The State of our Oratory is... well... umm...

2011 SOTU as a Wordle text cloud

A few noteworthy items from last night's speech and response.  OK, responses.

First, the speech that really matters - President Obama gave a decent speech, albeit a forgettable one from a rhetorical perspective.  I was impressed that he focused so much on research, science, math, and technology. The bit about celebrating the winner of the science fair as much as you celebrate the winner of the Super Bowl was the kind of rhetorical salvo that should send warm fuzzies to my science advocate pals.    Overall it was an appeal to our better angels, something America needs at this moment.  

However the catchphrase that was intended to weave the speech together - "win the future" - fell just a bit flat to me.  It seems the phrase was designed to underscore the emphasis on competitiveness you could find throughout the speech, and it may have been designed to tap into a more modern version of the "manifest destiny" idea  that is embedded in America's cultural DNA.   People I know on Twitter explain that it's a reference with "digital age" and gaming undertones, and it's somewhat clear that the people who wrote this speech have a foot securely planted in that world.  As a piece of rhetoric I think it tries to be bold but is just slightly too vague to be useful. 

Overall the speech had all of the entirely predictable elements you find in the modern SOTU - the "we're #1," the laundry-listish recitation of policies, the references to the VIP's sitting next to the First Lady, the shout-out to our military, and the request for God's blessings. 

But let's also remember that the SOTU has its limitations.  It's nearly impossible to get into real specifics, even when the speech runs over an hour.  This speech is perhaps more about ceremony today than it may have been at one time.  So the bits that sound like specifics may or may not be.  For example, the President gave strong emphasis to clean energy and proposed what sounded like an ambitious renewable energy portfolio standard for... some year far enough in the future that he won't really have to worry about it. But in the list of energy sources he included something called "clean coal."  Coal is not clean and it's not renewable.  "Clean coal technology" is more a term of art than an actual, tangible thing.  Yet there it was.  So what is the portfolio standard?  Clean? Renewable? Or some new definition that gives the appearance of success without really doing anything meaningful?  Only time will tell, and it will likely be left to the Department of Energy and the EPA to clarify.  And it's no mistake that Carol Browner's departure was announced BEFORE the speech.  Energy companies no doubt saw that as an olive branch to help deal with the thorns of the rhetoric presented against them in the speech. 

I think the responses demonstrate how truly difficult it is to sit in a room by yourself and read off of a teleprompter and still seem engaging.  Seriously, it's not easy.  The President just gave this huge rhetorical address with the eyes of the world upon him, and you're confined to a small studio with a camera.  Do you try to sound conversational, like a "fireside chat?"  Do you try to be presidential, to match the gravitas of the President?  In this situation you really can't win because you're compared with perhaps the greatest orator of our generation on a stage designed to amplify his presence.   

I won't hide my politics - I'm a Kennedy Democrat.  But trying to take my politics out of the equation (probably impossible to do) I think the responses absolutely sucked.  They just did.  Congressman Ryan's speech was a focus group-driven list of phrases without a coherent rhetorical center.  But it was the format that really killed the speech. He had a limited amount of time to cram in a lot of things.  He spoke too quickly, and the tone of his voice and the expression on his face belied his words.  (You don't smile blankly when you're talking about a colleague who was shot in the head two weeks ago.) This created a fundamental disconnect for viewers - Ryan looked like he either didn't mean what he said, or he was simply reading through a text by rote.   (Oh, and I found the "substance"of the remarks to be misleading at best.)

