SharedEmergency on BlogTalkRadio
SharedEmergency internet radio broadcasts cover a wide range of topics. Check out "Shared Emergency" at BlogTalkRadio.com.
Keeping those with power in touch with average Americans is our responsibility.
Those who are not influence brokers or “insiders” still have the chance to be heard…by sending mail. Once we write and convey our thoughts, it is up to our leaders to take the time to listen.
How many of your local, regional and state officials read 10 letters a day from their constituents?
Write and ask them.
Before the last Presidential Election, these students understood the power of letter writing…
When the New York Times announced, on October 19, staff cuts of 100 in the news room, an information chill reverberated from Manhattan. A reduction of 8 percent of the news staff is a deep wound for those who seek truth. Last year 100 other news staffers at the Times were cut. What will next year bring? The journalistic icon is not alone. Last year alone, reports National Public Radio, American newsrooms lost approximately 5,900 jobs. That is a disaster.
We all know the reasons for tight news budgets…decreasing advertising revenue, competing free web content, and high newspaper delivery costs. No matter what the reasons, the forced Jenny Craig diet hitting newsrooms across the nation is resulting in enhanced national ignorance. And what’s worse, we, the news consumers, are letting it happen, as if we have no part to play in finding a viable solution in the delivery and consumption of news. News flash: It’s not just news editors and media owners who have to figure out how to keep a healthy press, the burden is just as much on the readers. You, me and our neighbors.
Newspaper circulation is not the only problem. As CNN’s ratings recently fell to abysmal levels in prime time, we all should worry. Arguably the hardest working anchor on television, Anderson Cooper, should not be seen by a mere 211,000 viewers per night, as reported by the Times on October 27. There are over 305 million people in the United States. That only a couple hundred thousand are viewing the most aggressively produced news program on the tube is not only eye opening, but scary. In the case of CNN’s prime time ratings, the issue is a lack of curiosity in an age of blog mania…not just economics. The American news audience has been sucked into a state of complacency…and believes that entertainment and opinion is a legitimate substitute for cold, blunt news. As a result, programs like 360 lack substantial viewers.
Whether it be in print or on television, the conveyance of genuine information is being suffocated by technology, economics and inattention by the consumer.
With all the available media choices, we are vastly uninformed about the facts that make up the news, but over-infused with opinion. “Cable news” is not that at all…it has morphed into “Cable Opinion.” American media has been hyper-opinionized with pundits, in large part due to constrained budgets that try to make up for loss of reporting talent and resources. In order to get audiences, conflict among talking heads has been emphasized at the expense of reporting.
We need hard news and the resources to know what is happening in our frenetic world. Good journalism requires the researchers, the investigators, the reporters, the people that verify information, go to the story, smoke it out and do the hard and often dangerous labor to find and report the facts. A free and informed nation cannot claim to know what is going on when news which is presented as mere analysis and spin. We have enough opinions to deal with per capita. Everyone is an expert these days…and the more we hear, the less we know if we don’t have a wide range of objective news sources to decide issues and options for ourselves.
Media economics and consumer inattention is slowly suffocating the stream of information that reaches our households, and we get less and less input. The inevitable result…we will know less about our world, our government, our health, our science, our arts and…well, our everything.
Cutting staffers in the Times is disturbing not only because it demonstrates a great newspaper in decline, but it is, along with the Wall Street Journal, one of the only major news operations that has the global scale and resources to investigate and gather the news. Similarly, the decline of Ted Turner’s original model for transmitting news by cable and the low numbers on CNN are almost inexplicable given the moderate majority in the United States.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of assignment editors in media land who wish they could assign a team for months at a time to dig, probe, seek and ultimately publish detailed pieces that will improve our understanding of present day, but are frustrated because they cannot devote sufficient resources to such an effort. As newspapers get thinner and contain less and less content, we are confronted with knowledge disconnect. We think we know what is going on by reading news aggregators, but as credible reporting and sources diminish or disappear, there is less content to collect and re-distribute. As we lead our busy lives, what we don’t read we may not know.
