Welcome to Open Source Politics

Last night saw a fantastic shift in the direction of politics with the introduction of a debate involving questions posted on YouTube which meant that for the first time, at least in outward appearance, the country's true questions were answered. The magnitude of this debate is great in that it was the first political debate on a large, nationally televised stage that encouraged the active involvement of common people in the shaping of political policy and the priorities of issues in the coming election.

The irony of course is the fact that it has been quite some time since we've seen such a public display of, well...democracy.

So with the facilitation of such a debate generating a buzz among my peers and I about the concept that the candidates in the coming elections are taking relatively unedited, difficult, and relevant questions on the issues that the public truly cares about, what's next? Obviously, if we entertained every single whim of every joe blow with a microphone and a webcam, the government would become a confusing and disjointed place.

Like Linux?

For those who have never heard about it, Linux is an open-source operating system, which means that as the operating system develops, it does so by the work of anyone who wants to pick up the program and edit it. The concept is that by the collective work on applications and the core code of the Linux operating system, we will end up with a desktop environment that tailors to the true needs of the people who use it: anyone who touches a computer. This means that everyone can take part in shaping their computing future.

Yes, I'm a geek.

As a user of Ubuntu, which is a "flavor" or specific version of Linux, I enjoyed my short trip down an exciting new path in computers. My only complaints with Linux were these:

1. The programs seemed unvarnished. Not as "pretty" as other programs that I had used and so I had a harder time accepting them as quality.
   
2. The support for different filetypes was limited and there was no "one size fits all" program to take care of the problem. This meant searching far and wide for a myriad of software that perhaps clashed with one another.
3. Sometimes the programs I used were singular in that they only worked as long as no other manipulation had occured with the core of the operating system. The programmers sometimes seemed to disregard the universality of the open-source system.

My overall impression was that, though the concept was great that people could have open access to programs and edit them as they pleased, there was no universal standard to govern the programs and make sure that they all worked.

The idea that a universal body needs to exist for individual projects to work cohesively exists in the government of course. Bureaucracies have been formed to iron out the problems, but because of the paperwork and gap-bridging that has to occur for policies to work together, the government can often be slow and cumbersome.

Like Windows?

Windows uses a number of programs that help do just that. Should a program conflict with some component of the operating system, Windows uses several programs that take resources to operate and smooth out the inconsistencies, therefore slowing down the computer.

So where's the balance?

The people that want to create policy in this country have to go through the appropriate channels, and by the time that this all gets funneled into a legislative body, the originally proposed concept may be a far cry from its manifestation on the senate floor. Unfortunately, the people who wish to make change often feel that they have to know the right people (acquire the right licenses), know the code (somehow scrape together enough knowledge of the system to even write a policy), and then try to sell it with pretty packaging.

Let's face it, the system is imperfect and it is absurd to think that it could ever be perfect. But last night, at least for a couple of hours, the tools were given to people to start shaping policy:

1. Questions were asked, unedited, through open submission in a public forum
2. Ideas were presented to candidates so that they can begin writing the "code"
3. The candidates were able to take the suggested idea and translate it into the language of public policy with the eloquence that can help sell the idea
4. The translation took place on a very public stage an in broad viewing of public scrutiny to ensure that the questions were answered
   
5. The whole process was done with the concept that democracy embodies: that the collective thoughts of the public can help create the best America possible

The new age of politics is an exciting one and it seems historically ironic that it should begin now with the open-source movement and the advent of massive social networks like digg.com, YouTube, and Facebook. Ultimately, the beauty of a project like Linux is that through the mass involvement of users, the programs will be released that help deal with these problems. Hopefully, as candidates open their minds to wide acceptance of public interest, instead of licensing conflicts, the idea conceptualized by the constitution will become a reality. The government should never compromise a degree of bureaucracy that streamlines the process, but the true realization of government will only occur when the tools to create policy are made open to the public as they were during last night's CNN debate.

We can hope that this is only the beginning.

Comprehensive Guide to this Week's Conservative Media

Another week and some more stories. See anything you like? Want to submit something? Let me know!