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's presentation - I think that's a far more appropriate term than "speech" -  looked like a Ross Perot infomercial, and fell short of even Congressman Ryan's address in terms of delivering substance.  The information she placed in charts - real speeches don't have props - was misleading and lacked context.   Of course, this wasn't the first presentation from a Member of Congress to play up some data and ignore other facts, but it seemed the "success" of the presentation relied on the ignorance of its audience.  That's never a good thing to do.  The repeated use of the term "Obamacare" - clearly designed to serve as a pejorative - was beneath the the moment.   And again, difficulties with the format led to the most obvious issue that detracted from the entire presentation.  The teleprompter was placed off to the side, and the speaker looked directly at it (and not the camera) for the entire address.  Combine this with the too-frequent "double-guns" pointing gesture and the result was a distracting and difficult experience for the viewer.  Finally, the iconic picture of the Iwo Jima soldiers raising the American flag at the end was superfluous, even overreaching as a rhetorical device - it lacked relevance to the remarks, and seemed to be forced, and frankly, pandering.   

Overall the night was a solid win for the President - he gave a decent speech (snap reaction to it was overwhelmingly positive) and the GOP demonstrated they couldn't overcome the complexities of the medium to deliver a coherent message in response. Of course, time will tell if any of it has any substantive impact, but at least beltway pundits (and rhetoric geeks like me) have something to write about for a couple of days.

I'm Tweeting My OWN Damn SOTU

Network prime time gets to step aside for one evening each year for the State of the Union Address - or as I like to call it, "Prom for Student Government Nerds."

It's actually a constitutional mandate of sorts - you can find reference to it in Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Over the years the State of the Union speech has taken on certain customs; some good and some not.  It's now an annual address of a joint session of Congress, though as you can see there's no constitutional mandate for that.  The speech has a certain amount of pomp and ceremony, with the House Sergeant at Arms yelling, "Mister Speaker, the President of the United States!" just before he walks in.  (This was a job that used to be performed by the House Doorkeeper, but they abolished that position sometime in the mid-nineties.)

The speech typically includes a reference to the First Lady, who will no doubt have all sorts of VIP's sitting next to her in the Gallery.  (I'm guessing at least one of those VIP's tonight will be someone who was at a Tuscon supermarket a couple of weeks ago.)  Recognition will certainly be given to our Armed Forces, and we'll no doubt hear that "the state of our union is strong" or some form of that.  We'll probably hear about a list of programs - getting a "mention in the state of the union" is often seen as some sort of lobbying plum. We'll learn that children are our future, that we need more jobs, and of course, that America is the greatest country with the greatest people.  And we'll wrap the whole thing up with asking God to bless us, everyone.  The whole thing will probably last an hour, give or take.  Someone will certainly count the number of times people applaud, people stand up, and if anyone shouts "you lie."  It's going to be a little different in that the Democrats won't all sit on one side and the Republicans on another, but I'm reasonably confident partisanship will be present in some form.  And of course, let's not forget the drinking games.

Then the opposition response will come - probably less lengthy, but probably more pointed in its criticism of the President and his policies.   This year we get a special bonus opposition response from a "tea party" person, and I'm sure it will be like the first opposition response - just with more invective and references to debt and deficits, but realistically with considerably less substance.

Then the news networks will have their turn to bloviate - the "major" networks will trot out people who have worked in the White House before to explain to us what the speech really meant and whether the President "succeeded" in doing whatever. The cable networks will trot out their people who will explain why the President "failed," and we may even see a focus group or two in action.

The simple truth is this: while it's important for the President to keep the people in the loop, I think we should maybe try tweeting SOTU and see if our democracy is torn asunder. I notice that the Washington Post is trying this out, but they're only giving people one word - I like the idea but I don't like limiting it to one word - my tweet, my rules.

 I'm betting the only people who would suffer are the people who care about cable news ratings.  And frankly, I think this will actually get more people to pay attention.

So if you had to tweet the State of the Union, what would you say?  Just for kicks, you could tweet yours and use the hashtag "#MYsotu" - hey, why not?

Mine:  "We need more jobs, more clean energy and better schools.   But health care reform is happening and we're coming back strong."

Arizona: what we've really lost and what we must do

By know everyone knows what happened to Congresswoman Giffords, Judge Roll, and the other victims in Tuscon. But I can't stop thinking about this.

