Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

One of the more audacious moves that our legislators have pulled on American tax-payers was the passing of public financing for Presidential candidates. Under the guise of preserving the "integrity" of our political system, and not allowing companies and individuals to have too much "undue influence" on our elected officials, they generously offer matching funds for candidates, as well as a variety of other services, for which the tax-payers pick up the tab. In exchange, they agree to a wide variety of rules and regulations about the campaign instituted theoretically ensure fairness. Yesterday we were able to see an interesting dichotomy in the supposed "small-government party: John McCain accepted an $84 Million grant from the US government, while the big-government candidate, Barrack Obama, rejected it.

The irony of what happened here seems to be lost on many, who are focusing mostly on attacking Obama for a previous statement saying he would accept the funds. It is amazing for me to see the candidate that many -including myself- fear will do much to increase the size of government, also be the first candidate in 38 years to reject government subsidies for his campaign.

From every logical perspective, it makes no sense for Obama to accept it. He has had record breaking fund raising, having raised almost three times as much as McCain. The money he would be eligible for wouldn't benefit him as much as the restrictions would hurt. But instead of using this as a great opportunity to claim it as a victory for government reform and decreasing the size of government, Obama's camp is saying that the government simply isn't offering enough.

From the Politico.com article:

In order to fix the system, Kalman said, candidates who accept public financing should get more than $84 million and should be entitled to additional cash if they find themselves assailed by 527s – both provisions in the bill Obama co-sponsored.

Absolutely pathetic. Apparently its not enough that we're paying for bridges to nowhere, paying people to not work, and paying for McCain's campaign; Obama's thinks we need to pay more, in order to make it worth his while.

I really wish I could like Obama's policies as much as I like his persona. He's a great orator, he's charismatic, he just portrays that certain je ne sais quoi that one wants to have in the person who represents our country to the world. I just cannot get over the fact that he wants to expand entitlements, create socialized health care, and generally increase the size of our government. When I first heard that he was the first presidential candidate in 38 years to reject campaign finance I allowed myself to hope that perhaps this was a hint that he wouldn't be that bad, and perhaps that he'd consider at least some rhetoric about reducing the size of government. Instead what I got was what I should've expected to begin with, more of the same propaganda that the solution is to make the government do more, instead of less.

Read More...

Summary only...

You know what I’m tired of? I’m tired of watching the news every day, hungry for information, and receiving nothing but crumbs. It is impossible to obtain information from these petty peddlers who seem to believe that flashy on-screen graphics and bottom-of-the screen quotes (of what was said two seconds earlier) is a substitute for producing actual content. I watched several hours of the CNN coverage of the June 3rd primary before realizing that I knew no more at the end of the third hour than I did 15 minutes into the first.

What surprises me the most is that they claim they’re adapting to their viewer base. Their excuse for the excrement they ejaculate is “this is what America wants”. While there is surely a basis of truth in their plea, it’s also a copout. Simply said, infotainment is easier to deliver than information, and infotainment sells better than the news. I don’t begrudge them their right to gain as many viewers as they possibly can to increase their revenue. It is a business, and for a business to not seek profitability would be an idiotic contradiction. But the direction they have chosen to take towards obtaining profits precludes them from the claim that they are journalists.

It is much easier to do what I do, take a small piece of information and build an entertaining dialogue around it, than it is to research and report the entirety of a situation. A researcher must strive to be objective, but an infotainer gains from the loss of objectivity, because it allows for wild speculation. The infotainment industry doesn’t have to engage in the struggles of competition that existed in the past, where the broadcaster with the most information, the clearest reporting, the deepest digging, got the ratings. Now they can simply sell their perspective, with spin pandering to viewers that already agree with them. Take 30 seconds of information; spend the next 29.5 minutes spinning it left or right; profit. For me to say this might be considered self-condemnation. The difference is that I'm I’m an editorialist. It is not my job to research and discover the intricate facts, but to interpret them and give my opinion, and I make no pretense that what I'm doing is journalism.

If we are to live in the 24 hour news cycle, in the age of ADD and information bombardment, then the way of progress is to offer more through these media, not less. One would think that by this point in the presidential campaign, a real journalistic outfit would be able to publish a concise set of views on different issues by the major candidates, but with the exception of a few sound bites, trying to find out a candidates position on any specific issue is more difficult than finding out what Britney Spears wore to dinner last week. Instead we get a cult of personality for Obama on CNN and NBC, and for McCain on Fox News.

I suppose this post does not follow the traditional voice of this blog, but it comes out of the extreme frustration of seeking for news for the past couple of hours, and realizing it is nigh impossible to find it in the traditional avenues. Like many of my generation, I am unable to view the newscasters of this age with the same respect and trust that my parents and grandparents had in theirs. To attempt to compare Walter Cronkite to Bill O’Reily is as laughable as comparing the journalistic standards of the Enquirer to the New York Times. I can’t fight the feeling that the newsman is smiling not because of the satisfaction of a job well done, but the coy smirk of a con man that has tricked a mark. I struggle to find the difference between MSNBC and Entertainment Tonight. Yet we accept one as journalism and the other as pop-trash, when the only difference is the prestige we give by our willingness to accept the farce.

Read More...

Summary only...

What happens when you rely on the government to do your dirty work, instead of your success? Well, sometimes it comes back to bite you. A few weeks ago I discussed how the broadcast radio industry was lobbying to increase the royalties paid by internet radio. Well, it seems that now it's coming back to haunt them. This week the internet radio crowd got together with recording artists and are now asking congress force broadcast radio to pay royalties.



The National Association of Broadcasters' spokesman, Dennis Wharton said the following:

“The value of over-the-air play so far outweighs these other technologies — whether it’s satellite radio or Web streaming, it’s not a true comparison. Ask any artist what they’d prefer to be played on,” Wharton said.

That argument seems to make sense, the artists are getting a huge benefit and they should have a choice whether to accept the benefit in exchange for not receiving royalties. However, it appears recording artists don't get to make that decision:

The push to force radio stations to pay artists’ royalties dates back to the 1930s, when big-band leader Paul Whiteman instructed his record label to print “Not authorized for radio play” on his records. Radio still played the records. Whiteman sued and lost on appeal, and the industry has been fighting for royalties ever since, Simson said.

This entire ordeal is just baffling to me. Does Amazon.com get to give away my essays, since its good advertising for my books? I am hard pressed to understand what kind of logical court would decide in favor of the recording industry in that specific case. I don't think the government should be part of it either way, it should be an agreement between the radio companies and the broadcast companies, with the government just enforcing their contracts. But now that the radio companies have opened the flood gates with their attempts to squash internet radio, there's a vindictive side of me that hopes they have to pay too, but the entire ordeal worries me.

Instead of people making money based on the value of their service, they are making it by using the government to put the competition out of business. By fighting the broadcasting companies with their own dirty tricks, they might get their way this time, but they have accepted and engaged in trading in the clout economy. I would rather see the little guy win because we was doing things better than the big guy. I don't want to grow up in a world where it's not what you do, but who you know, that brings you success.

Read More...

Summary only...