Connected Conversations Politics, technology, et cetera

Community news in decline: democracy in peril?

For almost 5 decades, newspaper readership has been on the decline. Recently, both newspaper and TV stations have been making substantial cuts to their newsroom staff. The result is less news content being created. This poses a challenge, according to the Knight Commission:

With “the thinning down of newspapers and local television in America, there is measurably less local, civic information available,” said Alberto Ibarguen, president and chief executive of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. “So what are the consequences of that?”

(see AP news report)

But news use on the Internet has been growing rapidly for the last ten years, both in terms of overall use and in terms of kinds of uses. And with the grow of blogs, there is a proliferation of alternative content on communities. Still, these trends represent shifts in the types of readers and the types of content available to readers, and it is unclear what the net impact is (pun intended).

For example, theVoterGuide.org is enabling media companies to collect and present more detailed candidate information on more candidates than newspapers or television companies could ever do before. And they can do it with fewer staff and at a lower cost than ever before. Hundreds of thousands of voters are availing themselves to this rich, new source of information.

One insight I draw from this experience is that there is emerging new model for creation of high quality political content. In the case of Voter Guide Toolkit, it is candidate generated content. There may still be a role of media companies in defining races and issues, but information technologies can vastly reduce the cost of creating a comprehensive guide. And citizens will also have an increasingly important role in generating (and perhaps even editing) content, something as demonstrated by e-thePeople.org, wikipedia and blogs.

I’ve been invited to participate as a member of the “brain trust” by the principal investigator, Peter Shane. In addition to Peter, the Commission is being led by Ted Olson (yes, the Bush appointee and First Amendment expert) and Marissa Mayer (VP of search products and user experience at Google). I am honored to contribute what I can, and I am eager to follow the progress of this important Aspen Institute initiative. I’ll keep you posted!

A local deliberative poll

We’ve just completed another successful deliberative poll this past weekend. This time, I did not have to travel to a far away place; the poll was in my own county, San Mateo, CA. The topic: housing. I do however see a parallel with the EU poll. In the EU, the deliberators had to consider what expansion would mean to Turkey and the Ukraine even though people from those countries weren’t invited. In the San Mateo poll, residents were asked to consider how housing policy affects commuters from the Central Valley, SF and SJ.

Here is a 2 minute news piece on the poll, uploaded by a participant of our poll. Enjoy!

The Theory of Interstellar Trade

Although I frequently disagree with Krugman’s approach to politics, he is a brilliant economist. Here is a funny paper he wrote on “The Theory of Interstellar Trade” (via slashdot):

Abstract: This paper extends interplanetary trade theory to an interstellar setting. It is chiefly concerned with the following question: how should interest rates on goods in transit be computed when the goods travel at close to the speed of light? This is a problem because the time taken in transit will appear less to an observer traveling with the goods than to a stationary observer. A solution is derived from economic theory, and two useless but true theorems are proved… This paper, then, is a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics.”

The two “useless” but fundamental theorems are: (1) return on investment is calculated in the home inertial timeframe, not the voyagers timeframe and (2) interest rates on two planets separated by light years should still be the same.

Two comments on these theorems. First, the first one implies that the profits on interstellar trade must be enormous, because there is so much time elapsed to make a return trip. And this is not including any of the “real” costs, like fuel, building the ship or paying people to go on a voyage where all their loved ones will be gone.

Second, I think the second theorem may be wrong. If the interest rates *have* to be identical, does that mean that there is action at distance? In other words, should it be possible to infer what the interest rate on Trantor is based on the current interest rate on Earth? Of course, I could be wrong since I don’t really understand special relatively very well (nor instellar trade theory for that mattter).

It’s sad to know that even if the engineering hurdles could be crossed, financial theory poses serious barriers as well to interstellar trade. Sigh.

Justifying my life

Here are two great cartoons that just about sum up my work on this blog and on www.e-thePeople.org. Enjoy!

(via this article on e-thepeople.org)

On Texas and Ohio

As an Obama supporter, I was disappointed that Barack did not seal the deal yesterday. I have been reflecting on the delegate stalemate and the PR loss, and I have a few thoughts.

1) Identity politics: Obama has made massive progress in demonstrating that equality for all is a powerful message for whites and blacks. I am surprised that he wasn’t able to carry that message to the Hispanic communities in Texas. I dislike Clinton’s direct approach at appealing to women, and I don’t think it is working well with younger women. I much prefer Obama’s President for all Americans message and policies.