Aspiring politician Christina-Taylor Green was born in the midst of tragedy on Sept. 11, 2001, and died Saturday morning while trying to meet Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

The strong-willed 9-year-old third-grader had gone to meet Giffords with a neighbor when she was shot. She died later at University Medical Center.

And not surprisingly, this:

Jittery members of the U.S. House of Representatives concerned about security jammed telephone lines Sunday during a rare bipartisan conference call a day after a gunman tried to assassinate U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords outside a supermarket near Tucson.

A bipartisan group of House leaders took the unusual step of inviting spouses and staffers to dial into the conference call held to update members about Giffords, brief them about the shooting and discuss steps being taken to tighten security.

I want to show some restraint in commenting on this because there was no initial "proof" that this (alleged) assassin's actions had any groundings in politics.  And frankly I found it disturbing at how quickly the punditry on both ends of the political spectrum absorbed this news and once again used it as proof they have been right about the other side all along. As usual, I won't hide my politics - the punditry on the right has gotten so defensive about this and the tone their rhetoric has taken it almost begs the Shakespearean retort, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Before we delve into the depravity of today's political discourse, it's important to take stock of what we've really lost.

• We have, of course, the unfathomable tragedy of the loss of life - not only a vital public servant in the form of a federal judge, but also five other innocent people, including a nine-year-old girl.  And we have those who were badly wounded, and those who were traumatized by witnessing the event.
• We will likely see further physical separation of the government and the governed.  We will have fewer public events, more security and isolation for Members of Congress and this Administration, less access for the taxpayers and even the media.  This means that more government will be done in private, among only those privileged and moneyed enough to have access to those in power.
• We will see even less incentive to go into public service.  If I run for Congress I already know I'll spend most of my time asking lobbyists for money, I'll have a grueling travel schedule, I'll have to maintain two residences,  and I'll spend the majority of my "floor" time talking about symbolic things that have very little impact on the daily lives of people.  Now I get to wear kevlar while I do it. This is not a line of work I'd ever want my son to enter - not right now, anyway.  We used to worry about our children getting hurt if they joined the military.  Now we have to worry if they run for Congress.

I can think of two major changes we need immediately.  While we don't know for sure if the accused was listening to the political rhetoric of the right or saw the now scrubbed image of Congresswoman Giffords' district in the cross hairs of a rifle sight, we need to understand the status quo is not sustainable.

First, the news media needs to understand its own responsibility here and act accordingly - stop giving rhetorical bomb-throwers air time. We all know who they are.  We all know what networks put them on television. And sadly, we also know they drive ratings.  But you know what - it's really not news.  We've reached the point in our politics where you're rewarded not by working hard with people across the aisle but by calling those people un-American or worse.  It's time for our professional media to be the grown-ups in the room and say no, you don't get to go on TV if all you have are thinly-veiled references to guns, boldface lies  or asinine suggestions that people aren't citizens.  And don't give me guff about the first amendment.  Remember Daniel Webster: "liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint."  Editors edit.  Start doing your jobs.

Second, transparency in government just got a whole lot more important.  If we further restrict access to members of Congress and others in the government, we must know immediately who DOES have access  and where campaigns are getting money. Further, front-groups that don't disclose their funding sources - the groups that have fueled so much of the "vitriol" we've heard about without a shred of accountability to anyone - are a cancer on our democracy.  OWN YOUR WORDS.

One final point - there are moneyed interests who have contributed to the current state of political depravity.   I can't stop thinking about what I wrote in August 2009, when corporate interests were instructing angry, ignorant mobs to storm town meetings much like the one Congresswoman Giffords held this weekend.

There can be no doubt that people in my profession are organizing this sort of thing, stirring up fear and hatred and dehumanizing an enemy, in the name of "freedom," going on television and telling outright lies. They are actively trying to suppress discussion and debate. They are telling unstable people some unstable things, then they're pointing at someone and calling them "Hitler." And they're hiding their true identities (and their funding) by setting up "non-profit" groups that have names with words like "freedom" in them.