Did WH Politicize Capture of top Al-Qaeda Leader?
Questions raised if the White House is molding the public image of Iraq

Matthews: I 'Sympathize with Scooter Libby'
Chris Matthews makes comments empathizing with Scooter Libby on Hardball

Washington Times Propagates False Headline: Senate Rejects Iraq Pullout
Misleading headline from the Washington Times about Iraq pullout vote

Tony Snow: 'The Al-Qaeda of 2001 No Longer Exists'
Tony Snow feeds false remarks about the state of Iraq at a press conference

Right Wing 'Path to 9/11' Receives 7 Emmy Nominations
Misleading documentary about 9/11 receives acclamation despite factual disparities

Obama knocked Edwards for 'Ma[king] Millions as a Trial Lawyer'
MSNBC's Tucker Carlson sets democratic candidates against each other with false statements

Savage Distorts, Attacks MediaMatters.org
Michael Savage makes false, disparaging remarks against MediaMatters.org

Thanks to MediaMatters.org and Think Progress for these stories.

You KNOW Why We are in Iraq

The other day I found myself in a political debate with a friend of mine.

It was an ordinary debate, with "facts". Basically, we threw "what we've heard" back and forth at each other to the entertainment of the people in the room. I "cited" some evidence and he did the same in return. Two college kids with ideology in hand, trying to work each other over in a mental arm-wrestling match the equivalent of the Arm-Wrestling National Qualifiers in BFE, Utah. Because let's face it, without a computer in front of us, we really just tend to go with what we think we read in passing on a political editorial website.

The debate was about the political spin of CNN. He argued that they were a liberal news syndicate while I argued that, though that is sometimes true, they tend to give a conservative perspective on issues like Michael Moore's SiCKO, and Global Warming, bringing on Dr. Gupta to give a loaded editorial on the topic. I mused "so if you haven't seen 'An Inconvenient Truth', then how can you know whether Gupta is right or not?" He said, "I don't have to know about Global Warming. It's CNN; Dr. Gupta's doing the research for me."

My friend is a rising leader in the state of Iowa with a penchant for conservative thought and as I listened to him reply with utter certainty on the media, public opinions from self-purported experts, and gobble up the social "givens" about news organizations and policy, I wondered, how many other people suffer from this disease of "utter certainty"?

Iraq still isn't stable. This is not the only report that proves so. And everybody knows it. And even as the GOP begins to jump ship on the war in Iraq, the president and conservative legislators continue to talk about escalation, long-term occupation, and our "success" in liberating the Iraqi people.

We're facing an organization of people who's complete and all-encompassing religious convictions drive them to destroy anything and everyone who believes differently. Their utter religious certainty tells them that they will be martyred if they kill themselves trying to stop us. But we know in our religions that this just isn't so. We're utterly certain of it.

Even now that public opinion is souring and projections for the war are bleak as ever, the president and administration show no remorse for their actions because they are utterly certain that we will...well...do a number of things I guess. A small constituency of people (the percentage keeping the president's approval ratings afloat) has followed the White House through every phase of the invasion despite the ever changing mission statement of Iraq. They've never questioned the logic of the war or the idea that our invasion and decimation of an entire country is going to provide them some kind of rise-from-the-ashes rebirth into freedom.

The best way to fight a war is to demonize your enemy. But in the case of the Iraq war, are we really all that different from the people we fight? We both possess strong religious convictions, we are both fighting for what we believe is right, and we both believe in altruistic ideals of freedom, we just see the issue from two different perspectives.

Ultimately, the issue is that we are "utterly certain" that the decision to invade Iraq was right. We are "utterly certain" that what the news tells us is true. We are "utterly certain" that the president of the United States would never lie or deceive about something as big as a war. We are "utterly certain" that what isn't in our backyard can't directly affect us.

But it has. The mentalities that the United States developed by making the decision to invade a foreign country for its own good have now infected everyone. We are a people that are more self-important than ever. We are even less concerned with the international consequences of our actions. We are even more bombastic in our political convictions and even less partisan in our discussions. We are now more than ever convinced that there is a "right" way to handle policy, religion, and problems.

From Iraq to the media and beyond, our personal convictions are stronger than ever. We as a country stay in a course of action until the only obvious answer is staring us in the face, regardless of all tangible indicators of failure along the way. We have suffered the consequences of an era of "utter certainty" and it's time to begin doubting ourselves.

Agree? Disagree? Different opinion altogether? Let's discuss.

