The not-so-secret "secret" meeting

Obama got the news media buzzing this week, having a "mystery" meeting with the Big Apple's independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg (who is considered by some a presidential hopeful himself).

Where was this high-profile meeting, exactly? The New York Luncheonette, a glass-windowed diner on 50th Street in Manhattan. Yes, two of the most powerful politicians in the country today discussed business and "mutual interests" over eggs at a midtown diner.

The rendezvous was initially teased by sometimes sensationalist media outlets like The Drugde Report (Drudge, who can never pass up the chance to leak an explosive bit of news, posted something along the lines of "OBAMA AND BLOOMBERG TO HOLD SECRET MEETING IN NEW YORK" in his trademark red, block type at the top of the site as early as Thursday). But I'm sure nothing new came out of the get together. News reports stated the two talked about generic political issues--homeland security, global warming--and reps from the Bloomberg camp insisted this doesn't signify a move by the mayor to join Obama's campaign in a more substantial way (though an Obama/Bloomberg '08 ticket would be interesting, especially in light of Andrew Sullivan's recent article on whether Obama is the candidate who can transcend the growing partisan political divide).

This was obviously a press play--an opportunity to grab the spotlight in a very public setting, sending a message to Hillary that Obama means business. The practice of using appearances and pseudoevents like this one to attract attention and send messages, though completely accepted on the campaign trail, is exploitive.

For those few hours Friday morning, the press, perhaps a exposing a fault of its own, foolishly covered every nod, every smile, every buttering of each piece of toast as two politicians chatted informally. One of the only confirmed details of what went on in the restaurant, which was closed off by security for the meeting, was the price of the check--$17.34--and that Obama left a "generous" $10 tip. This isn't news, and it's not going to help voters make a more informed decision in the quickly approaching primaries. Politicians should stop staging events just for the sake of creating a buzz, and start saying things that actually catch the American public's attention, addressing issues of the day with more than carefully crafted rhetoric and promises of generalized policies.

Countdown to the primaries

Update: The LATimes published this story tonight on Hillary's perfect score on preparedness.

With just over a month until primary season kicks into full swing, I've been doing a lot of thinking about where all the candidates are at and how the campaigns are being run. One piece that particularly struck me was this article in the Washington Times this week about Hillary's perfectly manicured campaign.

Hillary is undoubtedly a very strong and careful-minded politician. She strategies to a T, so much that her critics often bash her as calculating or divisive. It is certainly important to have leaders who, with the fate and wellbeing of the country entrusted in their hands, are making well thought out, deliberate decisions based on much analysis and consideration. This is especially true as the next president sets up to clean up the debris left behind by a careless administration that has led the country into SNAFU after SNAFU with seemingly little thought of what the grand-scale or long-term consequences of its hasty and rash decisions would be.

But, I also don't think the campaign trail is the right place to demonstrate such leadership capabilities. Hillary's record as first lady and on the Senate floor can speak to her ability to maneuver political fields filled with partisan landmines and policy blocks. It is vital that the candidates are as transparent as possible in the coming weeks. No more dancing around questions and dodging hardballs at debates then spinning the press to say, "Look how well the strong-headed girl stood up to those mean boys ganging up on and berating her from behind those lecturns on national television." No more denying reporters the opportunity to ask questions--many of which are not intended to be a trap for candidates to slip up on their carefully chosen words, but a reflection of what the readers are left asking when yesterday's edition is read and done. And certainly no more directing reporters looking for clarification to the canned and constructed website fact-sheets that are undoubtedly saturated with favorable statistics and findings.

The other candidates are no angels; they too are guilty of the ever-present strangulation of the press on the campaign trail. The candidates are already perceived by many as prominent and established enough to run for the nomination (some, like Hillary, regrettably seen as a sure-thing), but willing to exaggerate, fib and cheat their way into the Oval Office and the press is perceived by many as slanted and untrustworthy (we'll throw in here the age-old "statistic" that public opinion polls find journalists rank just above--or below, depending on who you ask--used car salesmen on trustworthiness). The only way we can have fair elections that truly promote participation of the American people is if we see both parties step up and play ball by the rules, promoting and supporting transparency and accuracy in the election coverage.