They are undoubtedly aware that the more they do this, the more likely someone is going to commit even greater acts of violence. They know this and they do it anyway.

Now those same interests find themselves more able to hide their funding, and actually have more access to government leaders as public meetings become more restrictive.  And of course, no one is accountable. 

A Joke Without A Punch Line

UPDATE: OK, this is substantial and frankly, historic. It was still a terrible speech, but the White House scored a major victory for those affected by this spill. I'll take crappy speeches if they're accompanied by real action any day.

The President's Speech as a Text Cloud

That's what I think of the President's speech last night.

Yes, this situation merits a strong communications response, and a speech from the Oval Office is one way to convey the sense of urgency the White House has finally embraced from a communications perspective.  But last night's speech convinced me the government doesn't have the ability to solve a fairly basic physics problem - prevent floating oil from reaching shore - let alone solve the ridiculously complex engineering problem of closing a gusher a mile below the surface.

We were told (again) that the government has thrown a lot of people out there, set a bunch of fires, laid out a ton of boom, and put a bunch of boats in the water.  We were told (again) that this is BP's fault, and they're going to pay for this mess. We were told (again) that bureaucrats are feverishly looking busy, with a brand new National Commission, a new person to run a federal agency, a separate panel of brainiacs, and some kind of idea storm thing led by the Secretary of the Navy.   And then we got the half-hearted "we need to stop being so dependent on oil" rhetoric that is SO twenty years ago, the "we'll do whatever it takes" thing and the pep-talky, schmaltzy appeal to people of faith wrap-up. Oh, and we learned that the President will actually be meeting the Chairman of BP on Wednesday - nearly two months after this thing happened.

Of course this is BP's mess and of course they'll (eventually, probably) be made to pay.  But what astonishes me is the underlying assumption that the company would ever do anything that wasn't in its immediate best interest.  BP is a company.  Companies exist for one reason - make profits for shareholders. 

There's money in deep water drilling, so they do as much as possible.  Disaster planning costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Taking the time to develop and publish real, site-specific reports for the govement costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Acknowledging the existence of subsurface oil plumes costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Pictures of dead, oil-soaked animals washing up on shore cost money, so they prevent as much of it as possible.   Respirators for cleanup crews cost money, so they buy as few as possible.  Demanding all sorts of paperwork from people who have been wiped out and filed claims saves money, so they do as much of it as possible. Meaningful climate change legislation costs money, so they fight it as much as possible.

None of this is excusable. All of this is predictable.

So rather than another speech that warms over last decade's talking points, rather than sending "we really mean it this time" letters -- LETTERS! -- to BP, rather than more commissions and blue-ribbon panels and asking the Secretary of the Navy to do something other than run the Navy, let's just take some baby steps here.

1. Until further notice, the world revolves around Thad Allen, the guy running the response efforts. He doesn't have to send letters to get a response.  He gets a cattle prod and he gets to shove it up the ass of anyone who stalls on him.
2. Rather than re-designing the Department of the Interior or writing some other massive bureaucratic opus, let's just agree it's a good idea to actually read the applications for drilling that are already submitted to it.  If the application mentions animals that don't live within thousands of miles of the area or it has dead people on its "who to call" list, deny the application.
3. Anyone who prevents journalists from doing their job is immediately sent to Thad Allen for cattle prodding. If the government really is "in charge," that means this is America's cleanup and Americans have a right to know what's really happening.

I'd have more ideas, but frankly I think that's about all the government can handle right now.

Orac, Mockery, and the Absence of Outreach

I'm going to tread carefully here because I love reading Respectful Insolence. The blog's author, who goes by the pseudonym "Orac," is ridonkulous-smart, obviously passionate, and above all, not one to mess with.  I'm also going to stress that the following represents my personal opinion, has nothing to do with work. (I have worked in the past for pharmaceutical company clients; not doing anything with them currently.)