Comprehensive Guide to this Week's Conservative Media

Welcome to the second installment of my weekly guide to examples of conservative media coverage. It's a bit late in the week because of work, but I hope you enjoy it.

ABC Hit Piece Embraced by Right Wing
Right wing loaded piece on the Iraq War aired on major news syndicate ABC

Novak's Disparate Treatment
Washington Post columnist Robert Novak gives unequal treatment to two senators in a similar situation

Kristol: 'We're not in a civil war in Iraq'
Bill Kristol denouncing the state of things in Iraq on the Charlie Rose Show

Russert said Murtha Proposal was "Described as 'Slow Bleed'"
On NBC's Meet the Press, Tim Russert attacks Jim Webb on his Iraq opinions with loaded language

NPR's Liasson Inflates John McCain's Character
NPR correspondant Mara Liasson makes large claim about John McCain's already sullied character

Savage to Immigrants: "Go Back to Where You Came From"
A hateful message from Michael Savage

'Condoms Get You Pregnant' from Conservative Writers'
Scientific facts about contraceptives from conservative writers

Hannity Bashes Carbon Offsets while Rupert Murdoch Uses Them
Claims by Sean Hannity fly in the face of Fox News president

Al Gore is "Closest" to Mussolini
Michael Savage lashes out with more hateful diction at Al Gore

Thanks to MediaMatters.org and ThinkProgress for these stories.

Despite reality of Global Warming, the right can only focus on the Politics

Every day we are directly affected by issues that are improved by partisan debate. When you surf the Internet, the content you receive is mostly neutral due to Net Neutrality. When you shop at the grocery store, the prices of the foods you eat are determined by legislation that keeps those prices consistent. When a farmer sells his crops, legislation gives him the subsidies to afford his supplies and further legislation controls the prices at which he sells those crops.

Some issues, however, are non-debatable. Murder, rape, burglary, perjury, etc. They are all issues whose moral magnitude due to their potential for destruction of lives and society render them non-issues. Bottom line: the idea that these activities would be allowed unchecked in our society is unthinkable, and the consequences completely eclipse the positives. Any person with a concept of morals and ethics would never consider fighting for legislation that would allow these things.

Then why is it that Global Warming, which has the potential, if unchecked, to destroy millions of lives and completely, irreversibly change our eco-system, changing society as we know it and forcing us to spend generations adapting to the environmental damage, is not considered a non-issue? Because of who's connected to it.

Continuously since Al Gore made "An Inconvenient Truth" and the issue of Global Warming made a splash with citizens and policy makers, the rght has done everything in their power to descry the concept. Despite overwhelming evidence that Global Warming is a reality, conservative pundits have done everything from attack the issue on major news affiliates out in the open repeatedly to hiring "experts"to give faux validity to their statements of untruth.

When the Live Earth 2007 concerts amassed one of the largest TV, Internet, and public audiences in history and provided a positive and proactive message towards dealing with the warming crisis, Fox News launched misinformed attacks on the concerts in an effort to undermine their credibility.

Continuously, large media affiliates have provided anti-Global Warming activists with forums on which to speak at Fox News and CNN. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity continuously bring on conservative "scientists" who pump two of the largest radio audiences in the country full of misinformation and distorted, bigoted opinions about the issue which people accept due to their claims as credible news sources.

Is this responsible reporting? Dumping stories full of purposely ignored holes and dismissed facts all for the support of a personal vendetta? That sounds a lot like the way that conservatives treat the issue of Global Warming. Ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence, proclaiming any and all solid counter-arguments as liberal media coverage, and all to take down Al Gore? It's irresponsible and it shouldn't be happening and that's why it's up to college students and up coming politicians to be custodians of the facts in a media climate that is misrepresented in terms of percentage of media coverage to percentage of Americans who share those views.

To quote a friend of mine, Jaybee who regularly posts on MediaMatters.com:

"There isn’t a lot that Progressives can do about talk radio. Contrary to what talk show hosts claim it isn’t really an open market as studies show media companies subsidizing the conservative talk radio industry to the tune of 100 million dollars per year. In that environment it’s no wonder Liberals have turned to blogs for a balancing effect and sharing information in general. Just remember, it’s going to take a lot of blogging to counterbalance almost six years of claiming Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Centers and 30 years of claiming that [the] poor [are so] because they deserve it."

Press on friends.

