Says who?

            Humans beings are exceptional creatures in that they can speak.  And they can write.  And think.  Well, maybe some people skip the thinking part and go straight to the speaking, but the point is that we do say things and we have developed a sophisticated apparatus of being able to know what other people are saying.

            I don’t necessarily mean this blog, for instance, or your Twitter or your Facebook page, where you can see who is saying what.  Those are your friends—they can see what you are saying and vice versa.  I’m not talking about what any one person says, I’m talking about what people are saying.  People, as in Joe and Jane Q. Public.  The kind of people who you don’t know—and who you probably don’t want to know…but still, you are kind of curious as to what they are saying.

            What are people saying about the stimulus package?  What are people saying about health care?  What are people saying about Rhianna and Chris Brown?  Fortunately, we have a free and functioning (although slowly declining) press to report and contextualize what people think.

            But the problem, see, is that people think different things.  And even when they think the same thing, it may be for different reasons.  So, at any given time, on any given issue, we can only know what some people say.  That’s why news articles are littered with the phrase, “some say.”  That’s awfully vague, isn’t it?  What if only five people are saying what the reporter is saying they are saying?  And the other 302 million people (minus five) in this country are saying the exact opposite?  It would seem to me that there is no way of telling the difference between what “some people” are saying compared to “most people.”

            But on the other hand, there is the chance that you might be one of the people in “some people.”  That’s a nice means of airing what you think.  Now everyone will know what you are thinking, and you will know that some other people are also thinking what you’re thinking.  Of course, they won’t know you are thinking it because you aren’t someone in particular; you’re just…well, some people.

            Of course, some people are more important than “some people”; they are Dr. Some People, Senator Some People…these people are not people, they are “some experts.”  These people are useful for putting up arguments that may or may not pass the muster if just some ordinary people were saying it.  If I were to report that “some people are saying that the Republicans will take back the Senate in 2010,” that’s a lot less credible than if “some political experts say that Republicans will make extraordinary gains in the 2010 election”.

            So where does that leave us?  Well, we know that some people are saying some things.  Dumb things certainly, intelligent things possibly, but we have no way of knowing who is saying what and how many are saying it.  Sure, we can have a little bit of context, if we know for example that 32 percent of people are saying that the stimulus plan will work.  But it’s entirely possible that every person you know is saying that it will fail.  Whom do you believe?  “Some people”?  Your instincts?  The facts?  Personally, I try not to believe too much of anything.  After all, I could be wrong. 

       Though some may disagree.

State of the Blog Address

      August 25 marked the three-month anniversary of The 28th Amendment’s operation.  In that time, this site has received over one thousand visits resulting from Internet searches, WordPress tag surfing, and a few dedicated viewers who check in from time to time.  Countless hours have been spent over the past hundred days reading, reacting to, and revolutionizing the way that news is presented to the blogosphere—hopefully with some historical context and subtle wit (although your mileage may vary).  When that fails, a Barack Obama upskirt photo is not out of the question.

            Now, a question for you: do you like what you see?  Do you have a talent for writing/photography/videography that can be used to crusade for social justice?  You see, far from being another highly opinionated corner of cyberspace, the Amendment’s goal is to be a source of sociopolitical analysis and literary experimentation—both of which are not necessarily able to be met while posting tri-weekly.  Therefore, we are seeking to be an online newsmagazine of sorts, and are looking for talented citizen journalists to help fill our ranks.  Hopefully, in the coming months the Amendment could become a powerhouse in the style of Huffington Post, Slate.com, and the other big players in the news blog industry.

            If you have the motivation to write but have never had the wherewithal, consider joining The 28th Amendment.  The key to building a recurring readership is blog well and blog often—with the addition of more staff writers, we can hopefully bolster our output to daily postings.  With a viewership exceeding many hundreds of visits per week (and increasing geometrically for the foreseeable future), your thoughts would be guaranteed a modest but growing audience.  To join our potentially-award-eligible ranks, drop a note to

msk5n AT virginia.edu

and include a sample of your work.  If you can provide one piece of multimedia journalism each week, that contribution would be welcome.

            Aside from that request, thanks to everyone who has made it a habit of reading the Amendment.  And remember, keep writing to your congressmen: we’re awfully close to getting ¾ of state legislatures to ratify this website; and when that happens, we’ll be living large!

John Edwards: His Final Campaign

            On Friday, former Democratic Senator John Edwards went on the record as having had an affair with a 44-year-old campaign contractor in 2006.  While his interview with ABC’s Bob Woodruff was not an apology (which Edwards technically does not owe to the public anyway), but it offered a different twist from the approaches of Larry Craig (admitting to have a “wide stance”), Mark Foley (admitting to be an alcoholic), or Elliot Spitzer (admitting he was a douche with his wife standing right next to him).  Edwards turned into the defense attorney rather than the defendant; the “closing argument” basically admonished the public for not forgiving him when clearly his two higher authorities—God and Wife—had.  Furthermore, he blamed an adoring society for taking a small-town boy in North Carolina and turning him into a sex-starved egotist.  And besides, John McCain admitted to having made mistakes with his first wife.  So at the end of the Edwards press conference/confessional, the two take-away points were that 1.) his family is dealing with the matter appropriately and 2.) who’s to say that John McCain didn’t bang a whore or two also?

