THE DALY SHOW

Am I Serious About This?

Check out my latest posting on JohnDalyGolfShow.  Is this just another talking head TV person or someone who is trying to capitalize on someone else’s internet traffic?

Setting Record Straight on Jon Stewart, Cramer Flap

The Death of News…As We Know It. And It’s Rebirth

This is a posting to show you what the news business will look like soon. Newspapers are folding, broadcast news is cutting back, and cable news is now the combination of bad local news’ entertainment bias and talk radio’s right-wing screaming tactics. Let me show you the future and how you will be a big part of it. And I’ll give you a glimpse of what I will be doing soon in this new news landscape.

LAS VEGAS, NV (March 1, 2009) – A number of media analysis is writing about the financial and cultural demise of network television. Dramas and comedies are all going to cable or at least a cable model. Jay Leno might be on NBC next fall, but it will look like Comedy Central.

The same is happening with news. But it will be more drastic.

Here I’ll show you how the newscasts – as we know it – are also moving toward a cable model and how that will fail and change very soon.

The three reasons news is either changing or collapsing are:

The failure of the electronic news media to use competent and boring experts; the death of journalists – literally their lives and figuratively their careers; plus the rise of the internet and other new media; and whether you like it or not, the new citizen journalist – you.

Let’s look at network and cable news’ failure to give us real information. Watch Sunday’s mainstream media news shows NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s This Week. They both sounded like Fox News Channel’s Hannity or O’Reilly: screaming and yelling over each other.

At moments, these shows – like cable news — are unwatchable. Let me clarify that. They’re unwatchable for people who are serious about getting news and information. If you’re looking for entertainment or drama, namely verbal conflict between people, then this might be good TV. Me? I’d rather watch House or Burn Notice.

Unfortunately, this type of newscast creates more heat than light. And right now we need light.

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria’s GPS had a roundtable Sunday about the relevance of Islam that was just as bad as the other two Sunday shows. The saving grace for the show was Zakaria’s insightful – one-on-one — interview with Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf. Most Americans won’t agree with Wolf’s theory that the stimulus packages are too small, but at least Zakaria gave us an uninterrupted listen to a thinker with a cogent theory.

Yes, Meet the Press and This Week had one-on-one interviews, but they were with politicians or appointees who have their own bias.

Too often, cable and mainstream media rely on politicians, who are biased by nature, and commentators who spin for one side or the other. Or they carry another bias – entertainment bias. They have to pretty or funny. As a result, we rarely get to hear from experts – like Wolf.

And in these times, people want information as raw and untainted as possible and quickly. I wrote about “The Paradox of the Twenty-first Century Media in my book more than three years ago and it still applies today.

The overabundance of news and information we have today has forced news consumers to work harder to gain the truth.

Think about it. The media, as we have it today through all mediums, has actually created more questions, distortions, and outright lies.

What’s even worse for most of us news consumers is the dearth of true journalists. And the number of true news gatherers is dwindling fast.

The headlines – or the lack of them now — speak for themselves. Newspapers are dying and they haven’t figured out how to make money online yet. Or they haven’t figured out how to make enough to pay reporters.

This greatly affects TV stations. Where do you think most of the news you see on local TV comes from? That’s right, newspapers. TV stations cut what news relevance they had by dismissing higher paid and more experienced journalists.

While America is killing the careers of journalists, other countries are literally killing journalists. Anastasia Baburova was a Russian journalist who wrote about the growing Fascist policies of Russia. She was gunned down January 19, 2009 in Moscow in broad daylight. According to The Economist, “The next day, a party of nationalists brought champagne to the murder scene to celebrate the ‘elimination’ of their enemies.”

The America news media we have today has been silenced in a more subtle way. Because most of our news organizations are non-profit, investigative reporters (or what remains of them) won’t aim their flashlights at sponsors or potential sponsors. Sponsor and advertisers pay the bills and the journalists’ salaries.

Watch an investigation by a local TV station. If they go after a business, then that business is usually a small mom-and-pop and not an advertiser. We see the investigative mantel in TV stations becoming consumer reports. An angry viewer gets ripped off and the TV reporter comes to the rescue by uncovering a retail operation that has bad practices.

Trust me, I’ve witnessed this.

We had a great undercover investigation at KTNV that showed how women car buyers were getting ripped off compared to men car buyers. The investigation, complete with undercover audio and video, never ran. The Las Vegas Car Dealers Association went to my bosses and said if we ran the investigation KTNV would receive no ad dollars from any car dealer. If you watch any local TV you know that car dealers and personal injury lawyers keep TV afloat. The choice for station management was run the investigation and get some publicity but possibly lay off a number of newsroom staffers.

This same tactic has happened in even the biggest and best of journalism. Ask yourself this. How could the Wall Street Journal – with all of its accolades and crack financial reporters – have missed the corruption with subprime mortgages and credit default swaps? I’m surmising here. But those reporters were not allowed to bite the hand that was feeding them.

Look at steroids. Only one sports reporter – Bob Costas – raised the issue. Yet, hundreds of other sports reporters covering the games and interviewing in the locker rooms couldn’t see the massive body changes and the increase in power numbers? Of course, they saw it. However, to save their fun jobs or to save the revenues of their publications from the sports franchises, they said nothing.

Feel alone? You should.

The solution? It’s you.

Ask yourself this: who is your travel agent? For most of us, the answer is ourselves. We now book all of our flights online. Granted, if we (ever) go on a long and expensive vacation, we’ll use a qualified travel agent. But if you’re traveling for business or a weekend getaway, most times you are the travel agent.

The same is true now of the news business. You are the journalist. I speak at numerous events and the topic is usually “The Most Important Journalist in Your Life is You.”

The good news for you is this. Technology today makes it easier to become a journalist or citizen journalist.

As far as gathering news, the internet is a wealth of information. RSS feeds can act like what was once the newsroom ticker tape. Your cell phone or services like Skype give you instant access to people around the world.

Creating your own website and blog gives you worldwide distribution access. Twitter can allow you to report from the scene of an incident or event. In fact, Twitter proved the best news tool during the massacres in Mumbai.

And like me, you will be able to produce newscasts on your website.

The bad news is this. Most of us aren’t journalists. The information you get on the internet can be tainted. You might not know how to decipher what is news and what is propaganda.

Here comes the book plug. Yes, my book can help you think like a journalist for yourself.

But for those of us who don’t want to be journalist, those who already have a career, those who don’t have time to keep government and business on an honest path, the new journalists and the out-of-work journalists who are open to new business models will eventually return as our journalists.

You will start seeing newspapers popping up on the internet. The Pasadena Today is a daily newspaper online that is reported by journalists in India. That’s not the most ideal situation for news consumers. However, if journalists want to continue their work they will have to do two things: take less compensation and work harder in a different medium.

TV news will pop up on the internet with more regularity. I can’t disclose anything specific here. But I am involved in a number of TV news projects for the internet. You will see old name publications and networks rising again but in entirely different and modern day forms.

However, here’s what these shows will offer.

The news will be designed for specific audiences. It might be people in a specific profession. It could be a community of people like a neighborhood.

The news programs will have no time limits. In other words, the interviews or segments will be the length of time needed to cover an issue adequately. It might be five minutes but it might be two hours.

The problem with TV news today is the 30-minute window. As a viewer, you either feel cheated by not getting enough information on an important topic or you’re bored when there is not enough news and the show producer fills the time with nonsense.

Another problem with TV news today is the schedule. You have to watch the show when it’s aired. With the new news model, the shows are archived for the viewers’ convenience.

In addition, these new type shows won’t be just seen on computers but cell-phones as well. That will mean larger audiences than TV could deliver – and at lower costs than TV has.

In the shows I’m developing, I have some clear rules.

First, the shows will be loaded with experts. These experts will generally be allowed to speak their minds without interruption. I will use my skills as an interviewer to make them explain in greater detail their theories.

Second, I will use very little roundtable discussions with experts. If I do, I will have control of the microphones.

Third, I will have few politicians on the shows. There will be no politicians in roundtable discussions.

Fourth, I will go after everyone.

Five, if there are entertainers on the show then they will have a relevant topic to cover. For instance, my good friend Bryan Cranston, the Emmy Award winning star of the show Breaking Bad, will come on the show to help me discuss the issue of legalizing all street narcotics.

Six, there will be no discussion of Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan type stories.

Seven, entertainers like talk Limbaugh, Kudlow, and Hannity won’t be discussed. I won’t waste your time.