News consumer, it’s time to stand up and be heard. We must be a part of the solution. It starts with the New York Times. NYT…Don’t make that next round of staff cuts. The more you trim your news operation, the more you accelerate diminished credibility.
If you have to, charge for the free content provided by the Gray Lady on the I-Phone. Follow the example of the Wall Street Journal and seek payment for premium content on the web. Develop a micro payment system for readers on the internet. For those that use the free NewYorkTimes.com site, support the paper by paying the $165 a year for the amazing Times Reader service. (It’s the best and easiet fusion of newspapers and new media, with the traditional newspaper look, that’s out there right now).
Around the nation, those concerned with threats to the media should have community meetings with news executives to brainstorm for financial solutions which will keep media on track to providing true information.
We should not have to rely on a Mexican billionaire to bail out the Times, we should do it ourselves. For those of you that dislike the Times, and favor more conservative voices, keep in mind…your paper may be, and probably is, next to cut resources. Inaction on the consumer front is no longer an option, no matter what newspaper you favor. Let’s fully explore and debate what the concept of non-profit news organizations means to journalism. We should examine membership fund raising drives akin to the model of National Public Radio and its stations. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who would agree to pay a membership fee to support the Times, the Journal and other newspapers in exchange for exclusive services heretofore not offered on the web.
Here’s another idea…invest in stock of media companies to boost their capital reserves and investments and become part owners of the very institutions we rely upon to inform us. Perhaps mutual funds devoted solely to investments in media outlets should be created, so readers can have a personal stake in journalism through an easy investment vehicle.
Finally, let’s start educating our children and young adults about the difference between opinion and fact. Every high school and college graduate should be able to take, and complete, a course about the meaning of genuine journalism and its importance to society. We should infuse curiosity into our national consciousness. We don’t do enough of that with traditional teaching methods.
As consumers we cannot always receive but fail to reciprocate. Now is the time to stand up, economically and consciously, or one day, the news we get will be worthless, lacking in detail and scope…a mere reflection of a disinterested America.
In case you have not read it, we are well down that path in 2009.
For more on this topic, see the Sunday Morning CBS News presentation, “Stopping the Presses For Good” on our sister site, SharedEmergency.com, reported by Jeff Greenfield. (Broadcast April, 2009).
It’s simply not acceptable to assume that the American government cannot pass meaningful and responsible climate change legislation in time for the December United Nations Copenhagen conference on global warming. We need to be active participants, setting the example, not passive reluctants who fail to show we are ready to act. Yet, despite years of urgent debate and scientific study, Washington may not have legislation ready to prove to the rest of the world that it means business.
Congress, if you have to, work overtime. Reduce your vacation time. Labor night and day. Get the job done. Give the new American Chief Executive, and our nation, momentum on this singularly crucial challenge. Congress can multi-task and deal with more than just health care reform. There is no reason to wait until early December to take up this issue, a concern which was reported in the New York Times on October 16.
American leadership and creativity is needed on the “five tracks” of the Copenhagen conference as identified by Michael A. Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations in his recent article, “Copenhagen’s Inconvenient Truth.” (Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2009). The blueprint includes: Mitigation (“near-term commitments to cutting emissions”), Adaptation (“Efforts to deal with unavoidable climate change”), Finance (“Schemes to pay for emission cuts”), Technology (“Frameworks for advancing and distributing low-carbon technology”) and Creating A Vision For Long-Term Cooperative Action. Capitol Hill should not cede leadership to other nations by embracing paralysis and indecision on this issue.
And one more thing…President Obama needs to be head the American presence to Copenhagen, to showcase our committment to deal effectively, and urgently, with global warming issues. But as of the date of this post, his presence is not assured. If this President is truly concerned about our changing natural environment, his absence from the UN conference will be an overwhelming distraction and side track progress.
On October 19, the BBC reported it is not at all certain that President Obama will attend the critical international meeting on climate change. According to the report, “Many observers believe that Barack Obama is the leader whose presence would do most to hasten a deal, but Mr Stern, the US administration’s chief negotiator, said the president’s attendance was not decided.”