2) Generational warfare: Clinton is for old people and Obama is for young people. The candidates appeals are *not* personality-based but policy-based . Clinton wants to mandate that young people pay more money into health care in order to pay for more benefits for older people. Obama wants to lower health care costs–which may very well end up in less health care services for old people. Again, I think Obama has to devise a message of equality for all and policies that support it. But the worst is this aweful “experience” debate. It’s really just a thinly veiled ageist argument that anyone born after the baby boom can’t be President. Hasn’t 8 years of Bush/Cheney proven that ‘adult’ supervision isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be?

3) Tired solutions vs Fresh Solutions: Hillary I think has a slight advantage framing the election as solutions vs. rhetoric. For awhile, I favor a direct defensive maneuver by Obama: publishing policy papers, holding smaller events, etc. But now I think that is wrong. Obama has plans that are just as detailed as Clinton. It is really a battle of “tired solutions” versus “fresh solutions.” I mean she is just re-treading past political battles, whereas Obama wants to move us forward.

Well, that’s it for now. If you want more great Obama commentary, check out Marc Andreseen’s excellent endorsement of Barack Obama.

Oh, and watch me read the post as a video blog:

Isn’t the Internet wonderful?

Jack is for Hillary

Jack Nicholson has made this short video ad for Hillary. It’s pretty good: it draws on short clips from some of his best movies to help raise Hillary’s issues:

But Hillary’s video still doesn’t hold a candle to Huckabee’s classic spot from a month or so ago. I think the difference: Huckabee demonstrates a sense of humor by describing Chuck Norris, whereas Clinton’s own messages are purely serious. To be fair, I suppose they had different goals with their videos. Huckabee’s video is a tour de force and a truly funny 30 seconds of entertainment. Enjoy:

I suppose Obama could counter Hillary’s ad with a clip from the Shining: “All work and no play makes Hillary a dull girl. Red rum! Red rum!”

Hillary supporters to “Swift Boat” Obama

This report by the Washington Post is disturbing. About 100 contributers have started a 527 PAC called “American Leadership Project” to air attack ads on Obama. At the moment that the Obama campaign has crossed 1 million contributors, 100 ultra-wealthy people are attempting to hijack the primary with $10mm of cynical attack ads.

Here is how the Obama campaign describes the group:

“Here we have a committee that springs up on the eve of an election, promotes a specific candidate, and has no history or apparent purpose of lobbying specific issues outside the benefit to the candidate of these communications,” the memo states. “Its ‘major purpose’ is no mystery.”

And here’s how the spokesperson for the American Leadership Project responds:

“We want to communicate to people where they’re paying the most attention right now. Right now, that’s Ohio and Texas,” he said. “Senator Clinton is a recognized champion of these issues, and we support her positions on health care, the mortgage crisis, the economy, and we say so in the spots. These are positive ads that serve to raise awareness about the issues.”

You can decide which explanation is more plausible for yourself. In my opinion, this proves beyond any doubt that team Clinton (1) is entrenched in money politics and (2) will do anything to get elected. I really hope this backfires.

Here’s a Swift Boat ad to remind you how shameless this tactic really is:

Virtual Reality coming to my home

I had overheard people talking about using Nintendo’s ‘Wii’ game controllers with their computer, but I had never seen it used before. This grad student at Carnegie Mellon is up to some really cool stuff, and it looks like something I might be able to do with home DVR. He has three projects that I might install in my own home: a “Minority Report”-style controller for the TV; an immersive scene (just for fun); and a digital whiteboard. All of these project can be done for under $100. He provides all the software for free. I just might have to give it a try here at home…

Here’s the stunning example from the head tracking video. Skip to 2:35 if you just want see the results without the explanation:

Comparing the campaigns of Obama and Lessig

Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law Professor, is considering a run for Congress in a special election in my neighboring Silicon Valley district. He has an interesting ten-minute video on his reasons for consider such a run on his new campaign web site, Lessig08.org. In a nutshell, his campaign platform involves three principles:

1. Accept no lobbyists/PAC money
2. Banning earmarks
3. Support public finance

He asserts that money in politics is the *cause* of the problems with our government, and that without these fundamental systematic changes we are doomed to fail at solving the political issues that most people care about (social security, health care, etc.) He wants to start a bipartisan movement to reform Congress.

His likely opponent for the Democratic nomination is a career politician who is good but trapped in the current system. For example, she has received $250,000 in contributions from insurance companies–and she is the state senator in charge of regulating insurance companies.

