Ok, so for those who were only focused on the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (thank you copy and paste) this past week, it looks like President Bush has finally come around on the environment. So much so that the US held a two-day conference with the top 16 carbon emitters in the world at the end of this past week. The BBC has a piece on the meetings. Roger Harrabin has more on the Pres's motivations of the meetings as well.
A couple striking things from the article:
For one, the entire world calls the problem 'global warming.' The current administration calls it 'climate change.' Are they that afraid of being labeled environmentalists or being too worried to admit there is a problem that they cannot use the term that everyone else in the world is using? Or are they trying to brand themselves as the champion of the environment, just using a different name for the problem?
Another thing...If they are so committed to changing things around, why did they not specify any of their intended changes? As the first BBC article notes, all we have from them are statements like, " All nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best" from Condoleezza Rice and that the talks were held under the banner of trying to agree to the goals of "energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions." It seems like they are trying to say "hey look we can do something too" yet still not show any action.
Finally, why not agree to the Kyoto Protocol? You know that agreement that was reaching in 1997 that would require countries to reduce carbon emissions. That would be the most obvious way to show that you are really making a strong effort to curb the problem and start on a path to change.
I just don't see how they expect people to buy this talk.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Don't tase me bro--and don't take my money either
(***Homegrown Pundit would like to welcome Rachel to the forum. Rach is a grad student at the U of F. I asked her to write a guest post to help broaden the view of politics here, by focusing on some areas of policy and politics around the country we don't usually get exposed to much in DC. Any negative comments you may have can be sent to her. Any positive ones can be sent my way. --Dave)
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported this week that Charlie Crist, the Republican governor of Florida, has established an advisor of higher-education issues, “to serve as an intermediary between the governor's office and the state's colleges and universities. The role of Dean Colson, the adviser, is to work with the universities, lawmakers, and other stakeholders to find ways to improve access, affordability, and university governance. The appointment of the unpaid liaison comes at a crucial time for colleges, with tuition-setting authority in legal limbo and institutions facing potentially deep budget cuts.”
For those not living in Florida or attending one of the institutions affected, these are not “potential cuts”. Many state universities are already in crisis mode because of the millions of dollars they won't have this year. Florida State University has capped enrollment. USF could lose between $15-million and $36-million. The University of Florida is in a hiring freeze even though they historically have the lowest tuition of all the schools in the South Eastern Conference (athletic conference the institution's division 1 teams play in).
The St. Petersburg Times reported in July:
“The University of Florida's budget would shrink by about $30-million under the minimum 4 percent cut. And UCF could lose as much as $28-million. Other universities face similar cuts. The figures don't include the $19-million in potential revenue state universities lost with Crist's recent veto of a 5 percent increase in in-state undergraduate tuition.”
This “advisor” was put into place after the budget was cut, but his job is to look at institutions before “potential budget cuts.” Am I the only one seeing the problem here? If Crist was all that concerned about the access, affordability or university governance he should have had this “advisor” do the research before going to such drastic measures as to cut the state’s budget to education. It’s stupid to cut the budget to state institutions by millions of dollars each, then create an “advisor” to look into what’s going on in higher education. It’s an attempt by Crist to make him look better, like he cares. He cut funding to higher education then realized, “Oh shit, some people care about this kind of thing. Must think of something quick!”
Maybe I’m biased, in fact I know I’m biased, but it seems ridiculous that education is always the first thing to get cut when a state is in financial crisis. Just more proof the state isn’t as concerned about educating their citizens, how else would they get elected?
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported this week that Charlie Crist, the Republican governor of Florida, has established an advisor of higher-education issues, “to serve as an intermediary between the governor's office and the state's colleges and universities. The role of Dean Colson, the adviser, is to work with the universities, lawmakers, and other stakeholders to find ways to improve access, affordability, and university governance. The appointment of the unpaid liaison comes at a crucial time for colleges, with tuition-setting authority in legal limbo and institutions facing potentially deep budget cuts.”