We can do better. We must. Now.
As President Obama inches toward a fresh policy concerning America’s engagement in Afghanistan, four critical questions stand out to Shared Emergency.
1. Given the volatile nature of the Pakistani state, can we afford to remove our military presence and capabilities from the region to the north of that fractured (and nuclear) nation? If fragile Pakistan falls apart, which seems not too unrealistic given recent examples of political instability, America needs the capability to respond to nuclear and conventional threats from what is clearly the most dangerous place on Earth. Rather than being limited to naval capabilities, coalition bases in Afghanistan make sense, to be ready to strike from the north, when needed, in Pakistani areas which threaten American security interests. There are real and present threats (like Al Qaeda) in border areas, the Swat Valley, and Baluchistan (to name a few). Surgical strikes (using drones and missiles) from American bases into regions not controlled by Islamabad have been effective against enemy targets and should not be eliminated as a military tool.
2. Can coalition powers afford to give up military bases to the east of Iran? Like it or not, the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda may not be the only compelling reasons to sustain a strong military presence in the sketchy Afgan nation. With bases in Iraq and in Afghanistan, American and NATO interests may be better served by a long-term battle-ready footprint to counter, and react to, any Iranian adventurism.
3. Are tribal leaders too powerful for any meaningful development of a strong and secure Afghanistan? The discredited Karzai government is not really in charge, and the power of local warlords seems to be increasing month-by-month. What tactics can be employed to undermine the fiefdoms of these regional power brokers to make way for real long-lasting reform to make Afghanistan more secure and less of a terrorist threat? If the culture of Afghanistan is such that tribal chiefs will forever undermine efforts to centralize and stabilize the government, are we not fighting against an inevitable cultural tide of jihadism and indifference? Is the best answer to settle for a Guantanimo Bay type stronghold in a country which will, in the end, never truly welcome sincere “nation building?”
4. Is the White House ready for a major public education initiative on the future course soon to be announced? After 8 years of conflict and no end in sight, will the President and his national security team be able to make a compelling case that will be embraced by a skeptical and weary American public, so as to sustain whatever strategy is charted as our future course? Is the United States ready for a new military commitment in the mold of Europe and South Korea with decades of bases? Are Afghanistan Town Halls across our nation the next debate venues once health care is legislatively resolved?
As the debate in Washington continues, tell us what you think with your comments.
Bill Gates is correct. We need to develop technology to stop Typhoons, Hurricanes and Cyclones. No matter how difficult the task, the need to divert and tame monster storms increases each year. The ambitious Gates plan is correctly referenced as ”geoengineering.” Applied ethically, it can to save lives and property.
According to the Economist, in its 9.19.09 edition, “Ten of the developing world’s 15 largest cities are in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to rising sea levels or coastal surges.” The article, entitled, “A bad climate for development,” adds, “In 1981-85, fewer than 500m people required international disaster assistance; in 2001-05, the number reached 1.5 billion.“
We should be praying Bill’s geo-engineering patents and strategies are implemented, and that others will follow with new ideas to calm down the planet. Weather related events and their impact seem to be getting worse by the decade, just as human capabilities to effect weather modification increase. To ignore the opportunity to employ technology in the fight against cyclonic events would be criminal.
Iran, Nuclear Weapon Proliferation, Afganistan, AIDS, Poverty, Taxes, Global Warming, Health Care Wars, Corruption, North Korea, H1N1, Religious Conflict, Alzheimer’s Disease, Pakistan, Typhoons, Congress, Cancer, Mean Streets…the Economy.
Just for a few moments, let’s forget it all…and see how Beethoven can completely absorb and relax you with color, geometry, drama, grace and pure engaging art.
If we collectively step back from our emotional and non-artistic responses to daunting problems, and put our thoughts in some creative structure…perhaps we might capture a bit of practical harmony and begin to solve some of our messy, but chartable, challenges.