Orac spends a lot of his time mocking the anti-science crowd, as is his right.  He's quite good at it.  He does so from his perch at Scienceblogs, which according to their own marketing data is read mostly by scientists (or at least people with graduate degrees and people who manage scientific projects).  He's apparently gotten some criticism that he's simply talking to other scientists when he makes his arguments - that he's "preaching to the converted" and this helps no one.   I've made a somewhat similar argument, though I've never called out Orac specifically:

Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other.

So I was interested in his response, which you should read but is summed up like this:

When I hear such charges now, I think I'll just refer the one doing the complaining to this video:

Let me stress Orac is under no obligation to be a Science Ambassador.   It's not his job to move the public opinion needle.  He can write whatever he wants, and I'll probably read it and nod my head and smile.  But given that he made this response, I assume he's at least interested in the issue.

I realize this response wasn't made personally for me. But it oversimplifies the criticism.  First, who assumes there's only "agree and disagree?"  It's precisely because there are so many people in the middle that I think Science's PR problem is so tragic.   (oh, and the little bit in the video making a play on the word "converted" evaporates if you prefer the term I sometimes use, "preaching to the choir.")

This video is a curious defense of homophily.   Of course it's good to have discussions within one's own community.  Of course it's good to galvanize ideas and sentiment and rally the base - it just can't be the only thing you do.  (See "Palin, Sarah.")

The thing that irked me the most about the video (and I realize this isn't Orac's original material) is this idea that posting material online "makes it available" so people can see it when they're ready to change their opinions or accept new information. 

Sorry, this is a cop-out.  Again, no one is forcing Orac or anyone else to be an Ambassador. But if he cares about "moving the needle" in the public, he's smart enough to know this isn't how diplomacy works.  The anti-science cranks of the world aren't waiting around for people to find them.  As Orac points out, they're showing up on Huffington Post and Oprah and daily news shows - you know, where the people are.  And they're listening to people and communicating in terms that resonate.  (And by the way, they're pushing their new book or their new line of organic herb supplements that remove "toxins" or cancer-curing magnets, which could be yours for just 4 easy payments of $29.95 but supplies are limited so ACT NOW!) 

The whole premise of the argument is based on the notion that people outside Orac's circle are either already getting his information, or will actively seek it out and know where to find it in the future.  That's just not how communication and persuasion works.   You don't convince people that a particular treatment for a disease is important simply by publishing an article in JAMA.   It's just the first step.

Calling the other side a bunch of quacks probably feels good.  Using scientific data to show why they're quacks probably feels good too.  And if that's all you want to do, that's fine.  I'll keep reading it.

If you're interested in more, you have to get out and find those people in the middle (we know they're not reading scienceblogs and they're not likely to look for scienceblogs) and listen to their concerns and understand their motivation and explain your position in terms that are relevant and understandable.  You have to get out of your comfort zone a little.

As always, more soon.

Frankly, I Think Sarah Palin Could Take You.

My recent post about the inconsistently applied policies at Facebook prompted an interesting discovery - there's a group called "I Want to Punch Sarah Palin In the Face."

And it has over 1,000 members. Seriously. I did notice this, ahem, disclaimer:

This is in no way a group promoting or condoning violence toward women or anyone, it is simply a repository for unremitting anger and frustration.

Here's a tip - if your group doesn't want to promote or condone violence toward women, you might not want to name the group "I Want to Punch Sarah Palin In the Face." I don't agree with her on much, but she's done nothing - NOTHING - to deserve this.

I don't hide my politics but I'm disgusted when people who may (or may not) share my politics express themselves like this. Recently I've seen people openly ask why no one has dropped a plane on a certain political activist's building.

And I'm not interested in "the other side does it too" garbage. That doesn't matter. You're either against violence or you're not.

