Many retailers were disappointed with Black Friday. While they placed much hope on day-after-Thanksgiving sales, there was only a marginal increase compared to last year, and the numbers fell short of many store's projections.
However, a buying surge on Cyber Monday-a term coined by the National Retail Federation in 2005 for the Monday after Thanksgiving-boosted retailers to a 13.7% increase over last year. By mid-day on Monday, over 500 vendors reported a 38% increase from last year on the average online order. Last year, the average per purchase was $130.24 and this year it grew to $180.03.
Attracted by deep discounts and temporary offers, U.S. shoppers spent $887 million on Monday, approximately the same amount they spent on December 9, 2008, which set an all-time record for online sales. This is reassuring to vendors, as the peak in online shopping will probably happen closer to shipping deadline, around mid-December.
Online spending on Black Friday also increased 11% from last year. Many believe this is due to stores treating online shopping the same as in-store shopping, and offering discounts online as well.
According to a shop.org survey, 96.5 million Americans planned to shop on Cyber Monday this year, a large increase from the 85 million in 2008. And retailers were listening-according to another shop.org survey, 87.1% of retailers offered a special promotion for Cyber Monday, up from 83.7% last year and 72.2% in 2007.
Scott Silverman, Executive Director of Shop.org, said, “With more people shopping on Cyber Monday this year and an increasing number of retailers offering promotions, this was the largest – and most important – Cyber Monday yet."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Eating Sick Animals is Making Us Sick
At the McDonalds drive-thru have you ever been asked, “Would you like penicillin with your Big Mac?” No? Well, you actually didn't have to be. With the rampant factory farming in the United States, all animals raised for consumption are fed extreme and unnecessary doses of antibiotics.
Not only does factory farming contribute to millions of illnesses per year, it is also leading to an increase in the number of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens.
If we are feeling sick, we can’t go to the local pharmacy to pick up an over-the-counter antibiotic, but rather we have to go to a doctor and obtain a prescription for antibiotics and other antimicrobials. Little debate exists over this practice, as this minor inconvenience is accepted because of its medical importance and as a public-health precaution to limit the number of these drugs being taken by humans. Microbes eventually become immune to antimicrobials, and we want to make sure only truly sick benefit from the limited number of uses of any antibiotic before the microbes adapt and become immune.
However, these same precautions are not used with animals. On most factory farms, drugs are fed to animals with every meal. The living conditions promote illness, and the factory industry has compensated for animals' compromised immunity with drugs. As a result, farm animals are given antibiotics nontherapeutically—or before they get sick.
In the United States, about 3 million pounds of antibiotics are given to humans each year, but the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the farming industry uses approximately 25 million pounds of antibiotics before animals are even sick—or for every one dose of antibiotics taken by a sick human, eight doses are given to a "healthy" animal.
Beginning in the 1960s, scientists warned of the harms of nontherapeutic antibiotics and today the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization have connected nontherapeutic antibiotic use with increased antimicrobial immunity. Studies have shown that antimicrobial resistance follows soon after the introduction of new drugs into farms.
Despite the need for a total ban on the use of antibiotics for “healthy” animals, the farming and pharmaceutical industries has so much power given to them by us—the people that fund them on a massive scale by eating tons and tons of factory farmed animal products daily.
The environment that contributes to the food-borne illness of at least 76 million Americans and that promotes antimicrobial immunity also increases to the risk of a pandemic. Today, the farm-pandemic link is increasingly clear. The recent H1N1 swine flu outbreak originated at a hog factory farm in North Carolina, and then spread throughout the world, killing almost 4,000 in the United States.
Breeding sickness-prone birds in overcrowded and disgusting farms encourages the development of pathogens. However, this practice promotes efficient and cheap meat, forcing Americans to chose: cheap meat or health?
The choice may seem obvious, but this rationalization is pushed in the back of our minds. Maybe we block out the knowledge that unhealthy and unnatural conditions plague the farms which breed our meals. Maybe we know more than we admit when it comes to meat and its production. Soon however, this information will reach us—whether through the media or through illnesses, and we will learn that these sick animals are making us sick.
Not only does factory farming contribute to millions of illnesses per year, it is also leading to an increase in the number of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens.
If we are feeling sick, we can’t go to the local pharmacy to pick up an over-the-counter antibiotic, but rather we have to go to a doctor and obtain a prescription for antibiotics and other antimicrobials. Little debate exists over this practice, as this minor inconvenience is accepted because of its medical importance and as a public-health precaution to limit the number of these drugs being taken by humans. Microbes eventually become immune to antimicrobials, and we want to make sure only truly sick benefit from the limited number of uses of any antibiotic before the microbes adapt and become immune.
However, these same precautions are not used with animals. On most factory farms, drugs are fed to animals with every meal. The living conditions promote illness, and the factory industry has compensated for animals' compromised immunity with drugs. As a result, farm animals are given antibiotics nontherapeutically—or before they get sick.
In the United States, about 3 million pounds of antibiotics are given to humans each year, but the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the farming industry uses approximately 25 million pounds of antibiotics before animals are even sick—or for every one dose of antibiotics taken by a sick human, eight doses are given to a "healthy" animal.
Beginning in the 1960s, scientists warned of the harms of nontherapeutic antibiotics and today the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization have connected nontherapeutic antibiotic use with increased antimicrobial immunity. Studies have shown that antimicrobial resistance follows soon after the introduction of new drugs into farms.
Despite the need for a total ban on the use of antibiotics for “healthy” animals, the farming and pharmaceutical industries has so much power given to them by us—the people that fund them on a massive scale by eating tons and tons of factory farmed animal products daily.
The environment that contributes to the food-borne illness of at least 76 million Americans and that promotes antimicrobial immunity also increases to the risk of a pandemic. Today, the farm-pandemic link is increasingly clear. The recent H1N1 swine flu outbreak originated at a hog factory farm in North Carolina, and then spread throughout the world, killing almost 4,000 in the United States.
Breeding sickness-prone birds in overcrowded and disgusting farms encourages the development of pathogens. However, this practice promotes efficient and cheap meat, forcing Americans to chose: cheap meat or health?
The choice may seem obvious, but this rationalization is pushed in the back of our minds. Maybe we block out the knowledge that unhealthy and unnatural conditions plague the farms which breed our meals. Maybe we know more than we admit when it comes to meat and its production. Soon however, this information will reach us—whether through the media or through illnesses, and we will learn that these sick animals are making us sick.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Google Doodles
This week, many celebrated the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street. One such celebrator was Google. For the past week, Google has incorporated very cute Sesame Street characters into the search engine.
I always noticed the fun Google designs for (mostly) significant holidays, but sometimes had to click on the “Google” to read about what the design was commemorating. Recently, Google released their complete doodle database to the public. I never knew this existed before, but apparently it was very limited. Now, you can browse all the doodles. When I stumbled upon this website, I learned that Google celebrates worldwide holidays and the designs actually change in each country.