For those not living in Florida or attending one of the institutions affected, these are not “potential cuts”. Many state universities are already in crisis mode because of the millions of dollars they won't have this year. Florida State University has capped enrollment. USF could lose between $15-million and $36-million. The University of Florida is in a hiring freeze even though they historically have the lowest tuition of all the schools in the South Eastern Conference (athletic conference the institution's division 1 teams play in).
The St. Petersburg Times reported in July:
“The University of Florida's budget would shrink by about $30-million under the minimum 4 percent cut. And UCF could lose as much as $28-million. Other universities face similar cuts. The figures don't include the $19-million in potential revenue state universities lost with Crist's recent veto of a 5 percent increase in in-state undergraduate tuition.”
This “advisor” was put into place after the budget was cut, but his job is to look at institutions before “potential budget cuts.” Am I the only one seeing the problem here? If Crist was all that concerned about the access, affordability or university governance he should have had this “advisor” do the research before going to such drastic measures as to cut the state’s budget to education. It’s stupid to cut the budget to state institutions by millions of dollars each, then create an “advisor” to look into what’s going on in higher education. It’s an attempt by Crist to make him look better, like he cares. He cut funding to higher education then realized, “Oh shit, some people care about this kind of thing. Must think of something quick!”
Maybe I’m biased, in fact I know I’m biased, but it seems ridiculous that education is always the first thing to get cut when a state is in financial crisis. Just more proof the state isn’t as concerned about educating their citizens, how else would they get elected?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Labour comes out swinging
No, I did no spell 'Labor' wrong. In fact, I am referring to the British Labour party.
(*Also special note, I'm going to try and write about some other politics from around the world, other than just domestic. Enjoy!)
As the BBC discusses, it looks like there will be a general election sometime in the next year or so. As this is the first Labour Party Conference for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister--which begins tomorrow--many are beginning to speculate when the next general elections will be held. For those who don't know, the party conferences are meeting places where the British political parties gather to discuss and party initiatives, policy and leadership decisions. They are kind of like party conventions, except things are actually discussed, there isn't as much pageantry, it's very business-like. Ok, so really they are nothing like the political conventions we are used to.
This will be an interesting conference for a number of reasons. Specifically it will be interesting to see how the public views the party. A couple years ago, the public opinion towards the Labour Party was not all that strong, having much to do with Tony Blair's position and actions on Iraq. The party has been making substantial gains recently when it comes to public perception. Additionally, with this being Brown's first conference as PM, it will be interesting to see what policy decisions and actions come out of it.
Regardless of the outcomes, Labour seems to be pretty confident of their chances when ever the Prime Minister calls for another election.
(*Also special note, I'm going to try and write about some other politics from around the world, other than just domestic. Enjoy!)
As the BBC discusses, it looks like there will be a general election sometime in the next year or so. As this is the first Labour Party Conference for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister--which begins tomorrow--many are beginning to speculate when the next general elections will be held. For those who don't know, the party conferences are meeting places where the British political parties gather to discuss and party initiatives, policy and leadership decisions. They are kind of like party conventions, except things are actually discussed, there isn't as much pageantry, it's very business-like. Ok, so really they are nothing like the political conventions we are used to.
This will be an interesting conference for a number of reasons. Specifically it will be interesting to see how the public views the party. A couple years ago, the public opinion towards the Labour Party was not all that strong, having much to do with Tony Blair's position and actions on Iraq. The party has been making substantial gains recently when it comes to public perception. Additionally, with this being Brown's first conference as PM, it will be interesting to see what policy decisions and actions come out of it.
Regardless of the outcomes, Labour seems to be pretty confident of their chances when ever the Prime Minister calls for another election.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
DC Voting Rights Update
As the Wapo reported, the vote failed to get the 60 votes it needed in the Senate to move forward. Not an actual vote, but a vote TO vote.
Some noticeable statements:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): "If we were to expand the House, Montana's voice would become less influential."
One, you already have 3 full voting members of Congress. DC with around 60,000 fewer residents has none. Also, when was the last time you heard about this guy being influential?
Senator John Warner (R-VA): "My view is that only a constitutional amendment . . . will resolve this issue and thereby avoid interminable litigation flowing from an act of Congress."