Eight, I will disclose every conflict or monetary gain I or the show might be receiving by doing a story. (Disclosure: In fact, this column is a little bit of a plug for these upcoming shows.)

When this all happens, I’ll let you know. Until then, hang in there.

TV Review: John Adams and Politics Today

LAS VEGAS, NV (May 26, 2008) – I finally saw the HBO mini-series John Adams. It’s fabulous. Rent it or record it. Better yet, read the book by David McCullough.

I’m fortunate to have done both. As usual, the book is better. John Adams is at the top with Doris Kearns Goodwin’s work on Lincoln called Team of Rivals.

Thanks to David McCullough I lived with John Adams in my head for two weeks after finishing the book. That’s how good it was. More importantly, McCullough’s prose offers perspective of why John Adams, though not the marquee name like Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, was so critical to our nation. A TV production has a hard time doing that, although the Broadway musical 1776 correctly portrays Adams as the main character.

However, none of this media comparison can degrade the HBO version one bit.

The direction, cinematography, along with performances by Paul Giamatti (Adams), Laura Linney (Abigail Adams), David Morse (George Washington), and Tom Wilkinson (Ben Franklin), will all get a fair share of awards for this TV season.

As usual, I looked to see if the HBO production took creative license. Were there hidden comments on today’s politics? Certainly, there were lessons for today, but there was nothing partisan. The political innuendo, if any, seemed to target both Democrats and Republicans.

Clearly, any viewer would think of the border-fence conservatives as President Adams and Vice President Jefferson argued about a law that would ban all French from the U.S. in 1800 at a time when France was hinting at going to war with us. Adams weighed the security reasons while Jefferson said such a law would be impossible to carry out while violating the Constitution and every principle fought for in the American Revolution.

As this crisis waned, you couldn’t help but think there was a message for the current White House occupant. Eventually, France, and their new Emperor, wanted a peace treaty with the U.S. which Adams wisely allowed to happen by refusing to saber-rattle or build-up troops. Clearly, the message was this: hold out for peace.

Peace was at hand for Adams and our fledgling country. But the word of the treaty and the news that there would be no war came too late for Adams: he lost re-election. Yet, the attitude of Adams was that peace was more important. Here is a swipe at all politicians who manufacture scorched-earth campaigns to win at all costs.

And there was a message for Obama and Clinton: no matter how much you fight or how dirty you fight, you can end up respected friends. Adams learns that his presidency was undermined by Jefferson who paid Adams’ critics to write about Adams. Still, Adams and Jefferson ended their feud by corresponding at great length in their old age.

If you haven’t seen it, then hold off and break it out during the Fourth of July.  It will help remind you what this country should be.

Daly Show: Beware of Weapons of Mass Distortion

This is a Daly Show look at those emails we all get and what to do.

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

New Book: Bad Money by Kevin Phillips

This is a posting recommending a new book, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism by Kevin Phillips.

LAS VEGAS, NV (April 21, 2008) – I usually read a book first before I recommend it. But this is a book, I believe, you need.

Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism by Kevin Phillips. It’s on Amazon.

Why recommend this before I read it?

I’ve read Phillips other books. The best is American Theocracy. It’s a warning of a failing American civilization. Phillips compares the U.S. Empire to the fall of the Roman, Dutch, and British Empires. We’re doing the same things: extreme religious leaders hinting at Armageddon; dwindling energy resources; over-extending our foreign policy reach; and piling debt.

Is he right? I say yes. However, with awareness like this, we could alter our demise. But know this: Phillips, in American Theocracy, indirectly predicted the credit crunch – two years ahead of time. The book was published in 2006. He said a downturn in the housing market could leave millions “in financial jeopardy not seen in generations.”

He also quotes Churchill who said “the seeds of imperial decay and national ruin” follow “the swift increase of vulgar jobless luxury.” I tend to think that the majority of us are fat, happy, and stupid. My antidote: a sweeping program of education for everyone about the new economy and the Information Age.

Phillips is harsh about the current and past policies of both presidents named Bush. He also points the finger (maybe he gives the finger) to the oil and automotive industries. He believes the War in Iraq was an excuse to keep them afloat. If you can find me an argument against that, I’d like to hear it.

Before you think Phillips is a raving liberal Democrat, he’s a Republican strategist.

If you read Bad Money before I do, please leave your review in the comments section below.

A Defecating Dog, Political Candidates, and The Media

This is a posting about the week which saw a controversial debate, a not-so surprising investigation into the media being duped by the Pentagon, a defiant doggy act – and what you can do about two out of three.

LAS VEGAS (April 20, 2008) — Our puppy Nike was obviously angry. My wife and I were gone for five hours at a charity event. He was left in the portable kennel for five hours. When we returned, he went outside to pee. But then he ran upstairs and pooped in the bedroom; not in one area, but three different spots.

He’s a smart dog. He got his point across. But he also understood our anger. He hung his head and stayed stationary in a “time out” position. Hours later, he remained a model of good behavior.

We need to do the same – show our anger — with our elected officials and the media. But we also need to realize they are like pets: they have their own specific agenda and they’re not really aware of what’s going on with us. Too often we’re apathetic owners of this country we claim to so dearly love.

Let’s look at the Democratic debate last week. First, understand it was a TV debate. That means it needs to be entertaining and lack substance. So, I don’t have any problems with the questions to Barack Obama about what he said about angry people clinging to guns. I have no problem with people criticizing him for his less than stellar responses. I have no problems with him being asked about the stupid questions about whether his psycho pastor loves America or why he doesn’t wear a lapel pin.

My problem is that the debate was lopsided against Obama just as I thought some of the earlier debates were lopsided against Hillary Clinton. Why wasn’t Hillary grilled on her now former operative Mark Penn and his connections to a Colombian trade deal?

I’m a big fan of Charlie Gibson. So, I was disappointed in his performance as an entertainer more than a journalist that night. I doubt we would have seen that performance from the late Peter Jennings. George Stephanopoulos’ performance doesn’t surprise me. He’s not a journalist; he’s a political operative. We know this and he once worked for Bill Clinton’s White House.

(For the record, I have met and spent time with both Gibson and Jennings. I have never met Stephanopoulos.)

Here’s the point. Watch these debates for entertainment only. Don’t let these silly versions of reality game shows help you decide who to vote for.

As I write in my book, television is good for two things: immediacy and emotion. Depth of issues is something you get from books and websites using experts.

Like lax pet owners, we seem to forget the mounds of crap shoveled to us by George Bush that made us vote for him in 2000. We elected an intellectual lightweight who we thought he’d be a good guy to have at a backyard barbeque. We’re not deciding who our neighbors are. We’re electing a commander in chief who will have the fate of our jobs and our lives in his or her hands.

You need to reprimand both the candidates and the networks for their behavior. Did we really get any answers to Social Security, Medicare, the War in Iraq, immigration, energy independence from this debate? No. Frankly, any debate between Barack and Hillary is a waste. They agree on most issues, so it comes down to an ugly popularity contest.

Now let’s look at the New York Times investigation of the TV networks use of military experts who are controlled by the Pentagon and the Bush Administration.

My take: any general or military expert who helped push the WMD argument to get us into war should be banned from appearing on network TV. We’re fining networks for showing some skin on TV. So why wouldn’t you push a worse punishment for smart people who knowingly deceived the American public about going to war that has led to the deaths of four thousand troops? Frankly, I would prosecute them.

Many of these retired generals had jobs with defense contractors. They clearly put their own economic principles ahead of their duty to the United States people.

Again, I have no problems with their opinions. My anger is two-fold. One, they never disclosed that they were getting their talking points from the Pentagon. Two, they never disclosed they were working for defense contractors bidding on government contracts.

And the networks are as much to blame. They never vetted these so-called experts. Why? It’s to easy not to do that. That takes time and money. And if they found someone who’s an independent thinker, then that person won’t have access to the White House.

Again, TV is not an information medium. It’s an entertainment medium. Its main goal is to get ratings and if being a propaganda tool brings in ratings and dollars, the media will do it.

Watch CNBC. They no longer disclose what conflicts the guest analysts have with certain stocks they’re discussing. They were quite vigilant a few years ago after the Enron and Martha Stewart scandals. But not now.

And if CNBC was that worried about the truth why wouldn’t they have fired Jim Kramer of Mad Money. Two days before the collapse of Bear Stearns he yelled that Bear Stearns is fine. Kramer’s not on for his stock picking; he’s on for ratings. He’s an entertainer. Would you pick stocks or set up your portfolio based on that show? I hope not. (Some disclosure: I work for BNY Mellon Wealth Management. See how simple disclosure is.)