The first Google designs were created in 1998, with a commemoration of Burning Man festival on August 30. I don’t remember Google in 1998, but even with the same color scheme, the logo looks very different.
In 1999, Google celebrated Halloween and Thanksgiving in the U.S. and had a snowman in the first “o” for a worldwide season’s greetings.
2000 marked the first year that Google produced significantly more designs, beginning with “Happy New Year.” Since the creation of Google doodles, they have since spread internationally.
Here are some fun international designs:
And here's a YouTube video montage with some of the cooler ones:
I always noticed the fun Google designs for (mostly) significant holidays, but sometimes had to click on the “Google” to read about what the design was commemorating. Recently, Google released their complete doodle database to the public. I never knew this existed before, but apparently it was very limited. Now, you can browse all the doodles. When I stumbled upon this website, I learned that Google celebrates worldwide holidays and the designs actually change in each country.
The first Google designs were created in 1998, with a commemoration of Burning Man festival on August 30. I don’t remember Google in 1998, but even with the same color scheme, the logo looks very different.
In 1999, Google celebrated Halloween and Thanksgiving in the U.S. and had a snowman in the first “o” for a worldwide season’s greetings.
2000 marked the first year that Google produced significantly more designs, beginning with “Happy New Year.” Since the creation of Google doodles, they have since spread internationally.
Here are some fun international designs:
And here's a YouTube video montage with some of the cooler ones:
Friday, October 30, 2009
Spring Forward, Fall Back
On this Sunday, November 1 at 2 a.m. local time, daylight saving time ends in most of the United States. While more U.S. residents will turn back their clocks before going to sleep on Saturday, people in Hawaii, Arizona, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands will remain on their standard time.
Despite this biannual tradition, no federal law requires that states observe daylight saving time. A federal law originally passed in 1918 and revised in 2005 mandates that areas which observe daylight saving time must switch to standard time at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in November and that these same regions must “spring forward” and lose one hour at the same time on the second Sunday in March.
The origination of daylight savings time is strange, as Congress transferred oversight from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Department of Transportation in 1966. While the Department of Transportation may seem unfit to deal with time laws, the delegation of daylight saving time dates back to railroads.
Before the regulation, each locality set their own time, which proved difficult when setting railroad schedules. In 1883, the railroad industry established official, national time zones, which Congress eventually adopted into law in 1918.
Part of this law included an observance of daylight saving time, but that section was repealed the next year and ever since, daylight saving time has been up to the discretion of local jurisdictions. The time was finally standardized with the Uniform Time Act in 1966, which allowed states to remain on standard time. Few changes have been made, and the recently set dates for changing clocks remain.
Daylight saving time aims “to adjust daylight hours to when most people are awake and about,” says Bill Mosley, an officer at the U.S. Department of Transportation. The time change decreases daylight in the early morning, therefore making it available during the evening.
Daylight savings may bring many benefits. Some experts claim that it saves energy (though others say it cancels out any savings because people use more electricity in the morning). Research has proven than daylight saving time has reduced traffic accidents as well as crime. And, lastly, more daylight provides more opportunities for children to play outside and use parks.
I much prefer daylight saving time to standard time—I like sunny, warm weather—but at least when switching back to standard time we gain hour.
Despite this biannual tradition, no federal law requires that states observe daylight saving time. A federal law originally passed in 1918 and revised in 2005 mandates that areas which observe daylight saving time must switch to standard time at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in November and that these same regions must “spring forward” and lose one hour at the same time on the second Sunday in March.
The origination of daylight savings time is strange, as Congress transferred oversight from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Department of Transportation in 1966. While the Department of Transportation may seem unfit to deal with time laws, the delegation of daylight saving time dates back to railroads.
Before the regulation, each locality set their own time, which proved difficult when setting railroad schedules. In 1883, the railroad industry established official, national time zones, which Congress eventually adopted into law in 1918.
Part of this law included an observance of daylight saving time, but that section was repealed the next year and ever since, daylight saving time has been up to the discretion of local jurisdictions. The time was finally standardized with the Uniform Time Act in 1966, which allowed states to remain on standard time. Few changes have been made, and the recently set dates for changing clocks remain.
Daylight saving time aims “to adjust daylight hours to when most people are awake and about,” says Bill Mosley, an officer at the U.S. Department of Transportation. The time change decreases daylight in the early morning, therefore making it available during the evening.
Daylight savings may bring many benefits. Some experts claim that it saves energy (though others say it cancels out any savings because people use more electricity in the morning). Research has proven than daylight saving time has reduced traffic accidents as well as crime. And, lastly, more daylight provides more opportunities for children to play outside and use parks.
I much prefer daylight saving time to standard time—I like sunny, warm weather—but at least when switching back to standard time we gain hour.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Census Season Beginning with a Murder Doesn’t Bode Well for Turnout
On September 12, the body of William “Bill” Sparkman was found bound and hanged, with “FED” written across his chest and his Census Bureau identification card taped to his forehead. Was this just a random killing or a political statement? With the Census ID and “FED” covering Sparkman’s chest, it’s hard to believe this murder is anything but politically motivated.
This homicide brings to light a frightening possibility that Sparkman was targeted because of his part time job at the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is under increasing fire from conservatives and some fear that the hundreds of other Census employees may be in danger. The bureau has many reasons to worry: the U.S. is facing unprecedented homeless rates, illegal immigrants are planning a boycott of the census, conservatives claim it's rigged in favor of the Obama administration and some extremists even claim it’s even unconstitutional; and, for the first time in recent memory, census season has begun not with a mailing, but with a murder.
Law enforcement officials are keeping most details surrounding the killing secret, causing conclusions that the anti-government atmosphere recently escalated in the Obama era is resulting in anti-government violence.
As more details emerge regarding Sparkman's death, Village Voice Media's True Crime Report blog cited the recent "rage against Washington . . . especially in the rural South," and said the death had "all the makings of some anti-government goober taking his half-wit beliefs way too far."
The death has spurred debates from all sides of the political spectrum—liberals stating the murder was politically motivated while conservatives are accusing the media of trying to politicize Sparkman’s death.
The death is a hint at the conservative attempt to undermine the government by not participating in the Census. According to the Census bureau, both a rise in identity theft and a mounting mistrust of the government discourage people from completing their Census forms.
While some citizens are skeptical of sending their personal information to the government, it is essential for their states and counties to receive funds. Monica Davis, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Census Center said, "The Census really boils down to power and money for the community.” Conservatives may be trying to make a statement, but ultimately, not completing a census form causes harm to the community rather than sending a political message.