And we wonder why our political leaders can't accomplish anything.

We call this "mainstream crossover"

My last post talked about how bloggers are really influential - notice blogger John Aravosis in the video below. Yes, that's CNN. Yes, he's wearing a suit and tie and not pajamas with cheetoh crumbs stuck in them. Note the little back and forth between Howie Kurtz and John Aravosis at the end.



Just a reminder to all of you - a conversation with a group of bloggers is ON THE RECORD. Yes, the White House laid the ground rules for the meeting and said it was on the record, but just sayin' is all.

Question Time: Kicking It Up A Notch

This has also been done before in other countries, but I have to say President Obama deserves credit for this and I hope the White House does it more.



One of the biggest complaints people have about their government these days is that government is too cloistered; not transparent enough and simply not listening to people. This is a step in the right direction - a small step, but a positive one.

Question Time: It Wasn't a Lecture

From the victory lap liberal bloggers have been taking Friday and into the weekend, you'd think President Obama smite the House Republican caucus with a mighty staff, parted the Red Sea, and and set his people free or something.

I'm really pleased with how Friday's meeting between the President and the House GOP went, broadcast live on all the major cable news networks - but really not because of some perceived political outcome. I'm pleased because this represents a first of sorts in our political discourse - A televised discussion between opposing political parties, without the rigid conditions of pre-negotiated debate rules that essentially rule out the possibility of candid exchanges. The discussions have always taken place - I've been in the room for my share of them - but the presence of the cameras was a first.

Frankly, the presence of the cameras also had its drawbacks - there were a lot of pre-packaged talking points thrown into those questions and answers.

It's been compared to "Question Time" in the UK (it actually happens in many countries with parliamentary governments) and I've heard people ask "why don't we have that here?" The real reason we don't have Question Time is simple - we separate the legislature from the executive in this country, so there's no pre-scheduled time the head of the government is regularly available.

That said, it seems perfectly appropriate that people would want more of this. I'm fairly confident the White House would love to do it again, especially if Socratic format is maintained. This may sound goofy, but I'd like to see a series of "un-conferences" of legislators, fully televised. I'd only ask one condition of the participants - you're not allowed to use anything from the sessions in a political ad. That might encourage more candor and fewer canned questions and answers.

Reacting to the State of the Union Address

OK, here's the speech and the speech cloud, thanks to Wordle...

My reaction is really the result of something my wife said. President Obama was talking to the people in the room, not the people beyond it.

The President was a little chippier than I thought he'd be, with a bit more tough-guy, " I won't accept second place" rhetoric, trying to assert the value of the stimulus package and lecturing Congress:

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership.

On energy, I noticed he endorsed nuclear power and gave a few references to climate change. I got sort of a chuckle out of this, on the need to pass a comprehensive bill:

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.

I thought the speech got to the laundry list of policy proposals quickly. And I also thought the speech was a tactical retreat on health care. It came up far too late in the speech. No real specifics.

My wife made an interesting point - she didn't think the handful of sarcastic quips helped much. She thought President Obama wasn't just talking to a cynical Congress or the beltway punditry. He was talking to all of us, and he needed to be the adult in the room.

That's when I realized as I went through the remarks, he wasn't really talking to America - he really was talking to Congress.

Reactions to Smokenhagen

I was going to write this long rant about failing to meet minimal expectations and agreements to consider agreeing but thought better of it - because I get to chat occasionally with some of the coolest green bloggers EVAH - Tim Hurst, Maria Surma Manka and Jeff McIntire-Strassburg - and we talked about it there and made a podcast. You can find it at Tim Hurst's Ecopolitology blog and at Earth & Industry.

Tim, by the way, is ridiculous crazy awesome. (yes, I know. Man crush.) He and I chatted a bit about speech clouds and he came up with this really cool idea to take the concept to the next level.