The same is true about the political debates. Why would you decide who to vote for based on this artificial, lack of substance debates on TV?

This is why you need to be the most important journalist in your life. You need to question everything you hear on TV news. Everyone has an agenda. That’s not to say there isn’t good information, but you need to be less accepting of its total veracity. And you need to realize that networks are cutting corners, so you’re not necessarily getting the best trained and most experienced journalists.

Again, please read my book. (Blatant disclosure: Yes, I’m trying to sell my book.) If not, then the media and the politicians will continue pooping on your bedroom floor.

Beat The News By Being The News

This is a posting about the changing news media. It’s changing because all of us are now a part of the news media whether we know it or whether we like it. I’ll tell you how to do it successfully for your business, your hobby, or your political campaign.

LAS VEGAS, NV (March 30, 2008) – Thanks to my book, politicians and political operatives ask me overwhelmingly about overcoming media bias.

The main complaint: reporters fail to give equal time or weight to both sides. And many times, the offended politician or operative has a valid point or at least a semblance of one. However, I’m not quick to bash the media – especially the television side.

First, TV news is a visual and auditory medium. So if a politician is looking to explain a complex issue, TV usually can’t do it in a 15-second sound bite or a 90- second story.

Second, TV is an entertainment medium. Reporters have a tendency to handle stories with conflict only between two sides – where one side wins and the other loses. Try getting “deep” on the immigration issue which has more gray than black or white.

Third, TV is being squeezed financially. This deals more with local stations.

TV stations must switch from the analog to the digital spectrum in 2009. That takes a lot of money. Furthermore, stations are losing their piece of the advertising pie to cable, satellite, and the Internet. Margins are tight in TV.

That means TV stations have less money to hire experienced reporters. Stations seem to be hiring more reporters – to handle the bulk of the reporting – who are just out of broadcasting or J-school. As a result, context and depth can be missing from many stories. I refer to this as TV’s youth bias.

A friend’s recent experience with a TV station best explains the three factors I just mentioned.

This friend is an author. He’s an expert on a number of issues. So, the station called him to comment on a story that pertained to one of his books. The TV reporter was a young man who asked my friend, as the photographer was setting up the camera, “What do I ask you?”

My friend was dumbfounded. “The reporter is asking me what to ask? I couldn’t believe it.” I told him not to shoot the reporter. This young reporter probably had five other stops that night for interviews on topics he barely knew about. Then I explained the three points I outlined above.

What’s happening to TV reporters today is this. They’ve become 5/7 reporter. They’re more porter, picking up stories, rather than reporter, assessing and analyzing stories.

(I can’t take credit for that. Credit Tom Armitage. Tom was a great photographer I worked with in Providence at WPRI from 1985 to 1987. To make sure I didn’t get too big of an on-camera ego, he told me that letter formula. Then he told me to carry the rest of his gear.)

The majority of what we consider media bias is errors of omission. So, I tell these politicians and operatives to stop getting angry. Instead, help these TV stations and help yourself. This pertains to businesses as well.

You need to Be The News. Create your content. And today it’s easy.

First, use your webpage. It’s exactly what I’ll be doing. When someone hits your webpage or is directed there, they should see a video presentation from you. Check with your webmaster if your site can accommodate streaming video.

Second, prepare a five minute talk. For instance, a local official believed a talk show host based an interview with him on incorrect information. I told the official to do one of two things. First, do a five minute on-camera talk to your constituency laying out the interviewer’s inconsistencies. Second, if you feel uncomfortable with that format, have someone act as a reporter asking you questions about the reporters inconsistencies.

I told him to email his constituents with a link to the five minute talk or interview. The voters who are interested will view it. The ones that don’t most likely aren’t following the issue. However, if the issue catches fire, the news media will ask to take parts of the talk or interview to use on their broadcast, which would be great. Sure, they can edit it, but at least the public can see it in its entirety.

Think of the implications for a business. Let’s say you run a motorcycle shop. Your manufacturer tells you there’s a part recall. You can be “up front” with your customers and let them know what’s happening and how you will handle it. And if nothing is happening, you can at least speak to your customer once a month about an issue concerning them.