Some conservatives are publicizing their refusal to complete the Census form. Most notably, Representatives Michele Bachmann, a republican from Minnesota, declared on Fox News that she would not fully fill out her Census form, accusing the government of abusing the obtained information.
Despite their desire to make a political statement, in not completing a census form, conservatives may be “cutting of their nose to spite their face.” Over $400 billion of federal funding will be affected by the data from the 2010 Census—everything from school districts to representatives in Congress, to housing for low-income families, to senior citizen centers. Congressional representation is also determined by Census results, so incomplete Census forms may alter the distribution of representatives. Monica Davis, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Census Center said, "The Census really boils down to power and money for the community.” Essentially, the Census has been a crucial source for determining demographic, education, and employment data in the U.S.
The Census bureau must emphasize the Census is a tool for obtaining demographic information about the country, not for the government’s ulterior motives.
This homicide brings to light a frightening possibility that Sparkman was targeted because of his part time job at the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is under increasing fire from conservatives and some fear that the hundreds of other Census employees may be in danger. The bureau has many reasons to worry: the U.S. is facing unprecedented homeless rates, illegal immigrants are planning a boycott of the census, conservatives claim it's rigged in favor of the Obama administration and some extremists even claim it’s even unconstitutional; and, for the first time in recent memory, census season has begun not with a mailing, but with a murder.
Law enforcement officials are keeping most details surrounding the killing secret, causing conclusions that the anti-government atmosphere recently escalated in the Obama era is resulting in anti-government violence.
As more details emerge regarding Sparkman's death, Village Voice Media's True Crime Report blog cited the recent "rage against Washington . . . especially in the rural South," and said the death had "all the makings of some anti-government goober taking his half-wit beliefs way too far."
The death has spurred debates from all sides of the political spectrum—liberals stating the murder was politically motivated while conservatives are accusing the media of trying to politicize Sparkman’s death.
The death is a hint at the conservative attempt to undermine the government by not participating in the Census. According to the Census bureau, both a rise in identity theft and a mounting mistrust of the government discourage people from completing their Census forms.
While some citizens are skeptical of sending their personal information to the government, it is essential for their states and counties to receive funds. Monica Davis, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Census Center said, "The Census really boils down to power and money for the community.” Conservatives may be trying to make a statement, but ultimately, not completing a census form causes harm to the community rather than sending a political message.
Some conservatives are publicizing their refusal to complete the Census form. Most notably, Representatives Michele Bachmann, a republican from Minnesota, declared on Fox News that she would not fully fill out her Census form, accusing the government of abusing the obtained information.
Despite their desire to make a political statement, in not completing a census form, conservatives may be “cutting of their nose to spite their face.” Over $400 billion of federal funding will be affected by the data from the 2010 Census—everything from school districts to representatives in Congress, to housing for low-income families, to senior citizen centers. Congressional representation is also determined by Census results, so incomplete Census forms may alter the distribution of representatives. Monica Davis, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Census Center said, "The Census really boils down to power and money for the community.” Essentially, the Census has been a crucial source for determining demographic, education, and employment data in the U.S.
The Census bureau must emphasize the Census is a tool for obtaining demographic information about the country, not for the government’s ulterior motives.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Moving on from "Wife Swap"
On Wednesday night, I wandered into the living room when I heard my roommate laughing at something on TV. I asked her what she was watching and she announced, “Wife Swap.” I left the room after approximately 10 seconds. I’ve never been a huge reality show fan—and that’s an understatement—but this show was especially terrible. I read about it on abc.com, which brags, “two families with very different values are chosen to take part in a two-week long challenge. The wives from these two families exchange husbands, children and lives (but not bedrooms) to discover just what it's like to live another woman's life. It's a mind-blowing experiment that often ends up changing their lives forever.” I instantly lose respect—and interest—in any show that boasts that a season will bring, “tears, tantrums and raised voices as the wives clash with their new families.” And here I thought “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” was bad. Maybe it’s because I’ve been raised with a “we keep family matters in the family,” mentality, but I immediately thought, “who would ever be on this show?”
The next day, I was on the phone with my mom stressing about my study abroad visa, and she interrupted me to announce that a six year old Colorado boy was floating away in a helium balloon. Obviously very confused, I spent my next class reading about it on cnn.com on my phone. Immediately, a few concerns crossed my mind: a. What was this family doing with a large helium balloon in their backyard? b. The child’s name is Falcon. c. Where is Falcon??
Hours later, after planes were grounded, people were spanning the potential radius of the balloon for 6-year-old Falcon, and the nation watched in fear, the balloon landed—empty. Soon, however, during the desperate manhunt, Falcon is found, hiding in a box in the attic of the garage.
Doubts about the truth of the entire event arose, stemming from Falcon’s comment, “you guys said that, um, ‘we did this for the show’” when asked why he didn’t come out if he heard his parents calling for him. And with that one line, Falcon destroyed another of his parents’ apparently never ending schemes for publicity. Here is the video of the Heene family on “Larry King Live” being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer.
Since this confession, the general consensus is that this was a hoax and a desperate cry for attention. The credibility of the story decreases with each exposed detail of the family. According to TMZ, the family approached TLC (the station broadcasting “Jon and Kate Plus Eight”) about a reality TV show and even the station which seems to have impossibility low standards with shows like “Toddlers and Tiaras” and “I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant” rejected the idea. Apparently, ABC had a different opinion on the family. Before the balloon hoax, the Heene family appeared on "Wife Swap" not once, but TWICE. I guess that answers my question of who would volunteer for that show.
With new reports that Flacon may not have even been hiding, local sheriffs have announced that they plan to press charges. The sheriff in Larimer County, where the Heenes reside, announced the family may face up to three felonies: conspiracy to commit a crime, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempting to influence a public servant. While the first two are misdemeanors, the last charge carries a possible sentence of six years in prison.
While the whole situation is truly bizarre, this hoax is simply another incident proving the sad trend away from truth and responsibility and toward reality TV and desperate attention cries. From Heidi and Spencer to Patti Blagojevich, everyone seems to want the same thing: attention. The Heene family had a taste of fame on their first stint on “Wife Swap” but apparently their insatiable thirst for publicity. Obviously, their second experience on “Wife Swap” wasn’t enough either. These reality TV veterans still weren’t satisfied, and after proposing a reality show premise to various networks and achieving nothing, they finally have their 15 minutes of fame. And sadly, maybe more. Despite the legal problems the Heenes may face, their name and their story have been given worldwide exposure. Especially with the hoax allegations and the extremely low standards of reality TV, producers may see the Heenes as profitable and marketable. This whole situation may boost the “career” of the Heenes remarkably.
While their actions are truly abominable, the continued attention is only fueling their fire. Each article or broadcast news piece grants them more exposure and keeps their name in the minds of everyone. A Wikipedia page already exists, titled “Colorado Balloon Incident,” which cites 65 articles. The attention they are gaining from the alleged hoax, sadly, may be exactly what they need to finally achieve a TV career outside of “Wife Swap.”
