Archive for: June, 2006

California’s Big One

Jun 20 2006 Published by under Miscellany

MiscellanyFor reasons entirely unrelated to a recent NBC made-for-TV movie, I got to thinking over the weekend that California may be due for another big quake. It has been quite a while since Northridge shook, and it just seems that a long period of little activity is never a good thing with earthquakes.

Now it appears my thoughts may have been justified. A researcher at UCSD indicates that SoCal may be ready to rumble.

[T]he fault has been stressed to a level where it could unleash an earthquake with a magnitude of seven or greater… The fault-slip rate, or pace of the plate movement at the fault, is about one inch per year. But pressure buildup indicates that the southern region of the fault has accumulated 6 to 8 meters of slip deficit–that is, movement that should have occurred but hasn’t because the plates have temporarily become stuck against each other–which inevitably will be released in future earthquakes.

If the accumulated deficit were released in a single event, it would result in an earthquake about the same size as the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. Such a quake would affect many of the coastal cities in southern California.

Apparently there’s still no concern that the folks in LA will be surfing to Wichita, but something tells me a 7+ earthquake would still get blamed on Arnold.

No responses yet

Hillary: Love Her Or Hate Her

Jun 20 2006 Published by under Democrats, Elections, Politics

DemocratsPoliticsHillary continues to impress as the candidate with very little leeway. A new CNN poll has Hillary receiving the highest “definitely vote for” and only loses the highest “definitely vote against” to Al Gore by one point.

Regarding potential Democratic candidates, 47 percent of respondents said they would “definitely not vote for” both Clinton…and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party’s candidate in 2004.

Forty-eight percent said the same of former Vice President Al Gore…”

Twenty-two percent said they “definitely vote for” Clinton, leaving 69% of the electorate locked up. If that math held, that would require the remaining 30% of America to break wildly in her favor. That’s not likely.

The good news for the GOP in 2008 is the low numbers for Gore and Kerry. The liberal left loves those guys, but the rest of America has soured on both. If either became the candidate, chances are my dog could get elected President on the GOP side.

Given that primaries are the only place the liberal blogs have had any electoral success, let’s hope they can get one of these clowns the nomination.

No responses yet

Long Answer To A Short Question

Jun 19 2006 Published by under Bloggers, Democrats, Elections, Politics, Polls, Republicans, The Internet

The InternetPoliticsI received an e-mail looking for my thoughts on the “netroots” poll that got gums flapping last week. The poll is located here. The gist is almost 70% of Democrats believe internet political activists will have a significant impact on the elections. The GOP is almost exactly the opposite with 70% claiming it will have little to no impact.

Given their list of “GOP Insiders” it’s not a surprise. Most of those guys have been doing campaigns the “old school” way since the 70s and 80s. The fact that they would see a new medium as a fad or marginally effective is not a surprise.

The GOP is full of people who learned on old media – mail, phones, radio, and TV – and don’t know anything else. What’s funny is I imagine the same quotes were probably uttered by consultants when cable TV came along.

“Let’s be honest: The people who take the time and energy to [watch cable television] have made up their minds months before any election.”“When it comes down to it, those who are motivated to act via [cable television] are not being swayed to a different party or to vote. They are simply using [cable television] as another way to communicate.”

Now we recognize cable television for what it is – a very cost effective way to deliver a narrowly focused message. The Internet and blogs are that, and so much more.

The reason is inherent in the two-way nature of blogs. Imagine if television allowed anyone, anywhere to instantly refute the newscast with an audience of equal or greater size. Viewing blogs as some passing fad, or some novelty misses the point. It’s shortsighted and conveys a lack of understanding of new media and how people adopt new technologies.

Blogs are merely part of a larger movement in media. The concept of the “blog” will soon fade, but the movement they represent – a broad, diverse network of small, niche market news gatherers and commentators – will remain. As long as these “professionals” and the party leaders approach the changing media landscape with the same conceptual framework they apply to one-way television transmission, they’re going to get hammered.

