Rand Paul gets schooled

Posted on April 8, 2015 by bvanrysdam

There is much talk among educators on the importance of education, but it appears they should stand to do a little homework of their own.

Senator Rand Paul, who yesterday announced his candidacy for president, posted a “Stand with Rand: Kentucky” video on YouTube. The problem is the video violated copyright law.

YouTube’s Content ID system flagged a John Rich song in the video which the Warner Music Group, which owns the copyright yanked the campaign piece.

A big deal? Probably not, but does demonstrate the adage “the devil’s in the details” and how politicians and their campaigns need to pay attention to the little details, so the big messages does not get lost.

All the news that’s fit to opine

Posted on November 3, 2014 by bvanrysdam

So where do you go for news? CNN, Fox, the Houston Chronicle or maybe Facebook and Twitter?

The Pew Research Center recently released a study that showed “Liberals and conservatives turn to and trust strikingly different news sources. And across-the-board liberals and conservatives are more likely than others to interact with like-minded individuals” which is kinda like determining eating too much will make you obese.

What did catch my attention in the study was the different types of news sources cited. You have the obvious main news channels like Fox News and CNN, but people also mentioned they use Glen Beck, The Daily Show, The Rush Limbaugh Program and The Ed Schultz Show as a source for news about government and politics.

While all these shows cover what is in the news, respondents used them as a source for their news even though much, if not almost of the content relies on providing an opinion, and not factual reporting.

Responding via email, Jocelyn Kiley, associate director, research, Pew Research Center said, “to create our list of sources, we took into account audience numbers from past Pew Research Center media consumption surveys and other audience data. Before fielding the survey, we also ran a pilot test to determine if our final list matched where people said they were receiving their news about government and politics.”

While the study listed many different opinion shows, it did not have the O’Reilly Factor or Anderson Cooper 360 listed. Kiley said they were included as part of their overall respective networks and not on their own. That might make sense from a research standpoint, but I think they missed an opportunity to further differentiate between the two types of journalism we see today. Do more people feel they get their news from the O’Reilly Factor, or Anderson Cooper 360 over the regular news programming on Fox and CNN?

Political candidates are starting to catch on to this. Vincent Harris, Dan Patrick’s digital consultant for the Lt. Governor election said by using social media sites such as Facebook, Patrick could communicate with voters more directly and quicker. Harris told the Houston Chronicle “he can do it without needing to go through the media as a filter.”

So again the question is raised, does it matter if people’s primary news source was from a show that’s based more on opinion than the traditional, factual style of reporting? The line between what constitutes so-called traditional journalism versus spin journalism is growing increasingly blurred. Both provide audiences with news and information, but programs such as The Daily Show and Sean Hannity take that news and pass it through a sieve of ideology, humor and beliefs.

I remember once speaking with a crusty, “old-school” news director who told me he never voted because that would require him to make up his mind and have to decide who makes the better candidate. Making that decision could influence the way his news department would cover an election. I wonder if that type of journalist still exists today.

Worst President Ever??

Posted on July 28, 2014 by bvanrysdam

Politics can get pretty rough. Take for example, these comments about a US president:

The administration “has been disgrace from the very beginning to everyone who has anything to do with bringing it to power.”

The nation needs “a president with brains; one who can make a plan and carry it out.”

Are they talking about Obama, Clinton, or Bush? No, the comments were directed towards Abraham Lincoln. What makes it even worst is that the comments were made by people from his own party while he was up for re-election!

It’s a good reminder for us that America always seems to be in turmoil. The Comprise of 1840 almost tore the country apart and the civil war certainly made it difficult to be an American. In today’s 24-7, social media world where controversies and crisis seem to be the norm, it’s helpful to step back and provide perspective.

For the record, it seems that Honest Abe ended up being remembered fondly with a large monument which can be found in our nation’s capital and a large head carved into Mount Rushmore. Now, I’m not sure Bush or Obama will ever reach that kind of status, but it does help one pause and ponder what history will finally say about our current presidents.

Would You Care To Run That By Me Again?

Posted on July 2, 2014 by bvanrysdam

Once again, I am scratching my head over politics. This time it is over the debate going on in Austin on how much, if any, regulation is placed on facilities that store chemicals like the one in West, Texas.

I understand the argument (but don’t buy into it) that the proposed regulations would overburden the facilities with complexities and cost. It’s an age old consideration that is hard to prove either way, but puts everyone on notice that we could damage the economy.

What I don’t buy is Attorney General Greg Abbot’s stance that the exact location and what is stored should not be made public to safeguard against terroristic threats.

Here’s where the disconnect comes in; he says that anyone is free to inquire with chemical companies on what is stored at their premises and receive an answer within 10 days.