The next day, I was on the phone with my mom stressing about my study abroad visa, and she interrupted me to announce that a six year old Colorado boy was floating away in a helium balloon. Obviously very confused, I spent my next class reading about it on cnn.com on my phone. Immediately, a few concerns crossed my mind: a. What was this family doing with a large helium balloon in their backyard? b. The child’s name is Falcon. c. Where is Falcon??
Hours later, after planes were grounded, people were spanning the potential radius of the balloon for 6-year-old Falcon, and the nation watched in fear, the balloon landed—empty. Soon, however, during the desperate manhunt, Falcon is found, hiding in a box in the attic of the garage.
Doubts about the truth of the entire event arose, stemming from Falcon’s comment, “you guys said that, um, ‘we did this for the show’” when asked why he didn’t come out if he heard his parents calling for him. And with that one line, Falcon destroyed another of his parents’ apparently never ending schemes for publicity. Here is the video of the Heene family on “Larry King Live” being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer.
Since this confession, the general consensus is that this was a hoax and a desperate cry for attention. The credibility of the story decreases with each exposed detail of the family. According to TMZ, the family approached TLC (the station broadcasting “Jon and Kate Plus Eight”) about a reality TV show and even the station which seems to have impossibility low standards with shows like “Toddlers and Tiaras” and “I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant” rejected the idea. Apparently, ABC had a different opinion on the family. Before the balloon hoax, the Heene family appeared on "Wife Swap" not once, but TWICE. I guess that answers my question of who would volunteer for that show.
With new reports that Flacon may not have even been hiding, local sheriffs have announced that they plan to press charges. The sheriff in Larimer County, where the Heenes reside, announced the family may face up to three felonies: conspiracy to commit a crime, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempting to influence a public servant. While the first two are misdemeanors, the last charge carries a possible sentence of six years in prison.
While the whole situation is truly bizarre, this hoax is simply another incident proving the sad trend away from truth and responsibility and toward reality TV and desperate attention cries. From Heidi and Spencer to Patti Blagojevich, everyone seems to want the same thing: attention. The Heene family had a taste of fame on their first stint on “Wife Swap” but apparently their insatiable thirst for publicity. Obviously, their second experience on “Wife Swap” wasn’t enough either. These reality TV veterans still weren’t satisfied, and after proposing a reality show premise to various networks and achieving nothing, they finally have their 15 minutes of fame. And sadly, maybe more. Despite the legal problems the Heenes may face, their name and their story have been given worldwide exposure. Especially with the hoax allegations and the extremely low standards of reality TV, producers may see the Heenes as profitable and marketable. This whole situation may boost the “career” of the Heenes remarkably.
While their actions are truly abominable, the continued attention is only fueling their fire. Each article or broadcast news piece grants them more exposure and keeps their name in the minds of everyone. A Wikipedia page already exists, titled “Colorado Balloon Incident,” which cites 65 articles. The attention they are gaining from the alleged hoax, sadly, may be exactly what they need to finally achieve a TV career outside of “Wife Swap.”
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Expanding the House of Representatives
Our nation was founded upon the principals of “one person, one vote.” While this saying once rang true, this staple of American democracy may not be as true now. For example, if you live in Rhode Island, your vote in the House of Representatives carries almost twice as much weight than someone living in Montana. Or, the votes of Utah residents count almost two-thirds more than those of Iowans.
With only 435 members of the House of Representatives and a constantly-shifting population, equal representation may be a concept of the past. As the institution of the House of Representatives has evolved, it has encountered a problem balancing a need for representation versus legislative efficiency. Historically, this tradeoff has contributed to a struggle between serving constituent interests and maintaining and organized and functional body. Ultimately, expanding the House of Representatives would lead to greater representational equality but may only make the institution more unwieldy.
For almost a century, the House of Representative has been comprised of 435 members. Until 1920, the seats of the House were reapportioned based on population following each decennial census. Between 1850 and 1910, the population of the United States quadrupled, booming from not even 22 million to over 91 million people. While the House of Representatives did not exactly parallel the exponential increase of the population, it did attempt to match the substantial expansion by doubling. By 1920, over 60 new seats were established for the House to correspond to the growing population. However, in 1920, dissent from publications and prominent society members fearing an even less effective Congress curtailed the growth of the House. Except for the temporary addition of two representatives in the 1950s to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii, the House has remained at 435.
The initial census of 1790 indicated that the US population was 3,615,823. This population was divided into 105 districts with one representative each, or approximately 34,436 people per representative. In 1920, when, for the first time, the size of the House was not increased and remained at 435 members, the population was 106,021,537. This divides out to 243,728 people per district or representative, an obvious great increase over the not even 35,000 people originally represented by one House member. A substantial population growth and no change in the House of Representatives for 90 years has led to even less representation. The 2000 census indicated the US population is 281,422,177. With 435 districts, each district should theoretically contain 646,498 people, though most districts’ populations fall far from that number. Here is a table and a graph charting the exponential increase of population and the stabilization of the House of Representatives:
With the 2010 census approaching, state populations will soon determine congressional districts throughout the country. This ineffective system will continue to inaccurately represent Americans. As has been the case for almost one hundred years, political leaders will, as Peter Baker put it in this New York Times article, “[prepare] to cobble together a patchwork quilt of districts that will leave some Americans underrepresented.” The districts truly are a patchwork quilt, but with significantly sloppier stitching.
While reapportionment may solve some of the discrepancies in representation created by the population growth and shift, much of the disparity is inevitable. Theoretically, each House member should represent an equal number of people. However, because each state, regardless of its population, is guaranteed one representative and the size of the House remains the same, the number of people represented by one representative can vary greatly.
For example, the most recent census indicated that Nevada’s Third District is the most populous in the country, with 960,000 people. They are all represented by one member of the House. Similarly, Montana’s entire 958,000 person population also has just one vote through their one representative. These districts remain incredibly similar in size, but compared to other districts, the under-representation is clear. Wyoming’s population of 523,000 and each of Rhode Island’s districts of 527,000 and 531,000 all receive a separate vote.
Since 1920, suggestions of increasing the size of the House of Representatives have not been seriously considered. Recently, the idea of expansion has been proposed but has garnered little support. Columnist George Will proposed expanding the House to 1000 seats, or one for about every 281,000 people, and Florida Representative Alcee Hastings proposed that it be studied, but ultimately each effort has been ignored. Jane S. De Lung, the president of the Population Resource Center, states, “we have tripled our population since 1910,” and notes that representatives already have difficulty responding to constituents as it is, let alone with a growing population. She asks, “If you can’t do it with 700,000, how in the world are you going to do it with 1 million?”
Recently, some citizens have acted on these concerns and on September 17, 2009, five plaintiffs from the five most under-represented states (Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and Utah) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of the size of the House of Representatives. They argue that the current House size of 435 violates the “one person, one vote” principal and hope to remedy this inequality by adding more members. The lawsuit is the first of its kind, and a victory would require the House to increase its size to provide equal representation throughout the country. This table illustrates the discrepancy between states’ current district size and the national average of 646,952 people per district. Most notably, Montana’s one district has 258,364 people over the national average, while Wyoming has 151,648 less than average.
Supporters of the lawsuit claim there are a variety of problems with over-sized Congressional districts. Most obviously, the greater number of constituents in the district, the less accessibility each person has to his or her representative. With less people per district, each House member could be more attentive to his or her district. Representatives could focus on the prime duty that they were elected to fulfill: expressing constituent interest at the national level. Additionally, if representatives served smaller districts, they would not have to solicit as much funding for their reelection and could save time and money fundraising and campaigning. Because elections are held ever two years, representatives are constantly campaigning, instead focus on primary responsibilities, like making legislation. Less voters allow hopeful candidates and incumbents to focus on a more concentrated area and ultimately campaign less. Many people believe that the huge number of constituents per district is homogenizing the diverse beliefs of the American people, and with more representatives, citizens would have a greater chance of having their interests expressed in Congress. Some even believe that an increased House of Representatives would lead to significant changes in the Electoral College and may have even resulted in alternative outcomes in the 2000 Presidential Election.
However, if the size of a House were increased, the entire legislative process could be harmed. The initial limitation of 435 seats was rooted in the fear that enlargement would restrict deliberation and limit the time for speeches and debates. Congress members thought an enlarged House would lead to an unmanageable federal government. With the controversies and questions about the alleged incompetence already surrounding Congress members, does the country really want or need more politicians? Logistically, increasing the House would be challenging, as accommodating potentially thousands of legislators in the would be nearly impossible. Not only would an increase require a larger chamber for meetings, but new offices for legislators and their staff would also have to be created. Many people, like those bringing the suit, wish for the House to more than double—bringing its total to over 1000. Congress simply does not have the capacity to facilitate that many legislators and their entourages. Also, with more representatives, each House member would have less relative power and the majesty of membership would be diluted, making it unattractive to incumbents. With only 435 members, the House of Representatives is well-respected and elite. Being elected into it requires hard work and determination, and vastly increasing the size would inherently decrease the significance of membership.
However, proponents of expanding the House argue that with technological advances, it is no longer necessary to force all representatives into one room. Though Winston Churchill legislated in a different country, his insights still hold true to the United States House of Representatives. As he said regarding reconstruction of the House of Commons, “we shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. The House of Commons…should not be big enough to contain all its Members at once without overcrowding, and there should be no question of every Member having a separate seat reserved for him.” He defends his statement by saying that a House with a huge capacity would lead to the vast majority of the debates conducted in a depressing atmosphere with an over half-empty room. Churchill continues by saying that parliamentary conversation ``requires a fairly small space, and there should be on great occasions a sense of crowd and urgency.'' Despite that a small room may induce a more intimate and productive setting, eventually, a larger facility would be needed for important matters.
Essentially, the system may be more equitable but less governable. Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, is already considered an unwieldy organization. The various committees and the red-tape bureaucracy make the current House of 435 cumbersome. While each constituent may have better accessibility to his or her representative, those interests would doubtfully be recognized amongst the other thousands of representatives.
More districts would also lead to less funding per district. Especially with the current budget crisis, federal funding would doubtfully increase significantly (if at all), and the money would be distributed amongst literally over one thousand districts. The small allocation would not aid the districts.
Obviously discrepancies in representation in the House of Representatives exist throughout the country, and reform is necessary. An expansion of the House could introduce more members into Washington, providing a new perspective and perhaps less corruption. More minorities, third party candidates, and people from all different backgrounds who appeal to a smaller political market would have a chance to run, therefore diversifying Congress. However, an increase in membership could also harm the House of Representative and only slow the legislative process. A proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives has never been seriously considered, but with the lawsuit and the only-increasing disparity of representation between the states, now may be the time for drastic reform.
Works Cited
Baker, Peter. “Expand the House?” The New York Times. September 17, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/politics/18baker.html
Frederick, Brian. “Constituency Population and Representation in the U.S. House.”
Frederick, Brian. "Frozen at 435: The Size of the United States House of Representatives and the Impact upon Legislative Representation." April 07, 2005.
Goldberg, Jonah. “We need a bigger House.” Los Angeles Times. October 6, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg6-2009oct06,0,5681017.column
Ladewig, Jeffrey W. and Mathew P. Jasinski. “On the Causes and Consequences of and Remedies for Interstate Malapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
Schaller, Tom. “Getting a Bigger House.” FiveThirtyEight. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/getting-bigger-house.html
http://thirty-thousand.org/
With only 435 members of the House of Representatives and a constantly-shifting population, equal representation may be a concept of the past. As the institution of the House of Representatives has evolved, it has encountered a problem balancing a need for representation versus legislative efficiency. Historically, this tradeoff has contributed to a struggle between serving constituent interests and maintaining and organized and functional body. Ultimately, expanding the House of Representatives would lead to greater representational equality but may only make the institution more unwieldy.
For almost a century, the House of Representative has been comprised of 435 members. Until 1920, the seats of the House were reapportioned based on population following each decennial census. Between 1850 and 1910, the population of the United States quadrupled, booming from not even 22 million to over 91 million people. While the House of Representatives did not exactly parallel the exponential increase of the population, it did attempt to match the substantial expansion by doubling. By 1920, over 60 new seats were established for the House to correspond to the growing population. However, in 1920, dissent from publications and prominent society members fearing an even less effective Congress curtailed the growth of the House. Except for the temporary addition of two representatives in the 1950s to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii, the House has remained at 435.
The initial census of 1790 indicated that the US population was 3,615,823. This population was divided into 105 districts with one representative each, or approximately 34,436 people per representative. In 1920, when, for the first time, the size of the House was not increased and remained at 435 members, the population was 106,021,537. This divides out to 243,728 people per district or representative, an obvious great increase over the not even 35,000 people originally represented by one House member. A substantial population growth and no change in the House of Representatives for 90 years has led to even less representation. The 2000 census indicated the US population is 281,422,177. With 435 districts, each district should theoretically contain 646,498 people, though most districts’ populations fall far from that number. Here is a table and a graph charting the exponential increase of population and the stabilization of the House of Representatives:
With the 2010 census approaching, state populations will soon determine congressional districts throughout the country. This ineffective system will continue to inaccurately represent Americans. As has been the case for almost one hundred years, political leaders will, as Peter Baker put it in this New York Times article, “[prepare] to cobble together a patchwork quilt of districts that will leave some Americans underrepresented.” The districts truly are a patchwork quilt, but with significantly sloppier stitching.
While reapportionment may solve some of the discrepancies in representation created by the population growth and shift, much of the disparity is inevitable. Theoretically, each House member should represent an equal number of people. However, because each state, regardless of its population, is guaranteed one representative and the size of the House remains the same, the number of people represented by one representative can vary greatly.
For example, the most recent census indicated that Nevada’s Third District is the most populous in the country, with 960,000 people. They are all represented by one member of the House. Similarly, Montana’s entire 958,000 person population also has just one vote through their one representative. These districts remain incredibly similar in size, but compared to other districts, the under-representation is clear. Wyoming’s population of 523,000 and each of Rhode Island’s districts of 527,000 and 531,000 all receive a separate vote.
Since 1920, suggestions of increasing the size of the House of Representatives have not been seriously considered. Recently, the idea of expansion has been proposed but has garnered little support. Columnist George Will proposed expanding the House to 1000 seats, or one for about every 281,000 people, and Florida Representative Alcee Hastings proposed that it be studied, but ultimately each effort has been ignored. Jane S. De Lung, the president of the Population Resource Center, states, “we have tripled our population since 1910,” and notes that representatives already have difficulty responding to constituents as it is, let alone with a growing population. She asks, “If you can’t do it with 700,000, how in the world are you going to do it with 1 million?”
Recently, some citizens have acted on these concerns and on September 17, 2009, five plaintiffs from the five most under-represented states (Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and Utah) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of the size of the House of Representatives. They argue that the current House size of 435 violates the “one person, one vote” principal and hope to remedy this inequality by adding more members. The lawsuit is the first of its kind, and a victory would require the House to increase its size to provide equal representation throughout the country. This table illustrates the discrepancy between states’ current district size and the national average of 646,952 people per district. Most notably, Montana’s one district has 258,364 people over the national average, while Wyoming has 151,648 less than average.
Supporters of the lawsuit claim there are a variety of problems with over-sized Congressional districts. Most obviously, the greater number of constituents in the district, the less accessibility each person has to his or her representative. With less people per district, each House member could be more attentive to his or her district. Representatives could focus on the prime duty that they were elected to fulfill: expressing constituent interest at the national level. Additionally, if representatives served smaller districts, they would not have to solicit as much funding for their reelection and could save time and money fundraising and campaigning. Because elections are held ever two years, representatives are constantly campaigning, instead focus on primary responsibilities, like making legislation. Less voters allow hopeful candidates and incumbents to focus on a more concentrated area and ultimately campaign less. Many people believe that the huge number of constituents per district is homogenizing the diverse beliefs of the American people, and with more representatives, citizens would have a greater chance of having their interests expressed in Congress. Some even believe that an increased House of Representatives would lead to significant changes in the Electoral College and may have even resulted in alternative outcomes in the 2000 Presidential Election.
However, if the size of a House were increased, the entire legislative process could be harmed. The initial limitation of 435 seats was rooted in the fear that enlargement would restrict deliberation and limit the time for speeches and debates. Congress members thought an enlarged House would lead to an unmanageable federal government. With the controversies and questions about the alleged incompetence already surrounding Congress members, does the country really want or need more politicians? Logistically, increasing the House would be challenging, as accommodating potentially thousands of legislators in the would be nearly impossible. Not only would an increase require a larger chamber for meetings, but new offices for legislators and their staff would also have to be created. Many people, like those bringing the suit, wish for the House to more than double—bringing its total to over 1000. Congress simply does not have the capacity to facilitate that many legislators and their entourages. Also, with more representatives, each House member would have less relative power and the majesty of membership would be diluted, making it unattractive to incumbents. With only 435 members, the House of Representatives is well-respected and elite. Being elected into it requires hard work and determination, and vastly increasing the size would inherently decrease the significance of membership.
However, proponents of expanding the House argue that with technological advances, it is no longer necessary to force all representatives into one room. Though Winston Churchill legislated in a different country, his insights still hold true to the United States House of Representatives. As he said regarding reconstruction of the House of Commons, “we shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. The House of Commons…should not be big enough to contain all its Members at once without overcrowding, and there should be no question of every Member having a separate seat reserved for him.” He defends his statement by saying that a House with a huge capacity would lead to the vast majority of the debates conducted in a depressing atmosphere with an over half-empty room. Churchill continues by saying that parliamentary conversation ``requires a fairly small space, and there should be on great occasions a sense of crowd and urgency.'' Despite that a small room may induce a more intimate and productive setting, eventually, a larger facility would be needed for important matters.
Essentially, the system may be more equitable but less governable. Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, is already considered an unwieldy organization. The various committees and the red-tape bureaucracy make the current House of 435 cumbersome. While each constituent may have better accessibility to his or her representative, those interests would doubtfully be recognized amongst the other thousands of representatives.
More districts would also lead to less funding per district. Especially with the current budget crisis, federal funding would doubtfully increase significantly (if at all), and the money would be distributed amongst literally over one thousand districts. The small allocation would not aid the districts.
Obviously discrepancies in representation in the House of Representatives exist throughout the country, and reform is necessary. An expansion of the House could introduce more members into Washington, providing a new perspective and perhaps less corruption. More minorities, third party candidates, and people from all different backgrounds who appeal to a smaller political market would have a chance to run, therefore diversifying Congress. However, an increase in membership could also harm the House of Representative and only slow the legislative process. A proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives has never been seriously considered, but with the lawsuit and the only-increasing disparity of representation between the states, now may be the time for drastic reform.
Works Cited
Baker, Peter. “Expand the House?” The New York Times. September 17, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/politics/18baker.html
Frederick, Brian. “Constituency Population and Representation in the U.S. House.”
Frederick, Brian. "Frozen at 435: The Size of the United States House of Representatives and the Impact upon Legislative Representation." April 07, 2005.
Goldberg, Jonah. “We need a bigger House.” Los Angeles Times. October 6, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg6-2009oct06,0,5681017.column
Ladewig, Jeffrey W. and Mathew P. Jasinski. “On the Causes and Consequences of and Remedies for Interstate Malapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
Schaller, Tom. “Getting a Bigger House.” FiveThirtyEight. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/getting-bigger-house.html
http://thirty-thousand.org/
Saturday, October 3, 2009
To Rio the Olympics Go
Chicago had the Obamas and Oprah. Tokyo had $4 billion. Madrid made it to the final run-off vote. But all three cities lost the bid to host the 2016 Olympic games to Rio de Janeiro. While all cities boasted hopeful citizens cheering, no city offered the passion and story of Rio. The exciting, fun-loving city erupted when the president of the International Olympic Committee announced the final verdict.
The 2016 games will mark the first Olympics ever held in South America. While the Olympics pit countries against each other and focus on sports at an international level, since the Olympic revival in 1896, only four continents (North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia) have hosted the games. Rio de Janeiro bid—unsuccessfully—for the Olympics in 1936, 1940, 2004, and 2012. Finally, they will have there chance, but it won’t be easy. Brazil currently has the tenth largest economy in the world—and is projected to grow by 2016—but the country is plagued by unemployment and poverty.
Despite the plan that Rio proposed to the IOC, some doubt the facilities and the city can manage the volume of people. Rio plans to use the stadium built for the 2007 Pan Am Games, but this facility has only staged a few athletic events. Brazil claimed athletes and spectators would be very close to the stadium, but given traffic and the isolated facilities, the actual commute could be hours. Brazil has been struggling for years with public transportation, with a metro service still failing to reach suburbs. The main airport is also in dire need of repair, especially considering the throngs of people expected.
However, Brazil claims through their growing economy they have direct funding and investments in the facilities that still need to be built. While opponents argue against the games in Rio, the games will actually increase Brazil’s presence in the world.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Next Prop 8?
This November will mark the one year anniversary of the passing Proposition 8, which added the section “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to the state constitution. Though the proposition passed by a 52.5% to 47.5% margin, or about 500,000 votes, many Californians remain passionate about overturning the ban.
Last Thursday, a coalition of groups supporting same-sex marriage submitted ballot measure language for a potential initiative repealing Proposition 8. These groups, led by Love Honor Cherish, hope to overthrow the law, which was upheld by the California Supreme Court in May. But these efforts only mark the first step; they will need about 700,000 signatures from registered California voters before April 2010, as well as millions of dollars.
While thousands of people are outraged over the passing of Prop 8, not all same-sex marriage proponents are unified in the push for a 2010 ballot measure. They believe that the measure will more likely prevail in 2012, during the next presidential election. Equality California, the state’s largest gay rights group, announced in August that it would wait until 2012 to propose an amendment. Public opinion polls suggest Californians remains closely divided on the issue of gay marriage, and some gay rights groups, such as Equality California, believe waiting until 2012 could help the repeal gain both popularity and sympathy. However, they did state that they would support the measure if it does make it onto the ballot.
The day after Love Honor Cherish and other groups announced their decision to put the ballot initiative to voters in 2010, former President Clinton publicized his recent decision to change his personal stance on same-sex marriage. During an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, he said that he believes states should ultimately decide on same-sex marriage, but he is not personally opposed, as he once was. In the interview, he said:
"I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nation-wide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this out in debates. But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position. I am no longer opposed to that. I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it."
While many Californians, and now former President Clinton, are swaying in support of repealing Proposition 8, some are taking a drastically different approach. On September 1, 2009, Sacramentan John Marcotte submitted proposed legislation to the Attorney General that would add a different initiative to the 2010 state ballot. Entitled the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act,” this legislation would essentially ban divorce in California. He calls it “a logical extension of Prop 8.”
Marcotte, a fervent proponent of Prop 8, describes himself as “a firm believer in traditional family values.” He claims that though the legislation would essentially be diminishing people’s rights, it would be to protect traditional marriage, therefore attracting the same voters who voted “yes” on Prop 8.
On his website, captions like “You said ‘Til death do us part.’ You’re not dead yet” and “Jesus still loves you if you get divorced—just not as much as before” pan across the main page. According to website, the campaign has raised $1105.94 from 45 contributors since September 4. This CNN piece features an interview with him
This would never pass…right? The whole campaign seems pretty ridiculous, but then again, not even a year ago, California voted to ban same-sex marriages and revoke basic rights to a huge community.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Evolution of Public Intellectuals
Many argue that public intellectuals are losing their once strong audience. These people—known for extensive studies in academic areas as well their application of theories and insights to current society—may becoming unappreciated and outdated.
With the questions of the future of the public intellectual, a problem arises in how to define them. Today, is there a distinctive difference between public intellectuals and just writers? The creation and ease of the Internet creates more questions about defining a public intellectual. Anyone can create a blog or personal website—how do we differentiate between authors, public intellectuals, and those simply writing as a pastime. It seems fairly obviously to separate leisure writers and published, distinguished authors, but how do we differentiate between the latter and public intellectuals?
Alan Lightman, a professor at MIT and a public intellectual himself, devised a system of three tiers to classify public intellectuals. These levels are defined in his piece, “The Role of the Public Intellectual.” He classifies public intellectuals by the following standards:
Level I: Speaking and writing for the public exclusively about your discipline. This kind of discourse is extremely important, and it involves good, clear, simplified explanations of the national debt, the how cancer genes work, or whatever your subject is.
...
Level II: Speaking and writing about your discipline and how it relates to the social, cultural, and political world around it. A scientist in this Level II category might include a lot of biographical material, glimpses into the society and anthropology of the culture of science.
...
Level III: By invitation only. The intellectual has become elevated to a symbol, a person that stands for something far larger than the discipline from which he or she originated. A Level III intellectual is asked to write and speak about a large range of public issues, not necessarily directly connected to their original field of expertise at all.
Some believe public intellectuals are on quickly becoming irrelevant, such as Richard Posner in his book Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. Others, however, insist that the Internet has lead to a renaissance of diverse public intellectuals. One such person is Daniel Drezner, a political economist from Tufts University, who recently published an essay that seemingly lowered expectations to become a public intellectual and therefore included significantly more people.
New York Times blogger Barry Gewen argues against this trend of increasing inclusivity of authors into the elite category of public intellectuals. He states in his blog
for [writers Fareed Zakaria and Samantha Power] to be considered public intellectuals in the old New York Intellectual sense — with its commitment to cultural “centrality” — I think they would have to demonstrate greater breadth than they have so far displayed.
He opposes the classification of authors of serious books who have attracted a modicum of attention as public intellectuals. He views the public intellectual as someone more concerned about a broad variety of information and the impact on society, rather than a specialist in one area.
However, we must consider that human knowledge is growing at exponential rate. It seems especially unrealistic to expect public intellectuals to write intelligently and insightfully about, for example, politics and the economy, physics, and computers. It seems public intellectuals have evolved from generalists to specialists.
Narrow specialization of public intellectuals may prevail at the expense of a broad perspective, but the recent transformation of mass communication has increased the transparency of public intellectuals. With the ability to publish a piece on the Internet with the click of a button, public intellectuals can easily share their opinions with anyone who wishes to read it.
Stephen Mack offers a completely different but perhaps more appropriate means of classifying public intellectuals. In his article “The ‘Decline of Public Intellectuals?,” he writes
So, is there any way of conceptualizing something called the public intellectual that is consistent with democratic values? Of course there is, but it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.