The trouble for the GOP is we approach bloggers the same way we approach the media. We feed them sound bites, and send them suggested blog topics, but we don’t involve them in the process. We give them widgets they can drop on their website, and we allow them to participate in conference calls or seminars occasionally, but we do not leverage their real power.

Their power is their passion for politics, and their connections. If you had a community leader, someone whose social network was extensive, knew everyone, could gather a variety of opinions on short notice, had both a deep understanding of issues and a source for vetting solutions with an audience representative of the general populace, that person would be an invaluable resource for the campaign. They would likely be asked to serve within the kitchen cabinet for a fair number of candidates. They would likely be sought as an endorsement in the primaries, and as a trusted advisor to campaigns.

Because they are online, however, and choose to spend a great deal of time on the computer and manage their connections via e-mail and IM, the bloggers – who fit the description above in every way – are treated as media, and offered only occasional glimpses of the campaign, and rarely brought in to help.

That’s what the GOP doesn’t see. As long as it remains blind to that, we run the risk of turning the Internet into what talk radio is for Democrats – a medium that is not understood, and which gives the other side great power. Unfortunately, the power of the Internet, compared to talk radio, is much greater and capable of inflicting far more damage on us than we inflict on them with the AM dial.

No responses yet

Journalistic Ethics

Jun 18 2006 Published by under News Media

News MediaBack in February, I wrote a piece about the difference between bloggers and mainstream media. My theory was that bloggers are more concerned about the story and the truth while the media – given its proximity to our entertainment culture – had become more interested in being pseudo-celebrities.

It seems I missed the target, but hit the tree. Joe Lauria has a piece in WaPo today about the unethical practices he claims were employed by Jason Leopold in his now infamous piece claiming Rove had been indicted.

I think there’s something else at play here. Leopold is in too many ways a man of his times. These days it is about the reporter, not the story; the actor, not the play; the athlete, not the game. Leopold is a product of a narcissistic culture that has not stopped at journalism’s door, a culture facilitated and expanded by the Internet.

I’m glad to see others who recognize this trend. I’m glad to see the MSM starting to point the finger at its own. If only operations like Truthout would practice the same sort of journalistic standards they apply to others, then people like Jason Leopold would not have a place in reporting the news.

No responses yet

Moderates Locked Out?

Jun 17 2006 Published by under Conventions, Politics, Republicans

PoliticsRepublicansThis one is a couple of weeks old, but was just brought to my attention. It seems the Wisconsin GOP passed a resolution at its state convention on the 20th of May that would bar the party from supporting moderate candidates. Resolution 25 reads:

2006-25 Conservative Direction: GOP

WHEREAS, the Republican Party of Wisconsin at the local, district, and state level at the Convention, has passed numerous resolutions of a conservative nature; favoring a smaller less intrusive government, a right to bear arms, and a directive to secure our borders, etc.; and

WHEREAS, these resolutions are the direction that the people of the party want their representatives to adhere to; and

WHEREAS, the people of the party recognize that while they cannot compel their representatives to vote in this manner, they can and do expect them to:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, urge the Republican Party to withhold all promotional and financial support of those candidates that do not consistently subscribe to this overall conservative agenda, be they incumbent or new candidates, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Republican Party actively and vigorously seek candidates that will go in this conservative direction, and respect the wishes of party members.

While I don’t think any Republican (with the possible exception of those currently in control of Congress and the White House) would quibble with the concepts of small government, the right to bear arms, and protecting our borders, this resolution sets a dangerous path for the party because it doesn’t define “conservative”.

I’m as conservative as you’re going to get on fiscal matters, and the size of government, but most social conservatives would consider me moderate to liberal on a lot of social issues. Would I get the support of the party? My guess is no.

The Wisconsin GOP has set a dangerous precedent for other state parties to follow. A resolution like this can be used to keep anyone out of the process – which candidate is the most conservative? – but will likely be used to keep moderates from getting party support.

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »