Category Archives: Politics & Government

My momma used to say, “Stupid is as stupid does”

Posted on by
Reply

Bill Maher (along with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert) has the knack –and the balls– for saying things I believe but can’t quite put into words. Like, “this is a stupid country.”

“I’m the bad guy for saying it’s a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don’t know what’s in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don’t know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket.

Not here. Nearly half of Americans don’t know that states have two senators and more than half can’t name their congressman. And among Republican governors, only 30% got their wife’s name right on the first try.

Until we admit there are things we don’t know, we can’t even start asking the questions to find out. Until we admit that America can make a mistake, we can’t stop the next one.”

Whew. I feel SO much better.

Tim Robyn: Bringing consistency to state government websites

Posted on by

I recently learned of an ambitious undertaking involving the websites of some of the divisions of state government here in Missouri. The objective is to bring some consistency of design and how the information is organized.

tim-robynFor example, why not put the search box in the same place on each site? Or, when deciding on names for different kinds of content areas, use the name most common to the public, rather than some acronym known only to those within the division or agency.

The man responsible for overseeing this sisyphean task is Tim Robyn, Deputy for Web Presence with the state’s IT services division. We had a cup of Rocket Fuel here at the Coffee Zone yesterday and he talked about the program.

AUDIO: Interview 15 min MP3

The state of Missouri has dozens of websites but ten have been selected for this UI make-over. I forgot to ask Tim which ten but when I have that list, I’ll grab some screenshots so we can see a before-and-after.

PS: Tim has what might be the coolest title I’ve heard in a while.

UPDATE: The official State of Missouri site (below) and the MO Dept. of Agriculture were among the first to get the make-over’s. The Dept. of Insurance is up next, and offers a good “before” example. On deck: Revenue, Office of Administration, Economic Development, Labor and Industrial Relations, Mental Health, Natural Resources, Health, Social Services

I could be wrong, but the design below sure looks like a WordPress them to me.

SOM-website

Non-American health care

Posted on by

Good old American health care is all I’ve ever known. I remember when the family doctor made house calls. I think I even remember when the insurance company existed to help us (but that could have just been a dream).

We can’t really call what’s happening a national “debate” on health care — more of a national shriek– but there are those who think we have the best health care in the world. Since I haven’t been a lot of places in the world, I decided to get the opinion of some of my over-seas pen pals.

Keith Povall lives in or near Birmingham, UK and has recently had more of their national health care than he would have liked. You can read his full assessment in the comments, but here’s an excerpt:

“In modern times, much criticism has been leveled at the NHS because there is a lot of truth in the opinion that it is a monster grown out of control. It is the largest employer in Europe for example and many say / believe that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians (to coin a phrase). Over the years, governments have thrown billions at it and the monster gobbles up the cash. It is believed governments would like to introduce a private service to replace it, but in the main “the people” love the NHS, something that is there as a safety net for when they need it and whilst you will hear complaints about income tax and stealth taxes, no one complains about their NI contributions.”

Peter is a psychiatric nurse in the Netherlands and –as a health care provider– might be less than objective on this subject. On the other hand, he has first-hand knowledge of his country’s system.

“The insurance companies want to control everything; they even want to control what professionals like me should do or not. The basis of their policy is not what the clients want (those who put money in the big jar) but what the shareholders want. Their goal is not good health care for their members, but profit and big bonus for a couple of hotshots. A very bad development which surely will be changed the moment the issue is hot again and elections are due. As you see we are quite a normal country in this.”

Again, I hope you’ll read Peter’s full email in the comments.

I’m still waiting to hear from a friend in Belgium and will add her thoughts if and when we get them. My thanks to Keith and Peter for taking time to respond to a serious inquiry from me. Something they are rarely called upon to do.

President Obama welcomes email

Posted on by

From a post here at smays.com in March, 2008:

“On Friday morning, 10 emails are selected at random and forwarded to President Obama’s in-box. He looks through them, picks one and responds –personally– to the sender.” 