The post is reporting that Sen. Warner is currently drafting the Constitutional Amendment. I sincerely applaud his effort to get this important voting rights measure in the Constitution. However, something here I find puzzling. He supports the measure so much he's willing to change the Constitution, yet didn't vote for the bill.
Some noticeable statements:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): "If we were to expand the House, Montana's voice would become less influential."
One, you already have 3 full voting members of Congress. DC with around 60,000 fewer residents has none. Also, when was the last time you heard about this guy being influential?
Senator John Warner (R-VA): "My view is that only a constitutional amendment . . . will resolve this issue and thereby avoid interminable litigation flowing from an act of Congress."
The post is reporting that Sen. Warner is currently drafting the Constitutional Amendment. I sincerely applaud his effort to get this important voting rights measure in the Constitution. However, something here I find puzzling. He supports the measure so much he's willing to change the Constitution, yet didn't vote for the bill.
The media and the public
For an assignment, we were asked to look at three sites news media sites and how they reach out to the public. Here are my findings:
The Washington Post: Pretty good job out outreach to the blogging community. They have a number of tracking options and generally put together a number of events to permit live interaction (such as frequent q&a sessions on various topics). They also have their own bloggers who will post throughout the day and on occasion (like during last year’s election cycle) will do video blogs.
MSNBC: Do a pretty good job of allowing people to comment on posts and articles. Additionally, they even have a substantial portion of their website devoted to blogs and blog-type content.
And finally…
Fox News: Not so good on the user-friendly outreach. While they do have a blogger section, it seems to be buried on the pager. Also, unlike MSNBC, they don’t allow users to comment on news stories.
The Washington Post: Pretty good job out outreach to the blogging community. They have a number of tracking options and generally put together a number of events to permit live interaction (such as frequent q&a sessions on various topics). They also have their own bloggers who will post throughout the day and on occasion (like during last year’s election cycle) will do video blogs.
MSNBC: Do a pretty good job of allowing people to comment on posts and articles. Additionally, they even have a substantial portion of their website devoted to blogs and blog-type content.
And finally…
Fox News: Not so good on the user-friendly outreach. While they do have a blogger section, it seems to be buried on the pager. Also, unlike MSNBC, they don’t allow users to comment on news stories.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
'We the People' Review
Written by journalist/blogger Dan Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People chronicles the development of media in this country. From revolutionary times and the use of the Federalist Papers to today’s bloggers and the weight they carry in the political/business/technology arenas, Gillmor’s book talks about the importance of embracing and promoting civil engagement to better out culture and values. Gillmor does an excellent job of opening a window into the behind-the-scenes of the current technological and journalistic revolution and how different bodies in our society (specifically big businesses, big media and the government) help and hurt the current developments and expansion of media publishing.
For the most part I found Gillmor’s insight very interesting. His discussion about how the ‘Big Media’ (i.e. large older media organizations like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal) have had a propensity to try and block and create barriers of entry for bloggers/civilian journalists to enter their realms due to a kind of fear was very intriguing. Other discussions, such as copyright laws I feel were too one-sided (which to his credit he did tend to giving varying views on many if not most of his other subjects) and didn’t give enough differing points of view.
I did have a few issues with the some stylistic elements of Gillmor’s writing. Whether it was his intention or not, Gillmor’s writing approach in this book had very much of a blog-written feel to it. Gillmor added his own opinions and insertions that didn’t really resonate with me (i.e. his insertion of which Star Trek program he favored) and didn’t seem to add any value to the information. Also, he tended to write with a rollercoaster approach much of the time. When he would gave details about the development of journalism and technology he would write a positive, up-lifting statement about the nature and future of something and just as quickly bring you down to earth by giving a counter argument. Finally, he tended to self-promote a little too much, discussing where he’s traveled, worked, taught, who he knows, etc. I rolled my eyes every time a new discussion of something he has done or who he knew arose.