Our thanks to VisualThinkMap.ning.com and musanim.com for this moment of musical introspection.
The year is 2035. It is clear that the steps taken to reduce global warning at the summit in Copenhagen in December, 2009 were not nearly enough. Miami Beach is covered with a foot of water. Miami and Fort Lauderdale have suffered the fate of the Maldives Islands, as much of the cities are submerged. The story is the same in the Florida Keys, which were largely evacuated years ago. The predictable environmental disaster of high waters is now of age, and counties adjacent to the expanding Atlantic Ocean have lost billions in tax revenue. Places to live had just disappeared, and once proud condominiums stand as silent monolithic memorials to improper land use planning and the environmental disregard of past eras.
Hundreds of thousands of environmental refugees have been displaced by waves, sand, fish, and massive pollution and have moved inland. Areas to the west of the waterways, once considered “blighted” and “undesirable” are now the home towns of those who wanted to, but now cannot, live on the once glamorous barrier islands.
Room for lower income housing has been squeezed to the max, and affordable housing itself has been displaced, and along with it, the millions of lower and middle income workers who service our shops, restaurants, hospitals, governments and corporations. It seems as if in only a few short years, affordable housing has become yet another casualty of climate change. Those that cannot afford to live in affluent areas now live distressingly far from their places of work. It is now common place to travel 75 to 100 miles a day, one way, just to get to work in South Florida to earn a living.
Municipal, County and State leaders engaged in political gridlock a mere 26 years ago simply were unable to formulate strategies to achieve meaningful responses to rising sea levels. The largely irrelevant debate about the cause of higher sea levels (man-made or natural causes) has long resolved…it was both. As populations shifted to the now shrunken Florida peninsula, those that were born in 2009 look back, with the curiosity of 26 year olds, and ask, why was there so little planning when they were children. Why, they ask, did it fall upon their generation to deal with the problem of global warming refugees in a state which continues to diminish, mile by mile?
With all the discussion about the effects of global warming, careful scrutiny must be focused in 2009 on the need to provide affordable housing in coastal areas likely to be impacted by rising sea levels. We need strategies designed to cope with the new reality that the sea is going to encroach upon our municipal domains. Already, in Fort Lauderdale, during the week of September 13, 2009, all one had to do is step out on the soggy commons of Gateway Terrace, along the Intracoastal Waterway, to see high tide waters foretelling a future of submersion. Another few inches at high tide and much of Downtown Fort Lauderdale will experience flooding along the intrusive New River. Responsible thinkers in the Keys are thinking about their tiny islands and survival as those low lying areas, like those in the Pacific, face the prospect of flooding and eventual burial at sea.
It is not too soon to think about moving those who live along the intracostal region to inland areas in future years, the resultant loss of property tax revenues, and the relocation of, well, literally, millions of once comfortable, and dry, residents.
If we are not careful, one of the great casualties of climate change will be affordable housing opportunities and communities. Global warming threatens not just our weather, but it threatens our local real estate and business economies, as well as our future housing options. Unless we are careful today, one can foresee the day
when affordable but economically defenseless communities are uprooted to make room for those who can no longer live on threatened coastal areas. Already we have seen the displacement of thousands of mobile home residents in Broward County, Florida so that new developments can be created. The motive thus far has been purely economic…the goal in the future will be the very survival of counties…to find new homes for those displaced by the growing sea. Despite the fact that the law of Florida requires comprehensive plans that provide “housing elements” for existing communities, present laws have been insufficient to follow the established public policy of providing affordable housing opportunities. Such statutes will be under greater stress as the impact of sea level rise becomes manifest and society grapples with what to do.
The problem is not limited to Florida, nor is rising salt water levels the only antagonistic and threatening element of global warming. The conflict between the need to adapt to the effects of climate change but still allow our communities to thrive (by providing affordable housing for those that oil the engine of our economy) is real, and is just beginning, all across America, from Hawaii to California, to the Gulf Coast and the Northeast. If affordable housing is not protected in governmental decisions to adapt to environmental threats, the fabric of our communities will become increasingly frail.