The not-so-funny prank on the press

The Federal Emergency Management Agency recently delivered a politically-charged PUNK on the people and the press. But instead of resulting in belly-aching laughs from merry pranksters, FEMA officials managed to embarrass the agency with one of its biggest SNAFUs yet.

Last week, FEMA, which has effectively managed to mangle most of the clean-up efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, decided it needed a pat on the back for aiding evacuees from the recent California wildfires. So, it gathered a bustling bunch of enterprising “reporter” — a.k.a. FEMA staffers — conference called some presumed gullible journalists — hey, they’d be champing at a bit for a story, right? — and staged a press conference. The specifics were sketchy from the start; the fact that the callers were not actually allowed to ask any questions should have been enough to make any self-respecting reporter question the press conference’s credibility. As anyone with half a brain might have guessed, the “perfect plan” turned out to be the perfect storm for yet another embarrassing setback for the agency.

Not only was the situation an insult to the journalists involved and the institution of the American press, but it was an insult to the public at large. FEMA officials foolishly thought they could manipulate public opinion through the one medium charged with providing the people with accurate, fair and informative accounts of the happenings of a nation and a world. The backlash that the backfire has sparked is well deserved, and sheds light on a greater issues surrounding the entangled relationship between politics and the press.
The staged event is problematic on many levels. One of the most salient issues is that deceiving the public would seem to directly contradict the federal agency’s mission. As part of the Department of Homeland Secutiry, FEMA’s mission is to protect the American people if and when disaster strikes: providing support and security to those affected by the unpredictable and uncontrollable elements in life. Such a public insurance policy requires certain levels of trust that are certainly not achieved or upheld by conscious efforts to deceive the public. This trust is particularly problematic in the wake of the agency’s recent embarrassments. It has struggled to rebuild its integrity post-Katrina, post-“Brownie,” and, post-DHS’s recent-Halloween-shenanigans, in which a worker was allegedly awarded “best costume” for dressing up in blackface and dreadlocks.

The faux press conference also illustrates a grave misuse of resources and person power. If in baiting the press, the agency was looking to pitch a story about its recent successes, then it is in desperate need for a new publicist. Over the past few years, analysts have pointed to funding deficits that force the agency to solicit students to do research projects and detract from its ability to prepare for disaster. The funding deficit led one policy analyst to contend in 2005 that the agency “certainly [doesn’t] has enough funds to set priorities and address the known risks.” Though the phony press conference was certainly did not require a large sum of money to put on, the time and person power necessary to plan and stage such a feat detracts from the agency’s productivity and suggests its intentions and allocation of resources are misguided.

In addition to manipulating the public trust, the staged conference is an insult to the institution of journalism. Democracy thrives on an independent press free of governmental influences. This isn’t to say the relationship between the press and politics is clear cut; an over-reliance on official sources and tendencies to cover pseudo-events and press conferences with clear-set agendas certainly have led the two entities to be caught in bed together throughout history. But an attempt to actively deceive journalists with a false or unmerited story is disingenuous and despicable — it violates the core values of mutual respect and trust between sources and journalists necessary for producing accurate, thorough coverage of political issues that educates and informs the public.

If FEMA was looking to rebuild its tarnished reputation through this half-minded scheme, boy did it fail. An agency whose primary charge is to provide protection and security to the public has openly worked against the favor of the American population at large, both distilling the trust and credibility of its authority and undermining the actual efforts made by relief workers helping victims of the fires. But, if the agency and its officials were trying to demonstrate continued incompetence and lack of consideration for the nation's well being, well I'll have to echo good 'ole Dub-Ya in saying, "FEMA, You're doin' a heck of a job."

So 1990s....

A few snippets of conversation from a dinner with several 20-to-early-30-something colleagues earlier tonight reminded me that though I pride myself on being part of the oh-so-savvy-and-smart 20-something set, I must admit I am on the, well, younger end of the age spectrum.