I tend to write many questions on the margins of the book as internal questions arise (such as in this case: What are the implications of citizen journalism with regards to accountability? Aren’t bloggers for the most part just reacting to mainstream journalism? Doesn’t blogging tend create a single viewpoint of information disseminating that essentially blocks differing viewpoints from entering the conversation?) Just as I would think I had a discovered a question that Gillmor wouldn’t answer, sure enough he answered at some point later on through the text. Furthermore, I thought Gillmor did a great job of predicting the future of the internet’s growing influence over and interaction with politics (while there is no way of knowing in 2004 when the book was written how sites such as YouTube would effect political outcomes, he did talk about how internet technologies would become significant factors in upcoming elections as politicians embraced and learned to use emerging tools to communicate deeper with the electorate).
For the most part I found Gillmor’s insight very interesting. His discussion about how the ‘Big Media’ (i.e. large older media organizations like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal) have had a propensity to try and block and create barriers of entry for bloggers/civilian journalists to enter their realms due to a kind of fear was very intriguing. Other discussions, such as copyright laws I feel were too one-sided (which to his credit he did tend to giving varying views on many if not most of his other subjects) and didn’t give enough differing points of view.
I did have a few issues with the some stylistic elements of Gillmor’s writing. Whether it was his intention or not, Gillmor’s writing approach in this book had very much of a blog-written feel to it. Gillmor added his own opinions and insertions that didn’t really resonate with me (i.e. his insertion of which Star Trek program he favored) and didn’t seem to add any value to the information. Also, he tended to write with a rollercoaster approach much of the time. When he would gave details about the development of journalism and technology he would write a positive, up-lifting statement about the nature and future of something and just as quickly bring you down to earth by giving a counter argument. Finally, he tended to self-promote a little too much, discussing where he’s traveled, worked, taught, who he knows, etc. I rolled my eyes every time a new discussion of something he has done or who he knew arose.
I tend to write many questions on the margins of the book as internal questions arise (such as in this case: What are the implications of citizen journalism with regards to accountability? Aren’t bloggers for the most part just reacting to mainstream journalism? Doesn’t blogging tend create a single viewpoint of information disseminating that essentially blocks differing viewpoints from entering the conversation?) Just as I would think I had a discovered a question that Gillmor wouldn’t answer, sure enough he answered at some point later on through the text. Furthermore, I thought Gillmor did a great job of predicting the future of the internet’s growing influence over and interaction with politics (while there is no way of knowing in 2004 when the book was written how sites such as YouTube would effect political outcomes, he did talk about how internet technologies would become significant factors in upcoming elections as politicians embraced and learned to use emerging tools to communicate deeper with the electorate).
Saturday, September 15, 2007
2008 VA Senate Race
Current Senator John Warner is retiring after his current term expires. And because in today's 'we-need-to-know-four-years-in-advanced-who-is-running-for-president' society, people are beginning to throw their names in the race. Right now, former VA Governor Mark Warner (no relation to John) has thrown his hat in the race. Current Republican representative Tom Davis (VA-11) is being coy right now about getting into the race, but most expect him to do so.
If this does happen, this will be one of the best Senate races to watch in 2008 (along with Minnesota...I think the Senate needs some humor). Warner is a very popular Democrat in a state that up until this past election cycle didn't generally elect Democrats. Rep. Davis is considered more of a liberal Republican. In a state with greatly changing demographics, this will be very interesting to watch.
If this does happen, this will be one of the best Senate races to watch in 2008 (along with Minnesota...I think the Senate needs some humor). Warner is a very popular Democrat in a state that up until this past election cycle didn't generally elect Democrats. Rep. Davis is considered more of a liberal Republican. In a state with greatly changing demographics, this will be very interesting to watch.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Taxation without Representation
Being from DC, the issue of voting rights for the city has always been important to me. For a nation that declared war against the British under a rally cry of "No Taxation without Representation" we have been slow to develop essential voting rights for all citizens.
In the next week (Tuesday most likely), The DC Voting Rights Act is set to be voted on by the Senate. And to my surprise, there seems to be a good amount of support for the bill from both sides of the isle, as emphasized in an op-ed in the Washington Post this past Wednesday from Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Lieberman (I-CT) and Representatives Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Davis (R-VA 11). But, the closer we get to a vote, the more rumblings I hear about a possible filibuster to block the vote by some Senate Republicans.