Witness a political press release from the opposition party in New Jersey on January 14, 2009, entitled, “Corzine’s Global Warming Goals Conflict With His Affordable Housing Mandates.” According to the release, “Eliminating sprawl and shortening commutes as called for in the global warming plan are worthy goals, but they will be impossible to achieve when another plan from the administration shifts development from urban centers to the suburbs.” It is clear…Housing advocates are about to butt heads with environmental activists and planners. Both have worthy aspirations, and each deals with societal imperatives. What’s needed is a careful balance of interests before things get out of hand due to lack of planning and attention.
In a sobering report released on June 16, 2009, the U.S. Global Change Research Program warned, “An increase in average sea level of up to 2 feet or more and the likelihood of increased hurricane intensity and associated storm surge are likely to be the most costly consequences of climate change for this [Southeast] region. As sea level rises, coastal shorelines will retreat. Wetlands will be inundated and eroded away and low-lying areas including some communities will be inundated more frequently-some permanently-by the advancing sea.” The report adds the rapid rise in sea levels will destroy barrier islands.
Since so much of our population is clustered on these islands and low-lying areas, we have a real problem to plan for, not later, but today. We must address the rising conflict between global warming and the need for affordable housing with all deliberate speed, as it involves millions and millions of people and their future.
Local, county and state governments are quietly looking at what do to about the inconvenient issue of a changing environment. The question is, are they looking at how to keep all elements of their cities and towns together, by insuring affordable housing alternatives but still trying to sustain their future existence? As local and regional governments study the practical problems posed by rising seas in South Florida and New York City, we await the forumlation of realistic action plans.
Putting off these issues for “another day,” even for another year, may be politically expedient, but the represented populations are not well served, nor is the very next generation, if we ignore the dynamic oceans and the challenges they present to housing policies.
The unfortunate incident during President Obama’s health care address to a joint session of Congress on September 9 involving shouting from the Congressman from South Carolina, was, no doubt, “inappropriate and regrettable.”
The encounter also points out a greater problem, and a larger opportunity. We need to see Washington luminaries, of opposing viewpoints, actually addressing each other in spontaneous and substantive ways, where constructive exchanges are encouraged. Instead of interrupting a critical national address with rude and insulting words, those who disagree should be able to communicate on a higher level and in an accountable way, on the record.
The incident highlights a unique opportunity for real change in the way our leaders communicate with each other. If Members of Congress disagree with the President, the world should be able to witness them seriously debating specific points. We can then decide who has the better position, and understand the basis for public positions and platforms that are often phrased in mere headlines without any foundation.
It is ironic that in such an open society, the American public rarely gets to see the President talking, actually having a dialogue, with members of the opposition party. Such exchanges usually occur behind closed doors, whether it be in the Oval Room of the White House or private rooms on Capitol Hill.
For most citizens, the closest thing to watching the two sides actually conversing and listening to each other occurs every four years when Presidential elections loom. Otherwise they have to compare press conferences and blogs against media appearances and public relations releases and rely too much, way too much, on political pundits. The Sunday talk shows are too limited in time and guests, to be a meaningful stage for substantive exchanges viewed by the American people between the opposing parties. Published OpEd pieces pitting one view point against another are rare, and not widely read.
Perhaps the British have it somewhat right…it’s called “Questions to the Prime Minister,” (QPM) when the Prime Minister meets members of Parliament for what is envisioned as a debate. Referred to as a “Constitutional Convention,” pointed and tough questions are asked and insightful (and quick) responses are often given. Often irreverent and sometimes non-diplomatic, the sessions (which can be viewed on CSPAN) offer the voters the opportunity to hear candid arguments and accusations, and see what lies behind many of the issues and political positions in a way that even the Fourth Estate does not afford through the conduit of reporters asking questions.
Bluntly stated, QPM is another chance to understand what government is up to. We should adopt a modified version here.