Can you imagine parents walking into a storage plant and asking them if their child’s school is in the “blast zone” (and how would you know if the parents were terrorists)? It is also not clear what, if any punishment would be handed out if the company fails to respond within the allotted time.

To no one’s surprise, candidate Abbot has received several healthy contributions from the infamous Koch brothers, which of course leads to people speculating that they are helping to influence the discussion (not that there is anything wrong with that since no party is immune to being bought).

More than a year has passed since fifteen people were killed, more than 160 injured, and more than 150 buildings were damaged or destroyed in West, Texas. I do understand the need to discuss sensible solutions to complex issues, but knocking on the door at my local storage facility to see what kinds of chemcials they keep and how much doesn’t seem to be one of them.

Tea Party Becomes Diluted

Posted on May 29, 2014 by bvanrysdam

A funny thing happened on the way to the recent run-off election; the “Official” Tea Party of Montgomery County, better known as the Texas Patriot PAC (TPPAC) got hijacked and now they’re madder than the notorious wet hen.

The TPPAC was founded to organize, educate, inform citizens regarding public policy, and to support the election of local, state and national candidates who share their core values. Those values include upholding the constitution, free markets, limited government, fiscal responsibility and political action.

So why are they so angry? Seems that not all conservatives agreed with them and decided they would go out and form their own Tea Party which caused the TPPAC to cry foul. The TPPAC did not like the fact the other “faux” Tea Parties were trying to fool the voters (a la Dave Wilson implying he was black to win election to the HCC board of trustees).

Ultimately, only 1 of the 4 local candidates the TPPAC endorsed won the run-off.

They posted on their website:

A bunch of people who have never had anything to do with any tea party activity decided to call themselves a Tea Party about a month ago and put out a “Voter Guide” to fool the people, claiming they were a legitimate Tea Party.

This begs the question of what is a “legitimate” Tea Party since there is no official vetting and no national organization that can recognize or deny a local group to call themselves a Tea Party.

The TPPAC went on to say that:

We knew we would likely be outspent by multiples of our capacity to raise funds and decided to apply our efforts through “sweat equity.”

Now we all know that money talks and has always bought influence in government. Did anyone really think Ted Cruz won simply because the Tea Party knocked on doors or because he spent more than $16 million with nearly $1 million coming from lawyers and law firms. What is ironic is that, on the one hand, they promote free markets, but then complain when the free market outspends them. It truly is a have your cake and eat it too mentality.

Brian Crumby, a Montgomery County Tea Party volunteer and board member has posted numerous messages on the Conroe Courier website lamenting “the way I read last night’s elections is the majority of voters in the county believe in the tea party’s conservative message, but it got hijacked again.” Or in other words, tea party voters are not as smart as they think they are.

I have always wondered what the people who hang out at polling locations, promoting their candidate hope to accomplish. I think its fine to do research and yes, see what different groups including the Tea Party(s) say about various candidates, but if a person still doesn’t know who they are voting for when heading to the polls, they should probably turn around and go home.

Maybe the TPPAC become too big and powerful, maybe they stepped on some toes and made some conservatives upset. What upsets me is that State Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston won the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor receiving votes from only 3.5 percent of registered Texas voters. In the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, David Alameel of Dallas receiving votes from just 1 percent of the people who can vote in Texas. Sounds like a shadowy mandate to me.

FCC Looks To Screw Up Internet

Posted on May 16, 2014 by bvanrysdam

The continuing clash over net-neutrality is picking up speed. The Federal Communications Commission recently voted on a proposal that could allow Internet service providers to charge content companies for faster and more reliable delivery of their traffic to users.

By a 3-2 vote, the commission advanced the proposal and has begun formally collecting public comment, which has already started.

In typical Washington fashion, the proposed rule is intended to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data, but would allow content providers the right to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service. Many opponents of the plan say allowing some content to be transmitted faster would basically discriminate against other content.

“Candidate Obama promised to defend a free and open Internet, pledging to take a ‘backseat to no one’ on the issue of Net Neutrality,” said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress in an emailed statement. “The President can’t run away from this. Internet users across the country are demanding answers.”

Consumer advocates want to see the FCC reclassify Internet providers as utilities, similar to telephone companies. That’s because a 2005 US Supreme Court decision ruled that broadband services are not to be classified as telecommunications services and its infrastructure is not considered a public right of way.

“I will not allow the national asset of an open Internet to be compromised. I understand this issue in my bones,” said Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC during the meeting.

The public will have until July 15 to submit initial comments on the proposal to the commission, and until Sept. 10 to file comments replying to the initial discussions.