I agree that a person’s contributions should define them as a person, and the public should not be focused on the celebrity of a public intellectual. However, established public intellectuals have created a name and an image for themselves through previous work and ideas. Previous work defines a person, and essentially, it becomes difficult to completely separate a person from their work.
One such person who has used their academic history and strong beliefs to become a public intellectual is Sam Harris. The first time I ever heard of Sam Harris was April of 2007. He was interviewed with Rick Warren—an evangelical pastor who launched the megachurch Saddleback Church—in Newsweek, and I was instantly fascinated by his intelligence, biting comments, and scientific skepticism. I was fascinated. To this day, I have not forgotten this segment of the interview:
Rick, if you had been born in India or in Iran, would you have different religious beliefs?
WARREN: There's no doubt where you're born influences your initial beliefs. Regardless of where you were born, there are some things you can know about God, even without the Bible. For instance, I look at the world and I say, "God likes variety." I say, "God likes beauty." I say, "God likes order," and the more we understand ecology, the more we understand how sensitive that order is.
HARRIS: Then God also likes smallpox and tuberculosis.
WARREN: I would attribute a lot of the sins in the world to myself.
HARRIS: Are you responsible for smallpox?
Two and a half years later, I was with one of my friends and somehow (I wish I knew the context) the subject of natural selection came up. Seconds into the conversation, he said “I don't know if I believe in evolution.” I was shocked. How do you not believe in evolution? I literally had no words. Growing up in a liberal family and attending a secular school, I naively assumed that by 2009, everyone knew that evolution is a proven fact. (As Sam Harris says, “Nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design.”) I went home to talk to my (also) very liberal roommate about this, and after she expressed her equal bewilderment, I tried to explain Sam Harris’s interview, as it still resonated with me. Thanks to the scope of the Internet, and the archives of newsweek.com, we quickly found the article and reveled in knowing that at least one person out there was standing up for science.
I started Googling him and learned all about his background and efforts to spread scientific knowledge in conjunction with secular beliefs. His first book, The End of Faith, discusses organized religion and the problems with tolerance of religious fundamentalism. His second book, Letter to a Christian Nation (which is about 75 pages long and definitely worth reading, regardless of your religion), is a response to all the criticism he received from the first book. Despite the title, as he says in the introduction,
“the primary purpose of the book is to arm secularists in our society, who believe that religion should be kept out of public policy, against their opponents on the Christian Right. Consequently, the “Christian” I address throughout is a Christian in a narrow sense of the term…I have set out to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms. (Letter to a Christian Nation viii-ix).
In additionally to publishing these nonfiction books, Sam Harris has been published in many news magazines and newspapers, and has been featured on numerous TV shows, such as The O’Reilly Factor,
He frequently debates religious leaders, and here he is with Rabbi David Wolpe.
He recently pioneered The Reason Project, “a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society.” This project focuses on producing films holding conferences, sponsoring studies, and conducting research and opinion polls to ultimately erase dogmatism and fanaticism.
Sam Harris is a specialist regarding religion, science, and their combination and effect on society. He uses all forms of mass media to address and convince the public of the inherent flaws of religion. He has strong opinions on religion and the future of reason and, like all public intellectuals, has not and will not stop educating the world.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Future of News
Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham called newspapers “the first rough draft of history,” but for hundreds of years, journalism has been more than that, shaping the country’s early history.
Despite the reports that the newspaper industry is dying, new technology has not replaced newspapers. With the recent and unprecedented technological boom that has brought about infinite forms of “new media,” newspaper circulation and readership continues to decrease.
However, the emergence of the Internet is not the first hurdle for newspapers to endure. The invention of radio and television introduced new mediums for the news to be delivered, and though both have had negative impacts on newspapers, neither has replaced it.
The Internet may be more efficient—websites can provide instant information and Internet news is free, whereas newspaper subscriptions cost the customer. Still, the majority people prefer to read the newspaper in print form, and enjoy reading the paper in the morning with breakfast or just to relax.
Of course, coming from a newspaper family, I may be biased.
Two weeks ago, I had just moved into my new apartment. I woke up, got a bowl of cereal, and sat down—only to realize I had nothing to do. Being an avid newspaper reader practically since I could read, this void of not having a newspaper in the morning was startling. Freshman and sophomore year in college I lived in dorm-style buildings, where newspaper access was very limited. I resorted to the online version, catching up on local Sacramento news through The Sacramento Bee, and then scanning The LA Times website.
I thought this was sufficient—until I went home for the summer and truly appreciated the alliteration “daily doorstep delivery.” By the second week of summer I was back in my routine; I started with the Scene (or Lifestyle) Section, read the cover stories, criticized the advice Jeanne Phillips in “Dear Abby” (or even worse, Carolyn Hax) gave, then quickly read through my favorite comics (“Zits,” “Doonesbury,” “Dilbert,” “F Minus,” and “Bizarro”—almost always in that order). Depending on the amount of time I had before work—and what section my sister was reading—I read Names and Faces (to catch up on the celeb gossip, obviously) and maybe skimmed sports. But in the afternoon or later at night, I would pour over each section, cover to cover. Our dinner conversations frequently began, “Did you see the story about…” and I contributed without question.
Needless to say, when I came back to school, I realized that I was taking the convenience of newspapers for granted. While sitting in my apartment during the week before classes started, I realized all I wanted to do was read the newspaper. I went on a search through the shopping center near campus, only to be given most of The LA Times by a man who overheard my complaining and only wanted the sports section.
I brought the paper back to my apartment, only to be met by my roommate, a Communications major, who quickly said, “Oh, Katie, one of the only few newspaper readers these days.” Mildly offended, I quickly retorted that, while newspaper profits are certainly decreasing, broadcast news is decreasing at an equal, if not more substantial, rate. Amid reports that newspapers will be completely out of business soon, relatively no notice is paid to startlingly similar problems facing television news. As audiences age and new media and the Internet become increasingly prevalent, evening news shows have lost over half their viewers in less than 30 years, with audiences continuing to dwindle.
While newspapers cover all aspects of news (local, national, and international), television news is increasingly replacing “hard news” with celebrity news and human interest stories. Both television stations and FM radio stations summarize newspaper stories in their own news briefs.
No media source can achieve the completeness or complexity of a newspaper, and no media source will be able to replace it.
I found this video celebrating The McClatchy Company’s 150th anniversary. While the video summarizes McClatchy’s history as a company, the first two and a half minutes have great photography and perfect quotes that, at least I believe, summarize journalism. My personal favorite: “Newspapers are the place where the whole world comes together.”
Sources:
http://corky.wgaeast.org/broadcast_news/736.html
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/the-decline-of-broadcast-journalism/
http://vocomoco.typepad.com/digitalmeteor/2009/03/the-decline-of-broadcast-news.html
I never thought I'd actually start a blog...
...but while I now I have a blog, I vow never to become like this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