So we threw together a google maps mashup of speech clouds that came from COP15. We invited Solana Larsen of Global Voices Online to play along, since they put together a special section of citizen media coverage of COP15. And I opened it up for anyone to contribute anything they want to it.

This is going to shock you but most of the speeches say the time for talk is over and the time for action is now. Where have I heard that before?

Oh, and I'm heading off the grid for the holidays. Happy happy merry merry ho ho ho. See you in 2010...

Hey, Sam Stein!

Both of the readers here at It's Not a Lecture will tell you that I was doing Speech Clouds before they were cool.

But it's not enough to just do one - you really should compare clouds from different people on the same topic like health care or terrorism or the same purpose like an inaugural address or a commencement address.

Or you could compare clouds from the same person on the same topic like climate change or foreign policy.

That way a speech cloud is more of a useful tool than a shiny toy.

"In pursuit of the peace that guided their service"

Honor the fallen and all those who served.

But as the President said yesterday, "We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes." An absolutely astounding rhetorical achievement.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I have an idea for C-SPAN

Someone probably already thought of this idea, probably more than one person, but it seems cool to me anyway and it's easily accomplished, thanks to groups like Open Secrets.

What if, when a member of Congress is speaking on the floor of the Senate or House and it's being broadcast on C-SPAN, a list comes up that gives specific information about who gave that person the most money in campaign contributions? One of the great things about consumers of information in 2009 is thanks to social media tools they've become much more adept at processing multiple bits of information at once. It's not hard to listen to someone speak while perusing a list.

To prevent overkill, I think it's sufficient to include, say, the top ten contributors for the most recent election cycle, even though that doesn't really tell the whole story either. But I've noticed an emerging and frankly exciting trend as of late - people who consume news about politics are becoming much more savvy about how the process works and what really influences members of Congress.

I've included here a rather sloppy artist's rendition of what it might look like for the Senators from my state - forgive me, I'm not what you'd call an expert at photoshop. But when there's a debate on the floor of the Senate (or the House) and you hear a member advocate for a particular point of view or commercial interest, it's nice to know if that person has been taking contributions from a relevant party.

I wouldn't DREAM of accusing any particular member of Congress for being a paid spokesperson for any particular company or industry - mostly because so many of them insist that the thousands upon thousands of dollars they accept have absolutely no influence over their votes whatsoever. (uh-huh.) But I do think this is publicly available information that people deserve to have top-of-mind during any policy debate.

An alternative to this would be to amend the dress codes for the House and Senate floor. Rather than jackets and ties for gentleman and similar appropriate dress for ladies, I might suggest the suits NASCAR drivers wear with the logos of the companies who provide "sponsorships" plastered all over them.

Discuss.

Speech Clouds: Obama vs. Obama on Climate Change

President Obama gave a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Friday "challenging Americans to lead the global economy in clean energy." Once again, thanks to the magic of Wordle, I pushed it through their cloud generator and got this:

And then I thought it would be cool to compare it to the President's speech to the UN a while back:

It's interesting to me how the themes shift when the audience is different. Seems "climate" wasn't mentioned in Cambridge at all, and "jobs" didn't seem to get much mention at the UN.

President Obama's Speech to the UN on Climate Change

Last night the Earth & Industry "Gang of Four" got together to record a podcast and discuss President Obama's speech on climate change. We decided to do what some goofy political pundits do and give the President a grade on his speech. However, Jeff is a college professor so he at least has some credibility in that department...

The Earth & Industry post features the podcast, a link to the speech text, and HD video of the speech. If you don't have time to read or watch the whole speech, here's a "speech cloud," brought to us by our pals at Wordle. No surprises here.

Speech Clouds: Health Care

President Obama has finally given his big speech on health care reform. As we've come to expect here, thanks to Wordle this is the text cloud of his speech:

And in the interest of fairness, here's the text cloud of the official Republican response, delivered by Congressman Charles Boustany (R-LA), a doctor:

Not surprisingly, the President is mentioning "insurance" while the opposition Congressman is mentioning "cost." Those are driving the discussions on either side of the aisle.