Comprehensive Guide to this Week's Conservative Media

Hey everyone, welcome to the first installment of what I hope is to become a weekly list of links documenting a week in the life of conservative media. I hope you enjoy.

MSNBC's Carlson on Obama: "[H]e sounds like a pothead to me"
Tucker Carlson refers to the citizens of Fairfield as croc wearing potheads and asks if Barack Obama "talks between bong hits."

Savage called Media Matters "the homosexual mafia"
Mediamatters.org exposes Michael Savage in yet another outlandish attack, now turning his attention to the progressive media critics at their website.

Washington Talk Radio Station Drops Bill O’Reilly
Political voices in Washington criticized for having a conservative slant and the community's response.

Snow Falsely Claims ‘There Was Not Much Investigation’ Of Clinton’s Pardons
White House correspondant Tony Snow tries to distort the facts and claim the "well Clinton did it too" card.

Right Wing Launches Dishonest, Misinformed Attacks Against Live Earth
Through Fox News, the right tries to launch an attack on the Live Earth environmental awareness concerts...and fails.

Fox News: Universal Health Care Breeds Terrorists
Because anything socialized is derived from the Nazis or the terrorists.

Savage on immigrant students' hunger strike: "[L]et them fast until they starve to death. ... Go make a bomb where you came from"
Another hateful rant from a man without compassion.

MSNBC, Fox News devoted far more time to Edwards' haircuts than to Domenici announcement
Mediamatters.org exposing another slant in "Fair and Balanced News."

Thanks to Mediamatters.org and Think Progress for these stories.

The Up-and-Coming Generation Needs Help Taking Down the Roadblocks

The most difficult part about paying attention to the political-sphere is the feeling of hopelessness that can sometimes accompany knowing just how inexorable the system can be. Goodness knows with the "big six" in charge of nearly all forms of popular and "credible" media, it seems like even the voices of people who wish to make a difference have little opportunity to make the mainstream unless the procurer of said voice is some kind of well-connected prodigy of thought.

I personally don't know how people like Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, Tom Vilsack, or John Edwards got into the positions they did where their voice is respected, listened to, and even welcomed, but as a product of the Millenial generation, I'd like to figure out their methods and publish them to my peers since our voices are the ones that need to be heard in this dialogue.

As we sit in the classrooms and read our textbooks, we know that we're their for one reason, to get a better job. Certainly our dreams are forever whispering in our ears, but they frequently pale in the shadow of larger realities like the concept that, though we aspire to it, we individually may not be the ones to revolutionize medicine, journalism, or even our local communities for that matter. While in high school, our fears were of things like social ostracism, I think that the prevailing fear of college students across the nation is the fear of obscurity.

You see, we get degrees, we hit the polls, and we attend protests because the feeling we get of making that personal contribution to a cause that's important to us gives us hope that we too may someday be heard on national television, published in a national newspaper, or elected to national office. In light of ranting, ego-centric pundits and personal Washington agendas on both sides of the political aisle, it becomes increasingly difficult for my generation to see the silver lining in the clouds.

Yet when you consider that the national docket has all but written us out due to low voter turnout, "prevailing apathy", and a supposed disregard by my peers and I toward the important things in life, perhaps the real issue is that the voices of the potentially obscure, are the ones that journalists, talking heads, and especially politicians should be digging for but aren't. This is because, despite a growing feeling of cynicism and reality among those my age, we still believe in the altruistic ideals preached from the highest pulpits of science and philosophy that our opinions can be frequently uplifting, inspiring, and needed in a country that so badly needs a pick-me-up these days. Our aims are often high and our dreams are often lofty, but to borrow a page from Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, the only way to achieve high goals is to aim idealistically and, by such means, achieve highly.

Fortunately, politicians like Barack Obama have begun to tap into the youth culture and conduct that survey of America's future movers and shakers that is so badly needed through My Barack Obama.com. Similarly, John Edwards has begun a similar system of social networking, clearly designed to connect with the nations 18-28 year olds on the networking portion of his website as well as John McCain, something that neither Rudy Giuliani nor Hillary Clinton have done.

So our opinions may be considered under-developed. Then inform us! Give us news through our channels that we can relate to and tap into. Otherwise, believe me, we'll make it ourselves, whether by blog or by social networking website, we're ready to make a difference if you'll just give us the chance.