Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?

Will and Bud both have thoughtful posts up about "the speech" next week. I'll just point you to some fifth graders at East Elementary in my school district who will be watching the speech and live blogging it. They'll watch, ask questions, and - knowing their teachers Chris and Niki - have a meaningful discussion about working hard and the importance of a good education.

Huh.

Briefing 2.0

To add on to my earlier Democracy 2.0 post, it turns out the U.S. State Department is already doing Briefing 2.0, allowing anyone to submit video questions via YouTube:

Good afternoon, everybody. I wanted to welcome you to the first edition of Briefing 2.0. Let me first start off by thanking everybody who submitted questions to us, who placed some trust in us, and the fact that we�re going to try to answer your questions. So here we are. We�re going to answer your questions.

I want to respond to one thing up front. In some of the write-ups about this, kind of in the run-up to this briefing, a couple folks remarked on, in my video I said, you know, this is going to be fun. And they said, well, you know, it�s foreign policy; there�s nothing fun about foreign policy. And I just wanted to explain what I meant.

It�s fun for me because this is part of something I started three years ago when I first came in here, and I have a great team that�s been working with me. And it�s one of the things that we want to do is use technology and its applications to try to change the way the State Department communicates, not only with the press but also with the public. And this is an opportunity for the public to directly ask me questions, and maybe somewhere on down the line other people questions, and for you to get answers back.

And I think this is part of a general trend in the way that government and its publics communicate with one another, and it�s going to change over time. I think, inevitably, there has to be more interaction. There can�t be all this change and ferment going on outside the walls of government, and then government kind of continuing to operate as it has for the past 200 years. So that has to change. It�ll change eventually, and hopefully this is one small part of that change.

I�ve brought in a piece of paper. I just want you to know, all it has is the names and the locations of the people asking questions. I don�t know what the questions are, so I�m going to see them for the first time along with you.

Here's the intro video from the U.S. Department of State's YouTube Channel:




And here's the first briefing:




Very, very interesting. They also have a blog.

Brings up a few questions:

1. Social Studies Teachers: Don't you think this gives you some ideas for some assignments? Shouldn't you have your students submitting questions to the State Department?
   
   
2. District Internet Filter Czars: If you're blocking YouTube, isn't this yet another argument why, if you don't unblock it altogether, you at least need teacher overrides for the filter?

Democracy 2.0

In the presentations I�ve been giving over the last six months or so there�s a part where I talk about how schools need to make these changes I�ve been blogging about not just so that students will be effective students and eventually employees in the 21st century, but also so that they can become effective citizens. I�ve pointed to the 2008 presidential election campaign as a prime example, comparing the resources I had available to me growing up to learn about the candidates and the issues with the resources available to students � and voters � today. I�ve talked about YouTube and how you can chart the rise and fall of various campaigns based on the current viral political video, and the plethora of websites where you can find detailed information (and misinformation) about candidates and issues, and the candidates own websites where you can read, hear and watch what the candidates themselves have to say. I�ve pointed out how both campaigns have used the Internet extensively, but that the Obama campaign took it to another level � not just with the unprecedented fundraising, but with the outreach and community building. And I always closed that part of the presentation by saying something like, �When the historians write the history of this election, how big a factor will they say the Internet was? And how are we preparing our students to be successful citizens in such a world?�

Well, that was before we knew the outcome of the election. Now that we do, it appears clear that the answer to the first question is, �Big. The Internet was a very, very big factor.�

From the Denver Post:

Barack Obama's Internet-based campaign has not only made history, it has forever changed the American political process.

. . . Over the past two years, Barack Obama carried Dean's pioneering techniques to an exponentially more sophisticated level. Realizing that America is really thousands of separate if often overlapping communities of interest, Obama used the power of the Internet to identify, organize and unite them. He raised probably more than $800 million when the final numbers come in, and that mostly in small sums from millions of donors. In turn, Obama used much of that cash to convert his virtual communities into a network of field offices and a get-out-the-vote team that brought millions of new voters to the polls.

From The Mercury News:

Former vice president Al Gore said Friday he was overwhelmed by Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election and credited the Internet for the campaign's success.

"The electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all human beings are created equal would not have been possible without ... the Internet," Gore said.

From The Guardian:

While most pundits focused on the question of race, one largely overlooked factor was his powerful techno-demographic appeal. . . . It is no coincidence that one of Obama's key strategists was 24-year-old Chris Hughes, a Facebook co-founder. Hughes masterminded the Obama campaign's highly effective web blitzkrieg on everything from social networking sites to podcasting and mobile messaging.

From U.S. News and World Report:

A key turning point in the long and brutal presidential election involved a YouTube battle between dueling online videos.