That five minute talk or interview will, in most cases, be much cheaper than producing a 30-second TV spot. You won’t have to pay for air time. Plus, you’re reaching a niche audience – your customers – and not ten times more people who don’t care about you or your product or service.

The Internet is working. Just look at Barack Obama. You may not vote for him, but you have to admire what his campaign has done. The amount of money raised from small donors is amazing.

But Obama’s campaign is using the Internet and social websites to get the word out while circumventing the mainstream media. A recent New York Times article, “Finding Political News Online, the Young Pass It On,” writes this:

Senator Barack Obama’s videotaped response to President Bush’s final State of the Union address — almost five minutes of Mr. Obama’s talking directly to the camera — elicited little attention from newspaper and television reporters in January.

But on the medium it was made for, the Internet, the video caught fire. Quickly after it was posted on YouTube, it appeared on the video-sharing site’s most popular list and Google’s most blogged list. It has been viewed more than 1.3 million times, been linked by more than 500 blogs and distributed widely on social networking sites like Facebook.

So how do you do this?

Go to any production company that offers an Internet TV studio. Make sure they’re not giving you a Hollywood production – and the associated costs. All you want is a camera that focuses correctly so the image looks like you, and a good microphone so it sounds like you.

Here are some suggestions. In fact, you can see interviews I’ve done with these experts: Dave Bernstein, Mike Stewart,  and Mike Koenigs.

If you’re in Las Vegas and you need a studio, here’s the one I use: Vixzen Productions.

Questions or comments, leave me here.

California To Secede; New England Goes It Alone. What!!

LAS VEGAS, NV (March 2, 2008) – This presidential election is giving us glimpses of the future United States. Might California secede? Will New England be a federation unto itself?

Answers to that coming up. But let’s see how the Obama campaign may be unknowingly forecasting this. Bear with me.

The Obama campaign has hit a chord with new, young voters and campaign workers. These are folks who were either too young or not interested enough in 2004. Maybe they began to see how the Bush Administration and Congress are spending their futures in Iraq while ignoring the Medicare and Social Security bills to be paid for the retiring baby-boomers.

But Obama has gray-haired types, too. I think he’s tapped into their frustration with government.

People are tired of hearing the same GOP refrain of cutting taxes. They realize that Republican mantra is just as irresponsible as the old (maybe current) Democratic response to increase government spending.

Middle class folks are also tired of the GOP saying that government should stay out of people’s businesses. Too many times, we realize that the GOP is saying “let our donors do what they want without regard for the greater good.” We’re living through the credit crunch due to the sub-prime mortgage mess. It reminds too many folks of the S&L crisis in the late 1980s.

Hey, I’m the first to give small business a break. They create the jobs. But the major corporations are the ones controlling Congress and the White House. As a result, we’ve had more problems with dangerous imports and a lack of supervision for the mortgage industry, while many of these corporations create off-shore tax breaks for themselves.

We will clearly see more regulation for business in 2009 – no matter who is president. The question we need to ask, though, can we pass laws that don’t stifle business and create a level playing field. Granted, the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations have done more to drive businesses away from America while also creating higher costs for companies that stay.

Certainly, it’s more difficult to pass laws – that work — on the federal level. The reason: too much money being paid into federal candidates’ campaign coffers. That influence either waters down or creates contradictory elements in the law. As a result, that (bribe) money is a good investment for the wealthy donor. It barely hurts an industry’s bottom line while giving them breaks to make more profits. There’s a reason why the biggest scoundrel in the novel, Atlas Shrugged, is a lobbyist.

So, how will this frustration with government change America?

Recently I discussed about the possible the nation-state as we know it today going obsolete. My recent lunch guest, and great source for columns, John Alexander, raised the issue with me. Needless to say, I am intrigued three weeks after our lunch.

I raised the issue with my intellectual mentor from my days at Providence College, Rev. Paul Seaver. In return, Father Paul sent me an opinion piece called “California Split”, written by Gar Alperovitz, a professor of political economy at the University of Maryland, College Park, is the author of America Beyond Capitalism.

Alperovitz writes:

The United States is almost certainly too big to be a meaningful democracy. What does “participatory democracy” mean in a continent? Sooner or later, a profound, probably regional, decentralization of the federal system may be all but inevitable.

He also cites the corrupting effect of the campaign funding issue which I’ve been railing about for years.