Example one: on the subject of the ever-awesome Power Rangers. After a colleague, who is married with two youngin's of her own, shared how cute her 3-year-old looked passed out on the couch in his Power Rangers jumpsuit as she left the house, I delved into grade-school nostalgia, recounting the fierce playground battles over who got to play the part of the "Pink Ranger" Kim. I was shocked to find that my friends a.) didn't play Power Rangers (apparently, 90s highschoolers were too cool for neon-wearing, Terradactyl Transformer-driving Westernized ninja warriors) and b.) couldn't even remember that the full name of the popular show was "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" (nothing to do with mutants, that was the Teenage Mutant Ninga Turles).

Example two: Somehow, in our conversations covering politics, the media and everything pop culture, we came upon the subject of reactions to Princess Di's death. My strongest memory of Diana's death was a friend's older sister staying home to watch the funeral procession on TV. At just 9 years old, I had really no grasp of what was going on--besides the sadness of a life lost-- or why the world was mourning the death of the Princess of Wales. In stark contrast, my friends felt a much deeper connection to the day. One recalled being stunned sober--quite literally-- when he heard the news while out partying during his first week as an undergraduate. Another had actually gone to the British Consulate here in L.A. to sign the condolence books.

Don't worry, there is a point (I hope!) to this mindless meditating on memories.


All of this came together when I came across a piece in today's New York Times about the changing perspective of American youth. For 10 years, Tom McBride, a humanities professor at Beloit College has created the "mindset list," which identified cultural turning points or perspectives of the college's incoming class this year. Among the selections highlighted by the NYT? The class of 2003 "never knew Madonna as a virgin," the class of 2007 has never known leaded gas and for the class of 2010, "A stained blue dress is as famous to them as a third-rate burglary was to their parents. "

As indicated by the sampling, pop culture and cultural (or perhaps generational is a better word) perspective impacts more than just what we buy, eat and do for fun. It affects our political outlook, our perception of political leaders and issues (many first-time voters in the 2008 presidential race will have been barely in gradeschool when "Billary" took office in 93, and were still in gradeschool when the Twin Towers were hit in 9/11).

We often fail to recognize how much of our consciousness and sense of identity is influenced or shaped by pop culture, even within generational groups. Did my Barbie's really destine me to a life of self-loathing and body-image distortion? Is my idealistic outlook a direct result of listening to the obnoxiously upbeat "MmmBop" on repeat for a solid four consecutive months? Maybe not, but I do believe that my collective experience and interaction with pop culture has played a significant role in shaping the beliefs and ideals I accept in my adult life. We define ourselves in the context of the world around us, and whether that world is filled with peace-loving hippies, fun-seeking club kids, plaid-wearing grunge punks or lip smacker-smothered teeny boppers has to make a difference.

Promoting peace one popped collar at a time

I laughed to myself when my mindless perusal of the Facebook "newsfeed" brought my attention to an article posted from one of my old boarding school chums. It was the title of the piece, recently published in Time, that caught my eye: "Can Arab Preppies Save the Middle East?"

As an alumna of Deerfield Academy, the New England preparatory school that is the basis for King's, I feel a certain attachment to this grand educational experiment. I'm not sure what impact King's will have on international relations or world politics--whether "Arab preppies" really can "save the Middle East," as Time puts it--but I do know the school will undoubtedly provide an incredibly enriching experience for its members.

A Prudent Use of Taxpayer Dollars?

Sex sells, but can money buy abstinence? The Department of Health and Human Services seems to think so. Earlier this month it rolled out another pro-abstinence campaign its $87 million-a-year crusade against contraception education. The newest tactic in its fruitless efforts: hopping on the coattails of YouTube-generated content to shoot video shorts of youngins talking about saving themselves on to the World Wide Web. Yeah, like that’s going to sway the notoriously edgy, self-aware and mature-beyond-their-years MySpace kids.

Abstinence has been considered a cause celebre over at the DHHS since the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act boosted funding and prominence of the government’s abstinence education efforts. Since 1998, the DHHS Abstinence Division has received a hefty sum of cash amounting to a whopping $50 million a year from the federal government, as well as 75 percent matching funds from the DHHS, to teach grade school-age children the virtues of preserving their virginity. Despite the constant flow of taxpayer cash into the coffers of the DHHS, the all-or-nothing strategy just doesn’t cut it.