Lessig’s message appeals to me. However, I think that he’s going to have to quickly translate his overarching principles into something pragmatic. He’ll get trounced unless he can turn his high ideals into policy solutions to the real political problems we face.

In this way, I think it is instructive to compare Lessig to Obama. In a previous video, Lessig makes a compelling case to support Obama over Clinton for nearly the same reasons that Lessig himself is considering a Congressional run for office. Clinton, like Lessig’s opponent, is a good career politician who is too invested in the corrupt system to make fundamental change.

But now Obama is facing new choices: will he abandon the public financing system? It seems that he likely will, given his amazing fundraising prowess. To wit: he has 900,000 individual contributors and is shooting to reach 1 million by March 4. Should Obama risk losing the Presidency to support our current public financing scheme?

I imagine that Lessig would recommend staying within the public financing guidelines. But aren’t the current guidelines hopelessly out of date? And what about McCain-Finegold campaign legislation - doesn’t that well-intentioned law have more harmful unintended consequences than benefits? I worry that Lessig’s prescription is naive, because the details of the reform matter a lot.

So, to answer my original question: how do lessig and obama differ? I think Lessig is more idealistic than Obama, perhaps to a fault. And Lessig is less detailed about translating his ideals in pragmatic policy solutions than Obama. But Lessig is really smart, and he is running in a Congressional election not a Presidential one.

I am rooting for him. I will applaud him if he has the guts to test whether his high-minded principles can really work in practice. Go Lessig!

Frost-Nixon

I had the great pleasure of watching a screening of Frost-Nixon, a movie that Ron Howard is in the process of making. The movie, which is an adaptation of the play with the same title, is terrific. Frost’s story is incredibly engaging and Nixon is a fascinating character.

Ron Howard was impressive. He fielded a dozen questions from the audience, filling us in on historical accuracy of the film, how he adapted a play for the big screen and the political implications of the film. For example, he fought for and won the battle to have the stage actors play their own roles in the film. He asked us several questions about some final editing decisions (did we understand where Frost was coming from? did the ending work? did we like the choice of music in one scene? did we like the epilogue information at the end? Answers: yes, yes, 50/50 and yes with qualifications and suggestions.)

I recommend that you see it when it is released later this year. And I can’t wait to see if Ron Howard follows any of the advice that I and others in the audience gave him about the epilogue text!

Debunking myths of global poverty

This twenty minute lecture is a tour-de-force. It is a flashy example of data visualization, but more importantly, it provides important insights about global poverty. Worth your time (after the over-the-top intro), in my opinion.

Crazy downhill bike run

I have to think this course looks even crazier in person than in this video. Holy cow. Posted for my cousin Nathan: is this kinda like what you do?

Terrific web satire

This brings me back to my days as a financial services consultant but it’s really marvelous satire:

http://www.predatorylendingassociation.com/

It’s better than voting with ‘invisible ink’

I had a minor voting problem on Super Tuesday in California. Unbeknownst to me, my precinct was turned into a “mail-only” precinct. According to the San Mateo County election department, our precinct was too small (less than 200 people) so we were giving the “opportunity to vote by mail.” I replied, “actually, everyone in California has the opportunity to vote by mail. My precinct is denied the opportunity to vote at a local polling place on election day that almost every other CA resident enjoys.” Two additional points: isn’t the silly election board that draws the precincts in the first place? And if we are so small, wouldn’t it be easy to accommodate the small number of us at our usual polling place, which by the way, is still open?

So, there was no information of what to do on the board of elections web site. I got conflicting advice from the poll workers. One said, go get your mail-in ballot. When I pointed out that it was non-partisan, and did not have the democratic presidential candidates, another worker helpfully suggested that I vote provisionally. I was annoyed at that decision, because it means that my vote will take up to 28 days to be counted.

But then I heard the poll worker say: hey, we are running out of provisional ballots. Steer people away from using them so that we don’t run out! I made the hasty decision to take one of the few remaining ballots (11am!!) so I could vote.

These problems are a BIG deal. More than 1 in 5 voters in the democratic primary in CA are like me as ‘Decline-to-state’ voters, and these voters split better than 2 to 1 in favor of Obama over Clinton. That’s hundreds of thousands of votes. Read this story about the “double bubble trouble” in LA county.

But here’s the worst story so far: Chicago voters were told that broken voting pens were actually ‘invisible ink.’ Wow. We’ve really taken to heart the lessons of the 2000 election, haven’t we?