This idea is not new. During the Clinton Administration, there was talk of creating an American edition of QPM, but it never reached fruition. One recent commentator, John Freehery (who worked for Republicans in Congress) wrote that the “President had little interest in subjecting himself to that kind of ridicule on a weekly basis.”
There is a compelling argument, however, for revisiting the idea for an American (and more respectful) form of the British practice.
First, if proper rules of decorum are established, questioning need not venture into ridicule and heckling can be banned. Just as both houses of Congress have rules about what their members can and cannot do, such rules can be established for “President’s Questions,” strengthened by sanctions in the event of inappropriate behavior, to ensure civility and meaningful discussion. Respect for the Presidency should, and must, be a guiding principle of the debate.
Second, the encounters can be limited to once every quarter. There is no need for a weekly forum, and can be 60 or 90 minutes in duration. In Britain, Prime Minister’s Questions are weekly for much of the year. That is too often for America, given the demands on the White House, but an exchange every 3 months would foster greater citizen participation in the little understood governmental decision making process.
Third, and most compelling, it would allow both sides to smoke out rumors and unsubstantiated charges in a publicly aired discussion to get past all the rhetoric and into the real and relevant guts of key issues. Think how quickly the “Death Panels” proclaimed as “fact” could be debunked by a President responding in an articulate fashion to his accusers in spontaneous and lively discourse.
Fourth, such sessions would educate the public, from school children to senior citizens, about the merits of each side’s positions, since each side could be heard talking to each other in which should be an unrehearsed forum. “President’s Questions” could be a showcase for debate, and an opportunity to infuse new opinions into the big issues of the day…directly to the top level of government.
This vehicle is so valuable it is used not only in the United Kingdom, but in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, India, Sweden and is being suggested in Israel, according to Wikipedia.
No doubt, there are problems with the presentation and evolution of Questions to the Prime Minister. On July 16, 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said his weekly exchanges with the British House of Commons lack serious debate in a “sensible and reasonable way” and is “not the vehicle” for a non-party political discussion. While no format is perfect, surely a commission of government leaders, political science professors and journalists can fashion a procedure that will improve on the existing British tradition and bring it to a new and highly responsible level in Washington.
Instead of hearing just “you lie,” such a meeting would allow the accuser to back up and expand on his or her statement, and afford the President a decent chance to respond. “President’s Questions” would promote an intelligent discussion…the “serious debate” Gordon Brown seeks, and not the incivility and sound bite we witnessed from a mistaken (and now somewhat apologetic) Congressman during Wednesday’s Presidential address.
In law school they teach you to appreciate issues on all levels, from different viewpoints. It is not an easy process, and the road to truly understanding problems and attacking them is a complicated mixture of taking in various opinions and facts and developing one’s own individual and unique understanding. The road to learning is arduous and sometimes overwhelmingly difficult, but it feeds the brain with the knowledge which is so desperately sought by the human animal in its quest to make the right choices.
One cannot learn without exposure to other viewpoints. True, I may not like what you have to say, but I need to be open enough to listen to your messages, so I can learn from it and decide what to believe. If our minds are not exposed to life’s different voices, we will not lead full lives, and we will stagnate or recede.
Appreciating the value of learning is not something we are born with. It needs to be taught and appreciated. That’s one justification for going to school. From pre-K to the end of schooling, our teachers convey the message that we must seek understanding of all aspects of our world. Yet, for many, the message gets lost, and the need to learn, to really understand things, is too often considered non-essential. That’s part of the reason our nation is in an intellectual and functional period of decline.
So when the President of the United States wants to stress, by direct communication with students, the value of getting as much out of school as possible, he should be allowed to do so. School boards should be willing to embrace his message, for his is an intelligent and relevant plea, and it has been their mantra as well.
Sadly, however, some school districts, teachers and parents are planning to block the President’s remarks on education when aired on September 8.
It is nothing less than betrayal for teachers and educators to block the President from stressing the need for the very same educational message to which they have committed their professional lives. To silence a Presidential plea to students to get the most out of their educational process is to contradict and defeat the the urgency of teaching. It provides, at the least, lesson in incivility.