I really have to ask, what the hell? Yes, DC does have a representative in Congress, but as Stephen Colbert made clear, DC's representative (no offense to Rep. Holmes Norton) lacks teeth without any voting rights in the House. Yet, DC has more residents than the states of Wyoming, and...well just Wyoming. Furthermore, Congress still has the right to govern over the finances of the District. But still, almost 600,000 people living in the nation's capital and cannot have a say over laws and funding that directly impact them.
Opponents of the bill claim that voting representation is set out in the Constitution only for states. They are interpreting the language in the Constitution in the strictest and most narrowed sense. The founding fathers however denounced the notion of residents being taxed without adequate means to represent themselves. In my mind at least, while it isn't implicit in the Constitution, the founders intended to give voting representation to District residents. In my mind (and here is where my political ideology filters through) what this boils down to is that Republicans don't want to enable a significant Democratic voting block.
This coming Monday (September 17) is Constitution Day, the 220th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution. It is a shame that on such a monumental day of achievement, we still have citizens struggling to achieve voting representation--one of the vary principles our founding fathers rebelled for--against our own governmental body.
So that's my two cents. Once something happens, whether an actual vote or a filibuster, I'll have a follow up response.
In the next week (Tuesday most likely), The DC Voting Rights Act is set to be voted on by the Senate. And to my surprise, there seems to be a good amount of support for the bill from both sides of the isle, as emphasized in an op-ed in the Washington Post this past Wednesday from Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Lieberman (I-CT) and Representatives Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Davis (R-VA 11). But, the closer we get to a vote, the more rumblings I hear about a possible filibuster to block the vote by some Senate Republicans.
I really have to ask, what the hell? Yes, DC does have a representative in Congress, but as Stephen Colbert made clear, DC's representative (no offense to Rep. Holmes Norton) lacks teeth without any voting rights in the House. Yet, DC has more residents than the states of Wyoming, and...well just Wyoming. Furthermore, Congress still has the right to govern over the finances of the District. But still, almost 600,000 people living in the nation's capital and cannot have a say over laws and funding that directly impact them.
Opponents of the bill claim that voting representation is set out in the Constitution only for states. They are interpreting the language in the Constitution in the strictest and most narrowed sense. The founding fathers however denounced the notion of residents being taxed without adequate means to represent themselves. In my mind at least, while it isn't implicit in the Constitution, the founders intended to give voting representation to District residents. In my mind (and here is where my political ideology filters through) what this boils down to is that Republicans don't want to enable a significant Democratic voting block.
This coming Monday (September 17) is Constitution Day, the 220th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution. It is a shame that on such a monumental day of achievement, we still have citizens struggling to achieve voting representation--one of the vary principles our founding fathers rebelled for--against our own governmental body.
So that's my two cents. Once something happens, whether an actual vote or a filibuster, I'll have a follow up response.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
2008 Fringe Candidate Debate
SNL got ahead of the game last season.
According to CNN there are 17 active candidates now running for President in 2008 (8 on the Democratic side, 9 on the Republican). That, coupled with 15 or so debates that have already happened this year, it's nice to see some good non-politically-tested debate humor.
According to CNN there are 17 active candidates now running for President in 2008 (8 on the Democratic side, 9 on the Republican). That, coupled with 15 or so debates that have already happened this year, it's nice to see some good non-politically-tested debate humor.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Crooks and Liars
Crooks and Liars is one of my favorite blogs. It does a pretty good job of showing how the media reports and is affected by politics.
Recently they started posting the "In Memoriam" portion from ABC's This Week. For those who don't know, it's the segment on the show that looks back at those important figures who have died during this past week, as well as the soldiers who were killed in Iraq.
If you get a chance, check out Logan Murphy's posting this morning at Crooks and Liars for yourself
Recently they started posting the "In Memoriam" portion from ABC's This Week. For those who don't know, it's the segment on the show that looks back at those important figures who have died during this past week, as well as the soldiers who were killed in Iraq.
If you get a chance, check out Logan Murphy's posting this morning at Crooks and Liars for yourself
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