For all of his coolness, Edwards did make a slightly dubious claim.  When asked why his wife was not present for the interview, he responded:

“She’s here, she’s right here (points to heart).  I can promise you that.  She is all the time.” 

You know, if she were inside his heart all the time, she would probably have been screaming, “Hey asshole, what the fuck do you think you’re doing?!” when he was in the process of tapping his mistress.  But besides that, Edwards is right to insist that the details be kept in the family and that the occurrence is not without precedent.  Thomas Jefferson, after all, fathered a shadow family with one of his light-skinned slaves—a behavior which was actually not uncommon among slaveowning patriarchs in the South.  When a scandalous newspaper editor seeking a post office position was shunned by the president, the man revealed Jefferson’s affair with “Dusky Sally,” which Jefferson and his family knew to be absolutely true.  (But it was not, in fact taboo to engage in such a practice in the South; it was merely taboo to talk about it.)  Anyway, the newspaper editor got drunk and drowned two years later and the point became moot until the availability of DNA testing revived the tale.

The editor of the National Enquirer, which broke the story fully in December 2007, told Larry King that he still has more dirt left on Edwards.  I wonder if any of that entails the revelation that Edwards killed Kurt Cobain or that he is secretly an alien.  No offense to the Enquirer, but for every story of senatorial malfeasance they nail, there are thousands of totally craptastic features:

I don’t blame the mainstream media for not picking up the story for more than half a year simply because it appeared in the tabloids (akin to “the boy who cried wolf” scenario), but they also genuinely seemed to have a problem with pinning down the source.  After all, the informant to the Enquirer could have simply collected the tip reward and kept his/her lips shut to anyone else, knowing that the tabloid’s reputation would preclude a full scale investigation.  But now that the details are known, some questions are left unanswered.

For example, which monies were used to pay for Rielle Hunter’s video-editing service—public contributions or private funds?  Hunter is certainly entitled to compensation for the Edwards campaign, but $114,000 paid to a newly-founded company seems exorbitant for four YouTube segments that, frankly, look like they were made by a computer-savvy intern with a basic knowledge of camera work.  Then there is the issue over Hunter’s child’s sire.  Edwards seemed willing to take a paternity test, but since Hunter now refuses, it could have been merely a bluff.  So is the admitted father, Andrew Young (a campaign finance adviser and friend of Edwards), merely a fall guy for the chief?  Was Edwards the second sperm-shooter on the grassy knoll?

Who knows?  But it’s hardly important right now.  His career as a public figure is probably over, and in time America will have its senses shocked by another politician who preaches moral absolutism but then reneges on his principles.  Truth be told, crookedness in the style of Senator Ted Stevens is more worrisome to me because of the direct impact financial coziness can have on legislation and appropriation of the people’s money; if a congressman needs to bang his camera girl in order to better focus on fighting poverty, c’est la vie.  Let’s cast Edwards to moral irrelevance and focus on the escalating Russo-Georgian conflict and innumerable other issues. 

And say, isn’t it awfully convenient that war broke out in Eastern Europe right after Edwards made the announcement?  It’s almost as if he planned the Russian invasion to divert media attention…whether it’s true or not, I hope that the fine investigative journalists at the National Enquirer will explore the connection.

8/12

Obama’s Candid Camera

          I know the media is supposed to be the governmental watchdog, but my goodness, this clip from CNN is downright voyeuristic:

            This just in: Barack Obama is normal guy.  Full story coming up in the Situation Room.

Why on Earth would CNN dedicate a camera crew to just follow Obama around?  Is it so hard to believe that when he is not giving speeches, meeting with foreign leaders, and giving people hope that he is just regular, wealthy American father and husband? 

I can only think of two reasons why Obama walking into a barber shop would merit Michael Jackson-courtroom-level coverage.  The cynical explanation: those people would love to be the first ones on the scene if Obama makes a gaffe—such as if he accidentally gets caught praying to Allah or Michelle calls someone “whitey” or something.  Or the “Animal Planet” explanation: they are trying to catch the candidate in his natural habitat, getting him so used to the media’s presence as to provide a glimpse into his everyday life; it’s similar to a human interest story, if the “storytelling” were reduced to “stalking.”

It is true that politicians are expected to be increasingly open to the public as cameras and new means of communication proliferate.  From 1896 when William Jennings Bryan started the revolution of presidential candidates physically campaigning for office; to FDR’s Fireside Chats over the radio; to the Nixon-Kennedy television debates; and now the discussion over whether the Supreme Court may be the next target for C-SPAN’s cameras.  Government officials find it either mandatory or beneficial to submit to the media’s probes (and often are able to control the terms of engagement).  But following the guy to his daughter’s soccer game and videotaping him yawning, using his Blackberry, and cheering on his daughter?  The guy can’t even scratch his balls without Soledad O’Brien checking in “on the eights.”  Take five, CNN; there’s probably a cat stuck in a tree somewhere that needs to be covered.

