U.S. Policy: Can "Change" Be Anything But More of the Same?

One item which flew under the radar of the Saturday discussions of news pundits was yesterday's move by Obama to lift the ban on international abortion funding. Will U.S. law always mirror the ideology of the party in power? (Image: Wikipedia) The decision by President Obama to reverse this ban, which was created by Reagan (Republican) during his first term. The first President Bush (R) let it stand, but Clinton (Democrat) terminated the order in his first term. George W. Bush (R) reinstated it, and now Obama (D) has cancelled it again. What does all of this mean?

What this means, in my eyes, is that United States politics has very little stability. Major issues such as abortion and military or intelligence strategy and more recently gay marriage, "Don't ask, don't tell" or healthcare are dictated by the ideology of the ruling party. So can change mean anything but more of the same party-line legislation?

I'm not belittling Obama's message or his policy, but, in an infinitely cynical way, I am asking if it really matters. If Obama puts America back on par with the rest of the G8 world in terms of health care, schooling, equal rights, citizen freedom, and countless other measures, will it survive the next Republican president?

Here in Canada our policies remain much more stable. When the Conservatives came in (who I should point out are more and more like the Reform party), they did not reverse long-standing legislation on public healthcare, ban abortions, and stop funding public schools or even review recent decisions such as allowing gay marriage.

This has nothing to do with the status of the Conservatives as a minority government, but, I argue, it is a matter of tradition. In a country where you are not guaranteed a 4 year term, you must remain in line -- and that means that you must always be ready to answer to the electorate. I believe most citizens in the United States or Canada prefer stability, which makes it all the more odd that the flip-flopping laws in the U.S. don't raise more eyebrows.
Read more...

Work. School. Sleep. No time for living?

I got to thinking, after a few conversations with friends over recent weeks, how little free time we all have. It seems university life is a trade-off between having fun and doing well. Is there time for both? Is this any different than work life? (Image: Clock from Apple System Preferences) It's midterm season and everyone is feeling it. "It" being the pressure to pull off passable marks without driving yourself so far up a tree of isolation that you can't come back down. Well, I shouldn't say "everyone." There are a privileged few who know how to balance both in perfect harmony.

I'm not one of those people, so, with a bit of envy, I have been pondering what they do that I don't. It seems to me that when I take a day off to relax, I don't really get to relax. If the people who can balance both are at one end of a scale, I would be at the other.

Well, maybe not the other end of the scale. I have no problem forgetting about the insane amount of school work and work-related tasks for sustained periods of time, but I struggle to not feel as though I've wasted a day after the fact. I think the main difference between those who can feel balanced and those who are more like me is the mindset that social life is equally important to school or work.

I'm not accusing myself or others of undervaluing a social life. What I am saying is that we can get the notion that 'school (or work) will make or break us' stuck in our head too readily. There is no reason that we have to pick one over the other. It may be easier to get an 80 if you shut down socially, but it would be a very empty term.

Finding the balance is important. It's an entirely individual thing. While first year is fun, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us were way off in our attempts to balance, or lack of attempts to balance. I know that I am a lot closer this year, and it's been more enjoyable on the whole. Carrying this balance forward will be important, because, from what I can tell, balancing work and life is no different.
Read more...

Do We Care About The Budget?

Today, the Conservative Party (of Canada) announced the details of its proposed budget. Parliament's vote on this bill will determine not only the fate of a deficit building plan, but also a vote on whether the current government will remain intact. (Image: CBC) This budget represents the tipping point for Canadian politics in two areas, as mentioned in my introduction: one area being the fate of Canada's profitability and the second being the fate of this government. I think it's important to consider these two aspects in order to weigh what is going on with this vote.

While Canada has been chipping away at its national debt for several years, this new budget puts Canada into the red for the first time since the mid-1990s. Canada has avoided falling into a deficit during hard economic times until this budget, so the question becomes what is different now and how could it have been avoided.

I can't help but wonder what type of effect lowering of the GST from 7% to 5% has had on this deficit budget. Perhaps a deficit could have been avoided or lessened if those measures had not been taken. Sure, it may have won the Conservatives a few votes to make this promise to lower the GST, but it's concerning to think that they picked getting elected over keeping the country profitable.