There was one moment during the President's speech where I like many others was taken aback. Politico reports that Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted "You lie!" at the President when the President was debunking false claims that reform would "insure illegal immigrants."

First of all, and it's sad that this has to be said, factcheck.org agrees with the President and not the Congressman. But another line was crossed tonight - perhaps just a line of decorum, but I think more than that. At least one member of Congress now thinks it's ok to heckle the President of the United States during an address to a Joint Session of Congress. He didn't just disrespect the man, he disrespected the office.

It's beyond shouting down the woman in the wheelchair. Once again it's an appeal to the worst in people - heckling the President in support of an obvious falsehood with unquestionably racist undertones. And even worse, to those who oppose reform this kind of thing is USEFUL. It's a distraction. Once again we're talking about something other than health care reform.

I sound like an old civics nerd, but I remember a time when there would always be people in the other party with whom you could reason and negotiate and find a way to do the right thing. I'm left wondering who that is in the GOP today. I'm pretty sure it's not Congressman Wilson.

And there are people in Washington who WANTED this

Seriously - there are people who planned for this outcome, who told lies to work people into a frenzy, who appealed to the worst in us, who felt that this outcome served their interests best. This is what they wanted. And they want more of it. Where there is discussion and debate, they want to bring noise. To literally shout down the lady in the wheelchair.

How does one negotiate with people who plan this?Again, this is a disgrace to my profession - we're supposed to encourage and facilitate debate, not shout it down - and a disgrace to our democracy.

A long time ago I was actually an elected Town Meeting member, in my New England town. Things got a little rowdy sometimes, though nothing close to this. And everyone - EVERYONE - got to say their peace without ever having to worry about hecklers.

What a perversion.

Bypassing Journalism...

Yesterday morning I was listening to CNN with interest as it took a break from its continuing "Michael Jackson is still dead" coverage and reported that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was delivering a "major foreign policy speech" to the Council of Foreign Relations that afternoon.

My first instinct was to ask "What is she going to say?"

I don't remember hearing an answer to that question in the story. I did hear that President Obama has already given a bunch of major speeches on foreign policy and that this must mean that people in the White House are trying to marginalize Secretary Clinton's influence and don't you know they're rivals and don't really trust each other and gossip gossip gossip. Maybe they covered the guts of the speech later that day - I have no idea. I do know they reported on another video of Michael Jackson's hair on fire in 1984.

This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts. I'm sure that Obama v. Clinton story is catchy, but it's not news, at least to me. It's gossip - and frankly, it's not the least bit surprising that a new President would make major policy speeches when there's a change of direction in policy. It's pretty much what you do.

Thankfully, social media tools let you bypass this gossip and get to the actual source. I've heard a lot of talk lately about the death of the news "business model" and the frustration so many journalists have over "crazy bloggers" drawing attention away from their serious journalism.

When I watch CNN I want news. Often times CNN gives it to me. But if they're going to make the editorial decision that video of a dead pop star's hair catching fire 25 years ago deserves to be in "heavy rotation," I'm going to turn off CNN and get the news myself. Yes, CNN is covering real stories like the confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor, but shouldn't that be the top story?

Maybe as we focus on journalism's business model we should also focus on the product.

In case you're wondering, here's the speech Secretary Clinton gave. She's smart.

Foreign Policy in Text Clouds

The Obama Administration has reportedly used four major speeches in four foreign capitals to outline its foreign policy vision - Prague, Cairo, Moscow and Accra. I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been a major speech planned in Asia or South America, but I guess you can't hit every country in the first six months...

Here's what the speech in Prague looked like:

Cairo:

Moscow:

and Accra:

I found it interesting that the word "people" keeps popping up as the most prominent word. I think the word common in all four clouds we should be looking at more closely is "power."

Stay tuned.