Abstinence may be the only 100 percent effective method of birth control, but abstinence education is anything but a 100 percent effective teaching method. A government report quietly released earlier this year found that kiddos involved in abstinence-based sex education programs were no more likely to hold on to their virginity until their Vows. In fact, the report, which analyzed programs in urban hubs across the country whose participants represented a wide ranging ethnic and socio-economic demographic, found alumns of abstinence-based educational programs had same number of sex partners and lost their virginity at about the same age — at, on average, about 15 years old. One fourth of the sex-savvy students taught to save themselves ended up sharing themselves with three or more partners by age 17.
. Urging teens to hold off on sex is by no means a bad idea. Nearly half of all 15- to 19-year-old Americans have had sex at least once. Common logic dictates that the younger you start having sex, the more likely you are to rack up the number of names in that little black book, greatly increasing your risk of STDs or unwanted pregnancy. Statistics reflect this theory — teens make up about 50 percent of the 18.9 million sexually transmitted infections diagnosed each year.

But this newest video campaign is just another example of the government’s misguided — and mismanaged — approach to promoting the health and wellbeing of American youth. There is a cultural and generational disconnect between those crafting national health initiatives and dolling out the funds and those impressionable young people contemplated the incredibly loaded, incredibly adult and incredibly x decisions involving sexual activity. Family values- and faith-based policy just don’t fly with the under-20 set. Only those with the most fervent faith in abstinence would buy that kids these days are more apt to listen to videos of kids telling parents to tell their kids that they want them to save themselves than scantily clad teeny bopper “role models” spewing their sexcapades on the big screen and in the media. Frankly put, the majority of American youth tunes out of abstinence-only sexual education programs, and instead tunes in to the sex-saturated pop culture.

What the government really needs is a reality check to snap it out of this family values-heavy funk. If the feds really want to decrease the skyrocketing STD rate among teens or diminish even further the already-dropping teen pregnancy rates, it needs to develop comprehensive campaigns to inform those who do choose to be sexually active how to do it in a safe, healthy way. Nonprofits like Planned Parenthood, which is pro-choice on all accounts, promote abstinence as one of many options for the sexually active to choose from. The group manages to tackle an issue typically talked about in preachy, faith-based terms from a more objective standpoint: presenting the pros of staying sex-free while pointing out the challenges associated with long-term abstinence and addressing the truth that decisions to remain abstinent may change as a relationship evolves.

Teen pregnancy is down 36 percent since the demo hit its proverbial most fertile period in the early 90s and studies show teens are holding off longer before dropping their V-Card. But increased contraceptive accessibility and awareness — not abstinence promotion — is widely credited for the decline. If the DHHS really wants to improve the health and wellbeing of the nation’s youth it needs to stop being such a prude and promote protection and awareness instead of abstinence alone.

The Colbert Candidacy

Calls for Nobel Laureate and environmental crusader Al Gore to throw his hat in the ring and take another swing at the presidential campaign (third time's the cham...right?) were overshadowed by yet another twist in the already debauchery and unpredictable Campaign 2008 this week.

Funnyman and faux conservative commentator Stephen Colbert (that's pronounced Col-behhr, for those of you lacking Colbert's saucy sense of sophistication) delivered a, well, presidential punchline to his 1.07 million viewers, announcing his comedic candidacy in the '08 race. Colbert, who is collecting signatures in his home state of South Carolina to snag a spot on both the democratic and republican primary ballots, is taking on the "candidacy" with his signature comedic candor... pondering over such questions as whether Doritos can sign on as a corporate sponsor for his campaign or simply sponsor his O'Reilly Factor-eque news show's coverage of his campaign.

Though the straight-faced TV personality is keeping tight lipped about where and how far he plans to take this charade, pundits on both side of the spectrum have plenty to say about it. Politico even published this story about whether Colbert's "candidacy"violates election codes.

The cast of characters in this race is getting better by the day, and the buzz created by Colbert is sure to breathe some much needed life and enthusiasm into this very early race.

Hey, maybe he'll even win. His day job... spitting sharply spun, message-heavy rhetoric and throwing political jabs... seems to mirror what's been going down on the trail thus far.