Forcing those who may not be able to see the message when outside the classroom to diversions in the form of free speech blackouts, is, plainly stated, morally and intellectually dishonest. Message suppression in any form rarely works to achieve good, and often produces backlash. We witnessed that from Iran in June of this year.
By permitting censorship of Mr. Obama’s message, the hand of ignorance will grip the very same institutions that are supposed to teach and form young minds. Allowing embargoes of Presidential remarks on education will teach that censorship of constructive discussion of public issues is justified. It will set unhealthy examples for students to follow in the future. Blocking out the President’s right to encourage and inspire students will help usher in a new age of intolerance.
Critics have decried that White House plans a message of socialism, without any articulate reasons to back up such an assertion. A message about staying in school and getting the most out of it is as patriotic as apple pie and Old Glory. It is not a Democratic message, nor is it a Republican message. It certainly is not a socialist message. It is an American message.
Who better than the President of the United States to directly talk to the youth of our troubled times, directly, about the need for a good quality education and to get as much of it as possible. The goal is to reduce the dropout rate and encourage students to work hard, not to change the American form of government.
If Mr. McCain won in November and tried to give such a speech, there would be no protests. But because Mr. Obama is trying the tackle the very same issues we elected him to solve, and considering such a mission engenders passionate responses from all quarters, the White House is criticized and censored on what should not be a controversial subject. Critics have a right to express themselves. Those criticized should be afforded that right as well.
We should not allow a modern form of book burning. Cutting off the President’s message is media burning.
President George H.W. Bush addressed school children directly when he was in office. His 1991 message was to labor hard and reject drugs. Ronald Regan talked to students about the evil of taxes in 1988. Those messages got out. Parents that cared talked to their kids about the messages, and teachers were able to dialogue with their students about those messages. Why not allow for further discourse in the aftermath of this President’s speech to students?
It is refreshing, that after 18 years, a President wants to talk about education to those who are being educated. Whatever he says, it can be discussed and students can decide for themselves what the words mean. Just like the nonsense threat of “death panels” deciding your health care, we don’t need truth panels deciding that good-intentioned messages about education should not be conveyed from the White House because (and let’s admit it) of base political agendas.
Blocking Mr. Obama is nothing but approval of pure censorship. That’s one of the worse lessons society can teach. We are not in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea, and we should not follow their examples.
Those who seek to close the ears of others would be the first to decry such treatment if it were to be turned upon them. If today’s lesson is censorship, tomorrow’s lesson may be much worse, and cripple true educated understanding for a generation or more. Under such circumstances, a future America will not be able to dissect issues from different dimensions, and we will have the kind of nation that knows no wrong, because such wrongs might not be identified in the first place.
Update 9.8.09. The President’s speech was delivered to schools across the nation today. It inspired students and teachers alike.
Each year Americans face a wide range of natural disasters and extreme threats. Whether it be hurricanes, wildfires, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes or Tsunamis, communities need to be prepared in advance. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the requirement for better and more efficient communications before, during and after a severe crisis was clearly evident. We learned then that FEMA could not do everything Americans expected of it, and that State and local governments, along with private companies, would have to partner in order to get America ready to recover from various crisis situations.
One innovative company about to make a real difference is US Emergency Operations Center, Inc., which has rolled out Emicus.com. Simply put, Emicus offers “Community Powered Emergency Information.” The site allows you to build a hurricane plan, let others know you are okay in the hours and days after an event, keep up to date with emergency news and information, and to share data about local conditions and the availability of goods and services in disaster impacted areas. Emicus is about what is happening in your community…all in an effort to let people help people when natural and other calamaties hit.
Our guest in this installment of SharedEmergencyRadio is Paul Berger, co-founder of Emicus. An insurance expert and owner of a public adjusting firm, he is also an attorney. Mr. Berger works with a highly skilled team of individuals as Chief Strategy Officer for the website. Paul Berger joins us from Boca Raton, Florida to talk about the mission, and potential, of this new and insightful web service.
