March 2012

Generational Reach (3/21/2012)

Generational Reach

Have you ever considered your legacy or the legacy of your family who came before you? The immediate touch to our children and grandchildren is obvious, but have you considered the stories your grandchildren will tell their grandchildren about you? In their book, The Fourth Turning, authors William Strauss ad Neal Howe propose the theory of generational reach. They describe this as memory span; the distance between the lives that touched you connected to the lives you will touch.

Since reading about this concept I have considered thoughtfully who I am based on memories of my grandfather and how my grandchildren will remember me. When technology is factored into the concept an awareness of complexity becomes more apparent. To calculate your generational reach, think of the oldest person who influenced your life and their birthday. For me, it is my paternal grandfather, born 1899. Next, we must identify the youngest person you will touch. Most likely this will be a grandchild; if unborn today assume your youngest child will bear your grandchild at age 35 year and your unborn grandson will live to be 85 years old. For me, my son Ty will be 35 in 2047 and his son or daughter, my future grandchild, will live 85 years to 2125. Thus, my reach is (2125-1899) 226 years.

I believe generational reach helps understand the differences in views toward politics, values, and everyday culture. Immigrants carry fresh in their mind the struggles to come to America and place value on family, hard work, and maintain their roots. Many families have been in American since the late 19th century or early 20th century, thus generational reach to a different time is a fresh memory, easily reached through one or two generations. In contrast, families with roots dating back to the late 18th century and early 19th century have lost touch with the fight to escape persecution and enjoy the fruits of others thrust upon them by an entitlement society.

I believe generational reach slows progressive policies and grounds values in time. Shifts in culture acceptance of previously questionable behaviors are slowed. However, generational reach may also create rebellion as youth work to prove elders wrong and undo values established for conservative reasons. Take, for example, the late 1960’s when the hippie-youth counter-culture rebelled against the establishment of the day. Arguments were made regarding the disconnect between youthful opinion over the Vietnam War versus politicians sending other people’s sons to Southeast Asia. Today, similar disconnects are evolving as the Millennials protest , through the Occupy movements, decisions of an elder-political class intent on enslaving future generations through an unpayable debt.

The generational reach today comes from the millennials whose grandparents tell stories of the thievery of banks in then 1930s and see similarities to today’s big banks. These same millennials will tell their grandchildren about the great recession and the lost decades of economic prosperity and how their future was stolen like their great-grandparents. They will touch forever lives extending forward another century in the history of America.

March 21, 2012 by Freedom Great Recession

When are Races Won? (3/14/2012)

When are Races Won? (3/14/2012)

Last summer I wrote a column titled, “The Media Elects Presidents;” a now prophetic article regarding the influence of corporate media on the nominations. Since the spring of 2011 the Republican nomination process has been underway although it did not officially start until the first Tuesday in January of this year. However, long ago it appeared a decision was made anointing Mitt Romney as the heir to the Republican nomination. My goal here is not to offer an opinion on the qualifications of the candidates, but instead want to analyze the process.

Watching the recent Russian elections many media outlets around the world reported possible election fraud and manipulation. I believe Americans have always believed our elections were above such accusations and not subject to manipulation or theft. However, many seem to acknowledge questionable tactics in municipal elections like Chicago’s mayoral races, either like the Daly’s in the past or the most recent residency issues of Emmanuel. Similarly, the Bush and Gore vote division propelled true questions of integrity in our own system to the forefront of our attention.

As of this week, there are only four candidates in the race: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. Of the bound delegates, according to the GOP web site, Romney leads with 339, Gingrich is second with 107, and Santorum is third with 95 delegates. Paul is clearly trailing in fourth place with 22 awarded delegates.

Throughout the nomination race I have been puzzled by reporting from major media outlets like the case where Santorum won the Iowa Caucus, not Romney, even though the media was quick to report differently. Although Romney holds a sizable lead over his next closest competitor, only one-third of the total delegates have been awarded. Watching the process last summer and fall demonstrated a candidate’s demise could arrive without much warning. Regardless, since my original column eight months ago Romney has been the declared winner.

I feel the problem with the constant polling and predictions of who will win is the voter apathy created. First instance, if Romney is the winner – as declared by the media before the race started, then why bother voting? When a voter believes his vote no longer matters he chooses to not participate in the process and ultimately fulfills the hypothesis that his vote no longer matters. If results were held back, speculation by the media held back, and no forecasts were made I assert the voters would remain more objective in the process and choose the candidate they feel best qualified for the job.

March 13, 2012 by Mainstream Media Stupid People

The Media Elects Presidents (6/8/2011)

Appeared in the Observer 6/8/2011

The Media Elects Presidents (6/8/2011)

Over the last 50 years I believe there has been a dramatic turn in Presidential elections. Arguably the headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman” in 1948 is reflective of media bias and anticipation toward election outcomes. Most academics will acknowledge the 1960 Presidential debate outcome was not determined by the quality of the candidate speeches, but instead by appearance on television. Nixon articulated much stronger responses but was no match for Kennedy’s suave television charm.

Today the media is controlling who wins the nomination and the election in several ways. One method is withholding information and using editorial prejudice to positively influence opinion about candidates. Two documented cases exemplify this. First, the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal unreported by major broadcast and print outlets until Drudge’s persistence forced the issue to headlines and impeachment of the President. Second, the New York Times failure to print an article deemed damaging concerning the Obama/ACORN relationship which may have brought a different election outcome and it took the whimsical undercover video by James O’Keefe to finally destroy the organization.

The second method of influence is the prejudicial nature of coverage of candidates. For example, The Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard University’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy conducted a study of 5,374 media narratives about the presidential candidates from January 1 through March 9, 2008. The study found that Obama received 69% favorable coverage and Clinton received 67%, compared to only 43% favorable media coverage of McCain. An October 29, 2008 study found 29% of stories about Obama to be negative, compared to 57% of stories about McCain being negative.

Finally, my last concern regarding media influence on politics is the pervasive use of public opinion polls. With every candidate announcement regarding potential Republican candidates a comparison poll is published. On NBC News May 26th nightly program speculation around Palin’s presidential announcement was offset by a poll showing candidate positioning, with Romney in the lead. The media has given far more coverage to Romney, Gingrich, and Palin than CPAC straw poll winner Ron Paul and Tea Party favorites Cain and Bachman.

With an election 15 months away the media is focused on manipulating public opinion to control an outcome. Imagine what our election process would be like if there were no polls, no television pundits, and no scandalous coverage. Imagine speeches and debates, presented factually, without media editorial. I am not asserting to curtail freedom of the press, but instead push to present unedited coverage, eliminate polling, and present opinion as such, not news.

March 13, 2012 by Mainstream Media Stupid People