The other issue is the choice of the rest of parliament as to whether this government will continue to exist or if this is the last straw for the Conservative minority. If it is the last straw they need to decide whether to form a coalition government led by the Liberals and NDP or whether to go to an election. I wish to make two points on the issue of a coalition.

The first is that it is entirely normal throughout the world for coalition governments to form. The reaction of some Canadians, inspired by Conservative advertising, to see this as undemocratic is extremely inaccurate. What is even more offensive to the intelligence of our citizens is the claims by the Conservative party that the coalition endorses the Quebec separation because the Bloc Quebecois supports the coalition. This is insulting because it was the Conservatives who used the Bloc to help topple the Liberals and set jn motion the Conservatives grab for power.

The second point I want to make about the coalition is that this group will bring stability for the remainder of a full-term. The government will not be toppled nor can it dissolve. This stability could bring the leadership needed to provide Canada with a steady set of goals and values moving forward. This could be invaluable.

So while the budget itself is important, it seems most of the debate surrounding it has nothing to do with the majority of its content, but more to do with the principles at stake. If there is to be a coalition government formed, I hope that they form that government soon and do not drag out the process. The looming threat of such a force is disruptive if there are no real plans to act.
Read more...

McDonald's Likes Recessions

When I was reading the site of the ever-yellow Matt Drudge, I came across a very interesting story about McDonald's and the economic downturn. It seems that people are increasingly turning to McDonald's for food during these hard times. (Image: Wikipedia) Now this story in itself is interesting enough to justify a read, but there are some broader lessons here. Let's just look at this objectively. Economy is down, budgets are tight, so let's eat fast-food more. Weird, huh?

Call me crazy, but I would venture a guess that it's more economical and healthier to make food at home and take it with you for lunch than it is to get something from McDonald's. Sure they make cheap fast food, but they also are a business with surprisingly high margins. I see the draw of the low advertised price, but we can do better ourselves.

Even if we couldn't get our homemade lunch cheaper than a $3 meal, it would be a lot healthier. I don't want to come off as too hard on McDonald's here, because, while I think they make a terrible product, they are not nearly as evil as most companies of their size. Rarely do I hear a news story bashing McDonald's for anything besides the low health standards of their foods. Meanwhile, most corporations of their size are riddled with financial mishaps or labour controversies.

McDonald's is relatively good from the perspective of business ethics and financial stability — and that's important. I won't degrade McDonald's as a business. I also won't categorically say that I will never eat McDonald's foods; sometimes it just happens, during long road trips or late nights, that McDonald's is nearby. It's convenient, it's cheap, and it's addictive.

But the level of business McDonald's is receiving during this downturn is more than just a few new casual customers dropping in. This is an increase in the occasional visitors and in the frequent visitors. Going to McDonald's as a regular source of food is terribly unhealthy -- which I'm sure everyone knows. So why are people doing it?

I believe it comes down to the psychological aspect of the low advertised prices. It's convenient and it seems cheap. However, people need to be aware that there are other options. Even if it costs you $4 or even $5 to fill a lunchbox with a homemade meal compared to $2 or $3 to get a Big Mac Meal, I'm sure your homemade meal won't include 72% of your recommended daily fat intake.
Read more...

Popular News: Code for News to an Even Lower Standard

Ever since my first post on journalism, I've been noticing quite a few shady practices in mainstream news. Yesterday, when I wrote about yellow journalism, I noticed some even more weird patterns around the web. (Image: Screen capture of CNN.com) On the CNN website, I noticed a section called "Popular News" below the latest headlines. This news seems to be primarily soft-news or articles from the entertainment industry.

Now, I have nothing against entertainment or soft-news outright, however, I think a news organization like CNN should be prioritizing a bit better. From my observations, on a typical news day, CNN posts 10 headlines under "latest news" and post about 6 soft-news stories under the "popular news" portal page section or in the sections beside it.

Despite the fact that CNN posts more real news than soft-news, the soft-news takes up as much if not more of the portal page's main section. This is a very odd decision in that CNN's brand relies on a tag line like "the most trusted name in news" when their website is increasingly dominated by fluff.