By the way, my favorite part of the video is at 1:40, where Michelle Obama starts playfully slapping her husband around and you can hear the gasp of the correspondent.  If a few fake bitchslaps can momentarily shock an intrepid reporter, perhaps she hadn’t noticed the daily “parade of horribles” of death and violence that comprises CNN programming.

8/7

Obama Ready For His Close Up

Last week the Prince of Peace, Barack Obama, breezed through Europe and the Middle East on a fact-finding/public relations tour. His message was simple enough—the need for cooperation among all citizens of the world to confront the struggles of the twenty-first century, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and global warming. But after Obama finished addressing heads of state and crowds of 200,000, the media turned the lens on themselves—wondering if they were too enamored with the affable and worldly Illinois Senator and too dismissive of the golf-cart-riding, supermarket-shopping, German Sausage Haus-patronizing Republican nominee.

            One could make the argument that yes, the media lionizes Barack Obama far more than an unbiased institution should.  Or it could be pointed out that through the demonization of Jeremiah Wright, the Michelle Obama “really proud” controversy, and the insinuation of fear about Obama’s madrasa education, the media is opportunistic at best and hyperemotional at worst. (Of course, that could never, ever be true in the blogosphere, right?)  But I think the issue, if framed historically, might not seem so unprecedented and openly partisan.  Let me take you back in the election cycle to 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression.

Herbert Hoover, the reconstruction guru of WWI (and later WWII), inherited the seeds of the Depression through the freewheeling credit policies of banks in the Roaring Twenties. Though his humanitarian efforts abroad were laudable, his advocacy of volunteerism and rugged individualism in the face of job loss and bank failure were mortifying. Not to mention his reputation was sunk by allowing the United States Army, under the suggestion of Douglas MacArthur, to run the Bonus Army of veterans out of Washington, D.C., rather than negotiate their pretty simple demands.

Enter Franklin Roosevelt. The New York state senator, governor, and undersecretary of the Navy was not an intellectual, not politically-savvy, and in general, not an impressive individual. His schoolmates derided him for being snobby, effete and “too English” (which is easy to understand if you have heard his speaking style), not to mention he gave up on being a lawyer and was a failed business entrepreneur. He was elected to state offices largely because of his spunk and charm with the electorate—not to mention that his polio seemed to cure him of snobbery (though not of his forceful personality). He descended onto the Washington scene as the “anyone but Hoover” mentality had sunk in (similar to the “anyone but Bush” and “vote for change” attitude of today). FDR’s people lambasted the incumbent by throwing out phrases like “Hooverville” and “Hoovercar” to denote a failed administration.

But FDR’s mandate to lead was not just a product of luck and timing. After the 1932 Democratic Convention, he flew into Chicago the next day to deliver his acceptance speech—two practices which heretofore were unprecedented and showed an enthusiasm to break with the past and to usher in an administration of “liberal thought, of planned action, of enlightened international outlook, and of the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens.” By showing the strength to stand up and excruciatingly execute his special walk on stage, he gave the (wrongful) impression that he had conquered his polio, a disease which everyone knew afflicted him. The event which clinched FDR’s worth in the minds of citizens, though, came a month before his inauguration when he survived an assassination attempt and was viewed to have been spared by Providence, as if God had given his holy stamp of approval on the president-elect. 

Once in the White House, Roosevelt once again broke precedent by distancing himself from the stony and secluded Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover by letting the press actually ask questions of him in person during nearly one thousand press briefings over his twelve years in office. Journalists, unquestionably disarmed by the president’s charm (and undoubtedly unsure how best to exploit this new power) even helped FDR by not pressing him when he had to be corrected by his press secretary or by warning him that certain pieces of information should be labeled as off the record. Coupled with the Fireside Chats, this was an exercise in candidness, transparency, and goodwill that endeared him to the common man—much more than the joyless Hoover—if not to the elites (who still saw him as a brainless, crafty, socialist snob).

Today it could be argued that as gas and food prices rise, flooding in the Midwest has wrecked crops, the war in Iraq is costing us billions of dollars each month, mortgages are falling through and banks are failing, George W. Bush is certainly the worst president since Hoover and Americans want to break from his administration as quickly as possible. As a candidate, Barack Obama is amiable, says all the right things, and not only seeks to mobilize but has already mobilized old and new voters to improve the standard of living for the downtrodden of America and also spread the message of cooperation throughout the world. In this new and unusual spirit of hopefulness, the media have unwittingly traded accuracy for access in their reporting, as was the case with Roosevelt.

Saying that Obama has a rock star aura may certainly describe his personal appeal, but he is simply a larger-than-life politician who is gifted with the ability to give feeling to what he says. He can proclaim “People of Berlin—people of the world—this is our moment. This is our time” and mean it. By contrast, whenever McCain addresses a crowd with “my friends” (an FDR verbal cue, by the way), it sounds hollow and unimpressive. Thus, since Obama possesses a media-friendly persona—i.e. he stages world tours, gives landmark speeches on race, rallies hundreds of thousands of people—while McCain remains aloof, the media appear to be cooperating more with him (though certainly not on the level as the White House reporters under Roosevelt) because Obama gives them access to newsworthy events.