And the following from the New York Times in April, 2009:

“Tens of thousands of letters, e-mail messages and faxes arrive at the White House every day. A few hundred are culled and end up each weekday afternoon on a round wooden table in the office of Mike Kelleher, the director of the White House Office of Correspondence. He chooses 10 letters, which are slipped into a purple folder and put in the daily briefing book that is delivered to President Obama at the White House residence. Designed to offer a sampling of what Americans are thinking, the letters are read by the president, and he sometimes answers them by hand, in black ink on azure paper.”

If you can find an earlier reference to “my” idea, leave it in the comments. I’m just looking for my props.

Newspaper endorsements

Posted on by
Reply

This is the story of a friend who works in municipal government– we’ll say he’s the city administrator– in a medium size city in… let’s say Vermont. The need for obfuscation will become clear.

The city administrator is unhappy with one of the editorial policies of the local newspaper publisher. (It’s a one paper town) In order to be published, letters to the editor must be signed. But comments on the newspaper website can be anonymous.

Recent comments on one story had gotten kind of personal (toward the administrator). When he complained to the publisher, pointing out the inconsistency of the print and online policy, the publisher explained it was a matter of cross-promoting the two, and readers online expected to be able to share their views anonymously.

I suggested my friend tell his side of the story on his blog. “I really can’t do that,” he explained. “I need the paper’s support in the upcoming annexation vote.”

I’ve never given much thought to the tradition of newspapers endorsing candidates and issues. And I struggle to understand how it’s a good idea. Once the paper takes a position, let’s say “Yes On Annexation,” how can the readers have any confidence in their reporting of the issue going forward?

It seems to me they can wield this kind of power for only as long as they are one of limited sources of news and information in that community.

And if their editorial support for a candidate or issue is pure, how can it be used to intimidate those who call them out in public, on a blog, for example. Seems like you’d have to keep your position secret until the last minute in order to keep folks in line.

If this is the way the game works, I don’t think the public is well served. It’s all about power. Power of those who govern. Power of the media who help them get elected. Where’s the power for the little guy?

I have no idea what will replace the dying newspaper business. But I bet it won’t have this kind of don’t-piss-us-off-or-you’ll-regret-it power. And we’ll see soon enough.

Will Ferrell’s “You’re Welcome America”

Posted on by

Even HBO was unwilling to air “You’re Welcome America: A Final Night with George W. Bush” in prime time. Perhaps it was the giant photo of a penis Will Ferrell kept calling up on the screen behind him.

But if you weren’t offended by the last eight years, you’ll be okay with this amazing one-man show. Ferrell was at his raunchy best. As funny as he could have been during his SNL salad days if he could have shrugged “fuck it” when appropriate.

It was difficult to distinguish which words actually came from W’s mouth and which were pulled from Ferrell’s very funny ass. So difficult in fact, the word TRUE would be flashed on the big screen to help us know the difference.

As with Oliver Stone’s W., I came away feeling more sad for #43 than mad.

Claire McCaskill’s blog

Posted on by

Watching MO Senator Claire McCaskill play with her new blog.

“These (photo) are the Generals and Admiral all testifying at our Armed Services hearing this am. I will ask questions shortly.”

The thought of a member of Congress “reporting on” a hearing she is covering is… is… sacrilege? Heresy? What word would be strong enough? The obvious problem is, the senator is –by definition– partisan. No way you could trust what she reports. Right?

So, how is this different from Sean Hannity? Or Chris Matthews? Or Rush? No doubt about which side of an issue they come down but they have thousands of viewers. Can we automatically assume every post by Senator McCaskill is tainted and unworthy? That every tweet by @joliejustus is designed to mislead and spin us?

Or can we mix it in with all the other “reporting” we get, factoring in her point of view? I don’t know the answer to that question but if there is one, every reader will come up with their own.

Sen. McCaskill Flips and Twitters Missouri reporters

Posted on by

“After finishing a serious interview with a trio of reporters on various topics, Sen. Claire McCaskill suddenly whipped out her own mini-cam to turn the tables. McCaskill apparently wanted to put Tony Messenger, Jo Mannies and I in the uncommon role of answering questions. Then, I begin filming McCaskill’s experiment shooting us. The Senator asked for quick soundbites and hit me with a tough criticism about my own blog — that it’s video heavy.”

— Springfield TV reporter David Catanese