Much is said about the so-called "CNN-Effect" and how it has increased the amount of soft-news and editorialization due to the need to fill 24 hours. Though other news organizations have contributed to this problem, CNN was the root of the trend. Ironically, Fox News dedicates less space to soft-news entertainment stories -- called "Features and Faces" on their portal page.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not against this type of news categorically, however there is a time and a place for it. Placing this type of news side-by-side with the hard-news of the day is an injustice for the implications of the serious news. It's also interesting to see how these news stories resemble advertisements rather than news articles. They seem to have a "hook" in their title while using buzz words.

Overall, I believe there needs to be a clear distinction between hard- and soft-news for the casual reader. The web blurs the line a lot more readily than television tends to. On TV there are usually different programs for different styles of news, but on the internet these stories can appear right beside each other. This lack of distinction, as well as the fact that these stories are increasingly prevalent, are where I take issue with soft-news. Again, as I have found with all matters of journalistic integrity, the need for responsibility is key to fixing the problem.
Read more...

Yellow Journalism and the Drudge-Effect

The topic of "Yellow Journalism" has been popping up in several of my classes recently. It got me thinking a lot about my own writing online, other sites that play into this style, and the CNN-FOX effect. (Image: Drudge Report Archives) As much as I hate to admit it, sensationalism is almost a necessity for online news sites. Whether bloggers or online journalists, all reporters who want to succeed in this saturated market have to resort to sensationalism. Yellow Journalism is certainly not a result of the internet, but it has found a new home online.

Online, no one has succeeded more with the yellow strategy than Matt Drudge. The Drudge Report claims to have more than 24 million visits over the last 24 hours and about 638 million over the past month. Drudge makes full use of his 1990s web design arsenal, including the Drudge Siren shown above, to pull his readers into his world.

Though Drudge's content more closely resembles an outright tabloid, the site has gained a stunning reader base, which rely on it for news. During the presidential election, Drudge's traffic beat the New York Times, and just barely finished behind Fox.

Though yellow journalism does not fulfill the needs of democracy for a reliable, educational press, millions of viewers flock to sensational news while snubbing actual news. At MacNN, it never ceases to amaze me that hugely important positive stories get only a fraction of the reader discussion that occurs with moderately important negative stories.

I've witnessed first hand how easy it is to sensationalize something bad. On the flip side of the coin, sensationalizing a good story often results in a public denouncement of the story as biased. The double standard of the readers makes yellow journalism even more complex and confusing. While everyone enjoys a pile on, a group hug is out of the question.

When it gets down to it, there are few ways to control a phenomenon like yellow journalism. The public craves the sensational and will abandon your site, newspaper, or television station if you don't deliver. At the same time that media consumption has reached an all-time high, so has public ignorance. Though that judgement is a matter of opinion, I stand by it. I think citizens will need to demand better for this to ever change -- after all, yellow journalism is a creation of public demand.
Read more...

How Obama's win affects Canadian Politics

While reading the blog Laur Lore recently, I came across an interesting post about Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper following Obama's lead on key issues. (Image: CBC) As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I find it hard to fully understand how it must feel to have a genuinely inspiring political movement occurring in my country, as Americans have this election year. I did expect, however, exactly what is described over at Laur Lore -- that is Harper emulating Obama.

Most politicians are followers not leaders. Their goal is to get elected by appealing to the most broad base that they can. For most, this means that they choose to meet the status quo, not push a real agenda. Here in Canada, Stephen Harper may be the follower of the time, but I don't believe any of the leaders of the major parties would be any better in this regard.

During the Bush years, there were a few instances where Canadian politicians stood up to United States policy. The main example of which was Canada's refusal to dedicate combat troops to the Iraq invasion. Canada instead took up the slack in Afghanistan, so it's hard to argue that the Prime Minister then was standing up to Bush.

When it gets down to it, Harper is about the same as any other politician. I am not defending him by any means, as I can hardly stand him, but I am saying that it's not that odd for Canadian politicians to follow a United States President's lead.

In the case of Barack Obama, more than just Canadian leaders are seeking to emulate his policies in an effort to catapult themselves through his success. In fact, even countries with rocky relations with United States under Bush, such as Cuba and Venezuela, are beginning to warm to Obama and embrace the "hope" message.

Hopefully political leaders, here in Canada and around the world, choose not to only emulate Obama's methods, but also to embrace his message in a genuine way.
Read more...