Scale also determines who has privileged access to the country’s news media and who can shape its political discourse. In very large nations, television and other forms of political communication are extremely costly. President Bush alone spent $345 million in his 2004 election campaign. This gives added leverage to elites, who have better corporate connections and greater resources than non-elites. The priorities of those elites often differ from state and regional priorities.

As a result, the majority of us feel that government is not responding to us. So, could we see California secede? Or maybe the New England states will break off and form their own union?

That’s highly unlikely.

However, Alperovitz says we might see a devolution of the federal government where more power is put in the hands of the states and newly formed regional authorities. And as we continue to increase our communication technology, these new forms of local government may be more effective. While the federal government only concentrates on foreign policy, military preparedness, and interstate roads.

So, maybe Dr. Alexander has some more backing on his theory. The nation we know today may look quite differently in the decades to come.

Does it mean Californians will need passports for Las Vegas?  And what special arrangements will be made for the Red Sox to play the Angels and Athletics?

Your thoughts?

No Country For A Drug War

LAS VEGAS, NV (March 2, 2008) – No Country For Old Men, the Oscar winning film for this year, usually elicits two responses.

The first is: “That’s the most haunting film I’ve ever seen and Javier Barden gives me nightmares.” The second is: “I don’t get it.”

I’ll address the second statement here. The first statement needs only this further comment: future film students will study this film for decades.

People “don’t get” the film’s ending, because there is none. Or better said: it’s not a Hollywood ending that offers secure irony or plot completion. No, this ending mirrors life and the haunting notion of not knowing.

If you need the writers and directors to deliver a film with a nice ending, then don’t see No Country For Old Men. Only the intellectually curious who can stand some domestic terror should witness this. It’s not a film that allows you to escape life as we know it. Instead, it rubs it in your face.

However, providing “You can handle the truth,” let me give you an underlying theme to place in the back of your mind as you watch this great flick.

Think about this: the failed American war on drugs.

Anton Chigurh, the character played by Javier Barden, is a Twenty-first Century Frankenstein and Hannibal Lecter – with a cattle prod gun and, as Jon Stewart said, “with a Dorothy Hammill haircut”. That’s as funny as it gets. He is a killing machine that leaves bodies in his wake. And he kills for one reason — to retrieve missing drug money.

Yes, there are moments in the film you need to suspend disbelief. My good buddy and writing partner, Eric Snyder, said there were times Anton Chigurh wouldn’t be able to walk away free from certain scenes. He’s right. But for the sake of this argument, many times we wonder how drug dealers like Pablo Escobar remained alive for so long as well.

In previous posts, I’ve mentioned Col. John B. Alexander, retired PhD. from the U.S. Army, the author of Winning The War: Advanced Weapons, Strategies, and Concepts for the Post 9/11 World, and a recent lunch guest of mine.

Although his book outlines winning the war on terror, he says the “illegal drug trade provides the largest source of terrorist funds.” In his book and at lunch, John explains that U.S. efforts to stop drug trafficking have only increased the price of drugs and the profits for drug warlords and cartels.

Besides reading John’s book, try this one – Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market by Eric Schlosser. He shows how the conservative, anti-drug sentiment in America has placed too many people behind bars for truly petty crimes while creating an untaxed, underground economy.

I consider myself a conservative on a number of issues. For instance, military service is something I think every American should be required to do for two years. I’m a fiscal conservative who understands that cutting taxes is only half of a responsible fiscal policy.

However, the drug war is not one of my conservative issues. I think the Republicans and moderate Democrats who refuse to repeal these laws put us in danger. As John Alexander writes, “The drug trade has been estimated to cause up to 80 percent of the crime against property and 50 percent of the violent crimes against people in the United States.”

Think about that.

First, marijuana should be legalized. The police efforts to stop pot-heads are a waste of money and resources. Sure, marijuana use can lead to the use of more addictive drugs. Sorry, I don’t buy the argument. I’ll endure a few more pot-heads for a massive reduction in crime. And I’ll put the responsibility back on parents and employers.

Next, we need a systematic approach to legalize and devaluing other illegal narcotics like cocaine. Going cold-turkey to legalize all street drugs would cause too much turmoil in the short run.

At least, let’s get a dialogue started. This way an Anton Chigurh will remain just a fictional character.