political numbers than ever before and it’s causing skewed and biased opinion to dominate popular opinion, in turn never fully achieving their goals of voter understanding. According to Thomas Hollihan’s book Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age “Members of the news media seem to believe that their audiences are more interested in stories reporting who is ahead in the race… As a result, in recent years there has been a dramatic proliferation both in the number of public opinion polls and in the degree to which they dominate electoral news coverage.” (Page 168)

Increasingly, more and more polls are becoming popular and with up to “273 national polls” (Page 169) being conducted before the 2004 election, the numbers are becoming more and more contradictory. This trend in most prevalent on networks that poll on opposite party candidates. Popular opinion would say that Conservatives/ Republicans tend to watch FOX Network. Whereas voters whom identify with the Liberals/ Democrats tend to gravitate towards MSNBC for their political news, because these networks are aware of this split, they tend to answer loaded questions that reinforce their demo-graph’s beliefs. A result of this is a lack of new information being found, and more times than not, completely ignoring the moderate opinion.

When networks like these conduct these polls in such a manner they are often inaccurate in the real numbers because of their use of stratification in polling. When a news outlet allows any user to take part in their online poll, they are essentially allowing their key viewers to participate, not considering people who do not usually watch the network for their news. For example, in recent poll conducted in September of 2009, FOX News asked 900 voters via phone “Do you think the government's recent takeovers of sections of private industries such as in the banking industry, the insurance industry and the auto industry were a good idea or a bad idea?” The results were as fallows;

Party affiliation	Good idea	Bad Idea	Mixed	Don’t Know
Democrats	55%	31	8	6
Republicans	12%	80	7	1
Independents	23%	58	15	4

As Hollihan states in his book, the independent numbers are often skewed especially when “Push Polling” takes place. A push poll is considered to be a strategy in which a poll attempts to reinforce numbers people want to hear or see. The wording of “government take-over” versus what another outlet may word as “Increased regulation of” is a loaded questioning strategy. By shaping the opinion of party being polled by giving a question a connotation, the poll can receive the answer it prefers to receive.

Questions seven and eight of that same survey conducted are even more intriguing to analyze. Question seven asks; “Since January of this year, do you think the country has become more united or more divided?”

Party Affiliation	More United	More divided	No Change	Don’t Know
Democrats	38%	48	11	3
Republicans	13%	76	8	3
Independents	23%	60	14	3

Looking at this question at first glance, it seems harmless and straight forward, but if we examine it closer we see that the question is indeed a bit loaded and bias. It appears that popular opinion would have the majority of the country in agreement that the country is less divided since January. In-fact, the question is never followed up with the more important question, “Why do you think the country is more divided?” Without asking a question like this, it would be impossible to truly say the country is in agreement based on all the possible answers. Perhaps the reason a Democrat believes the country is more divided differs greatly from the opinion of a Republican. By asking a loaded question like this, Fox News is able to legitimize their stance, as well as reinforce their viewer’s beliefs. The majority in every demographic thinks the country is more divided, an opinion that carries the connotation that our Democratic president is not doing his job as most republicans would believe.

Question eight is especially interesting, the question asks “In the next congressional election in 2010, are you more likely to: SCALE: 1. Vote for the Democrat to help Barack Obama pass his policies and programs 2. Vote for the Republican to provide a check on Obama's power 3. (Too soon to say) 4. (Don't know/Refused).”

Party Affiliation	Democratic	Republican	Too soon to say	Don’t know/ Refused
Democrats	77%	7	10	6
Republicans	5%	79	12	5
Independents	29%	28	36	7

Again, by fallowing up with a question like this that again is able to shape the opinion of the party being questioned before they have time to develop their own opinion is a way FOX is able to reinforce Conservative opinion. It completely disregards the idea of opinion on a candidate, whether a voter may see a worthy candidate in their district that stems from the other party, although it’s naïve to think that would be the case.

Perhaps the greatest issue with this poll is that it was conducted to using 900 people via phone. The first problem with this method is that a poll of 900 people, 738 of which were white and only 103 of which were black, in a country with over 260,000,000 people can be troublesome. It’s substantially less than one percent of the population, so in order to stratify the poll properly would mean the call list would have had to select every 288,888 person within the United States. Even then, it is impossible to guarantee that you are receiving a fair piece of the population with every demographic being properly represented. The second major issue with the manner in which this poll was conducted stems from the process of phone polling. This assumes that everyone has a landline. Most people these days are beginning to drop their landline service, and the numbers of college age students and young voters that own landlines are minimal. The makes the numbers for the cohort almost impossible to examine.

Now if we turn our attention to MSNBC and their polling techniques, we find similar strategies that FOX uses, although there are some differences as well. The first major difference between the two cable networks use of polls is the use of NBC polls in the MSNBC polling results. FOX news conducts its own polls through its private company, whereas MSNBC’s numbers come from NBC “the network.” Another major difference in the polls comes from the cohorts involved in the polls. The NBC poll is much more thorough in sampling the demographic of the poll. Another major difference within how the polls are conducted is how the NBC poll frames responses. The poll does not group the responses of the group as either Republican or Democrat.

One question that can be seen from this poll that is especially interesting is number twelve; “Now I am going to tell you more about the health care plan that President Obama supports and please tell me whether you would favor or oppose it.

The plan requires that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. It also requires all but the smallest employers to provide health coverage for their employees, or pay a percentage of their payroll to help fund coverage for the uninsured. Families and individuals with lower- and middle-incomes would receive tax credits to help them afford insurance coverage. Some of the funding for this plan would come from raising taxes on wealthier Americans. Do you favor or oppose this plan? (IF "FAVOR/OPPOSE," ASK:) And do you strongly or only somewhat (favor/oppose) this plan?” The answers ranged from 53 percent of Americans supporting this and 43 opposing this.

Overall, much of the NBC poll is conducted in this manner, which can be seen as problematic in a couple ways. The answers offer more variation within each question, allowing for a broader range of feelings. Another issue some might have with this polling method is the lack of political affiliation within each question, by saving that towards the end; it’s harder to identify what could be considered a certain affiliation’s opinion. The questions, much like twelve, could be seen as helpful by some because it attempts to explain the question at hand, instead of assuming those being polled are informed. Perhaps the most interesting part of the demographic explanation was the numbers of minorities used in this poll as opposed to those used in the FOX poll. Again, a bit broader range is used, as well as despite having a smaller cohort, the NBC poll was able to select a fair range of voters, although dominantly having white cohorts like FOX. The “cell-phone” question is interesting has of 138 polled, 100 had only cell phones, showing an increasing number of cell only use as stated early.

With all of these factors taken into account, it is easy to see how networks are able to shape their polling, sometimes to shape their viewers opinions on a hot button subject, or sometimes to reinforce the beliefs of those viewers. Either way you look at it, it is evident the use of so many polls makes it extremely difficult to have a completely accurate poll.