It was primary season and Barack Obama was being battered in the press because of his relationship with controversial pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Some of Wright's more inflammatory sermons were captured on video and were flying around YouTube.

Instead of letting the clips fester online, the Obama campaign immediately posted on YouTube the candidate's full rebuttal, a 37-minute-long speech on race he delivered to an audience in Philadelphia.

The video clip helped calm the controversy and attracted around 5.3 million views on the video-viewing website, proving the popularity and impact of a medium that was first used widely this election cycle.

From the NYTimes:

One of the many ways that the election of Barack Obama as president has echoed that of John F. Kennedy is his use of a new medium that will forever change politics. For Mr. Kennedy, it was television. For Mr. Obama, it is the Internet.

. . . Mr. Obama used the Internet to organize his supporters in a way that would have in the past required an army of volunteers and paid organizers on the ground, Mr. Trippi said.

�The tools changed between 2004 and 2008. Barack Obama won every single caucus state that matters, and he did it because of those tools, because he was able to move thousands of people to organize.�

Mr. Obama�s campaign took advantage of YouTube for free advertising. Mr. Trippi argued that those videos were more effective than television ads because viewers chose to watch them or received them from a friend instead of having their television shows interrupted.

�The campaign�s official stuff they created for YouTube was watched for 14.5 million hours,� Mr. Trippi said. �To buy 14.5 million hours on broadcast TV is $47 million.�

There has also been a sea change in fact-checking, with citizens using the Internet to find past speeches that prove a politician wrong and then using the Web to alert their fellow citizens.

From Information Week:

And it's only the beginning, said Trippi. That kind of networking will likely transform the White House. Trippi anticipates Obama will create a similar social networking for his legislative initiatives and recruit supporters to lobby Congress to get his policies enacted into law.

That last quote is key, �It�s only the beginning.� We�ve already got Change.gov, a website for the �Office of the President-Elect,� where the not-campaign-but-not-yet-administration is not only keeping followers updated on what they�re doing, but they are also soliciting input under a section titled �Open Government� with a link titled �It�s Your America: Share Your Ideas.� Does anyone think for a moment that after building up this huge network of supporters that they aren�t going to try to leverage it to help them govern? That they aren�t going to use the incredible community they�ve built to help them drive the conversation and pass legislation? Not to mention, of course, keeping these folks involved so they�re ready, willing and able to going into motion four years from now for Obama-Biden 2.0.

Yes, the issues facing the soon-to-be Obama administration are huge and not quickly or easily solved, and changing governing and politics is a difficult task, but never before has an incoming President had the kind of network and tools at his fingertips that President-Elect Obama has, nor the people who apparently know how to use them well.

So, all this goes back to the second question in the opening paragraph above (and my previous post), how are you helping prepare our students to be successful citizens and participants in Democracy 2.0?

Update 11-14-08: President-Elect Obama is taking the weekly radio address to YouTube as well.

The Next Election

Yes, I know that many folks are glad that this one is finally over (especially getting rid of the campaign ads), but I wanted to reflect briefly on one thing. I teach in a high school with students typically aged 14 to 18. Probably a hundred and fifty or so of our seniors were eligible to vote this year, and I imagine many of them did. But a thought occurred to me this morning � all of our current high school students will be eligible to vote in the next presidential election.

Think about that for just a minute. All of our approximately 2,150 students at Arapahoe � most of whom have never voted � will be eligible to vote in the 2012 elections. And all of the other 17.5 million students currently in U.S. high schools will also be eligible to vote in 2012. Which brings us to the money question (or two or three).

What are we doing to prepare these students to be engaged, intelligent, informed, and competent voters in a world that is very, very, very, very different than the one we grew up in?

How are we preparing them to be successful citizens in a publish-then-filter world?

Are we transforming our classrooms to reflect real-time, instantaneous access to factual and political information?

And I could keep going but, mercifully, I�ll stop now. But if you teach high school, or you have a student that attends high school, or you pay taxes to support high schools, or you care about democracy, I�d like you to consider one thing.

What are you going to do to make sure those 17.5 million students are prepared to be successful participants in our democracy?

Image Citation: Colorado Presidential Ballot, originally uploaded by Chris&Rhiannon.

Presidential Ads Embedded in Video Games?

This definitely qualifies as "unconfirmed," but it's highly intriguing nonetheless. According to this post on GamePolitics.com (Where politics and video games collide) (via a tweet by Andy Blanco):

We've only gotten one report of this, which seems a bit odd, but an Xbox Live gamer who goes by Dragunov765 has posted photos of what appear to be in-game ads for Barack Obama.

Dragunov (we know his real name, too) says he came across the ads while playing Burnout Paradise earlier this week . . .

Very interesting. As GigaOM asks:

Its veracity aside, the virtual billboard raises an interesting question: Are political ads in video games a good idea? In terms of eyeballs, I�d have to say yes. Roughly one-third of American households own an Xbox 360, Sony PS3 or Nintendo Wii. In terms of effectiveness, Brandweek recently detailed a survey undertaken by its fellow Nielsen Games division in which 11 percent of gamers said they bought a brand after seeing it advertised in a game.

Some folks will ask how effective this is when so many gamers can't even vote yet. While there are many gamers that aren't yet 18, the average age of gamers is 30, and 37-year-olds buy the most games (as of February 2006 according to David Perry in this TED talk, statistics at about the four minute mark).



When the historians write the history of this election, how big of a feature role will technology have? Internet fundraising and recruiting. YouTube (Obama Girl, clinging to guns and religion, Reverend Wright, a more perfect union, Tina Fey, . . .). Email organizing, energizing, pushing the current campaign message, and rapid response. Social networking and community building. Voter registration. To name just a few aspects.

Meanwhile, back here in K-12 Land . . .

Update 10-14-08: Thanks to BenH in the comments, this story is now confirmed.

Political Debates 2.0

I ran across a couple of interesting posts from ReadWriteWeb that show the changing nature of politics in a read/write, searchable, always-connected world.

First, this points to a post on the Google blog that includes a real-time graph of search terms during the vice-presidential debate.

Many people were simply interested in understanding the meaning of particular terms. Governor Palin called Senator McCain a "maverick" several times, sending many viewers to Google to query definition of maverick, what is a maverick, and define:maverick.

When Biden mentioned that the "theocracy controls the security apparatus" in Iran, users searched for the meaning of theocracy � as they did when he spoke of the windfall profits tax.

Go read the post as they go on to discuss problems with spelling (nuclear, Ahmadinejad, and McClellan/McKiernan), searching for historical references, and checking on which Article of the Constitution actually talks about the executive branch.

Google also has a new post up on last night�s town hall Presidential Debate:

Similar to last Thursday, people sought to understand the meaning of several words mentioned in the debate: morass, commodity, junket, cynicism, and cronyism to name a few. In the chart below you can see four of the most popular queries during the debate. People were quite interested in both Meg Whitman and Warren Buffett, who were mentioned as potential candidates for the Secretary of Treasury, but the biggest rising query was Senator McCain's paraphrasing of Theodore Roosevelt's motto. Both candidates spoke against genocide while discussing the role of the United States as a peacekeeper, and as we saw in the vice presidential debate, nuclear energy and weapons were prominent topics.

They go on to talk about differences in searches from swing states, which reminds me a little bit of one of the things I was thinking about when I created 2020 Vision (Google having access to so much disparate data and the ability to possibly bring it together in unique ways to discover new �truths� � could be used for good or evil, I know). I think both of these are fascinating examples of how our ability to access information in real-time can make substantive changes in the way we do almost everything.

The second post on ReadWriteWeb had to do with CurrentTV and Twitter�s collaborative broadcast of the first presidential debate.

In 1960 seventy million people watched Kennedy and Nixon engage in the first Presidential debate ever broadcast live on TV.

And not a single viewer could post a comment.

These days things are different. Tonight, far fewer people probably watched the Current.tv and Twitter collaborative broadcast of Obama v. McCain - but scores of them participated, 140 characters at a time. It worked very well. You can get some idea from the 1 minute of video embedded below.

I agree that things are definitely different, but I think I would have trouble watching, listening and reading the tweets. It�s that old multitasking thing again, but some folks can probably do it much better than I can. But whether I like it or not, things are definitely changing. I could see a debate in the near future when the �spinners� from each campaign are doing live text commentary overlaid on top of the video.

Even more interesting and useful, I think, would be delayed text commentary (or even audio or video) overlaid on top of the debate. Where you get some very knowledgeable folks with an historical perspective (and not overly partisan) to give insightful commentary (text, audio, or video) as you view the debate, with links embedded for viewers that want to learn more. What a powerful learning experience that could be, whether you watched the debate live and then watched it again, or perhaps even skip the live debate and just watch the "enhanced" version.

While it would take more time to view the debate that way, I think it has the potential to be much more useful. For me, I�ve always wondered about how valuable the debates really are. I know that�s a somewhat heretical view, but I�m not sure how much being a good debater � particularly the way our current political debates are run � is related to being a good President. It�s such an artificial situation � questions that are unknown in advance and often unrelated to each other, with a limited amount of time to answer them, and without being able to tap into other resources (both information and human resources). Which is why the answers always end up being mostly unsatisfying, playing to sound bites and talking points. I sure hope that�s not how our President operates day to day. (And, yes, the parallels to the artificial situations we have in school are striking, and somewhat depressing.)

When you look at our current presidential candidates, neither one is a particularly good debater. Senator Obama gives a good speech but tends to ramble in a debate. Senator McCain does well in town hall situations, but doesn�t do particularly well in a debate, coming off as too rehearsed and too much of a scold. And, like in pretty much all political debates I�ve seen, they often answer a very different question than the one that was asked. While I think debates can provide some insight into the character of each candidate, I really don�t think that completely parallels how good of a Chief Executive they would be. It�s a setting that will not be repeated as they perform their job duties, yet we continue to act as though the debates are the ultimate test of whether a candidate is prepared to be President. Yes, I want them to be able to function in such a setting, but I don�t think the �best� debater is necessarily going to make the best President.

Sorry for the digression. In any event, I think the read/write/searchable/participatory/real-time/always-connected web has great potential to make citizens much more informed and knowledgeable voters. Just like the ability to access information illustrated by the real-time searching on Google, the ability to connect with others anywhere in the world in real-time (or delayed time, for that matter) can also make substantive changes in the way we do almost everything. And doesn�t that mean schools need to help students learn how to do these things really, really well?

Censorship in a Time of War: The Devil's Advocate

On Amanda Crosby's class blog The Devil's Advocate (btw, one of my favorite blog names ever - particularly her tag line: Crosby's Position: A teacher's job is not to tell students what to think. A teacher's job is to encourage students TO think.), the students are having a lively discussion about censorship of the media, particularly in time of war. Viewpoints vary widely:

Emily: My opinion is that I think the government should always have the right to censor news media during a time of war. Otherwise, how will we know if the information we are receiving is accurate?

Sarah: The government wouldn't necessarily sensor the media to make sure it is putting out accurate information. They would sensor it to make sure the press didn't put anything they didn't like out there, and what they don't like isn't unreliable information.

As the conversation continues, it's interesting to see students outside of Ms. Crosby's class (which is a 9th grade U.S. History class) jump in. (I don't know all the students, but I know Ben and Hannah are not in the class. Ben and Hannah, if you read this, please leave a comment about how you discovered the Censorship blog post. Was it from the AHS Start Page or the Learning Network page on the AHS website, or word of mouth, or what?)

I think it would be great if readers of this blog who have an opinion on this topic head on over and leave a comment on The Devil's Advocate. I think extending the conversation through additional perspectives would really help the students as they grapple with this complex topic.

0

We�ve talked a lot at my school about how we�d like to do more interdisciplinary teaching. How that helps make everything more meaningful, relevant and engaging for our students, and is more likely to result in deep learning that lasts beyond the end-of-unit test. But we�ve also talked about the obstacles, which include our schedule, our various curricula, and the fact that many of the interdisciplinary topics that most lend themselves to this approach can be controversial topics.

This series of posts has been an attempt to draw in the reader � whether that reader is an educator, other interested adult, or a student at my school � to think about just one topic that lends itself to this approach. I�m not a history or a language arts teacher, so I�m sure these posts could�ve been written much better, with more appropriate quotes or alternative sources or more meaningful connections. But that�s sort of the point. If a former math teacher can put something together that at least made you read this far, imagine what some teachers with some knowledge and talent could do.

Have you read Cory Doctorow�s Little Brother yet? You should. (Cory�s day job is contributing to this little blog.) Buy it. Or download it for free. Then get it on your district�s approved literature list, and add it to your unit where you teach 1984 and/or Fahrenheit 451 and/or whatever else you teach in that unit. Have your students also read this. And this. And this. And a bunch of other things I don�t have time to link to at the moment.

Team-teach this in Social Studies and Language Arts - figure out a way to do it. Have students read folks who support and disapprove of current policy (learn more). Have them research both Presidential candidates� positions (or, if it�s after the election, have them research the winner�s position). Have them find other writers/reporters/bloggers/candidates that have something to say about this. Have them look into the technology of it all. Have them learn about propaganda and persuasion, politics and history, reading and writing, critical thinking and technology. Have them learn enough to take an informed position, then make them argue the other side. Then challenge them to get involved, to try to influence policy. Have them share their knowledge and efforts with others. Have them participate.

Then do it all again with another topic. Immigration. Stem-cell research. Global climate change. Poverty. Real issues that are meaningful, complicated and messy and don't have easy, pre-determined "right answers." Problems that our students actually care about trying to solve and that we actually hope someone will solve. You�re only limited by your imagination.

Nothing less than the future of our democracy depends on a well-informed, thoughtful, and engaged citizenry. Too melodramatic? Perhaps, but I don't care - deal with it. I have an eight-year old daughter and this is what I want for her from her teachers. What do you want for your kid?

Links/sources for quotes in previous posts:

7
1984
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas


6
1984
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

5
1984
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Benjamin Franklin

4
Fahrenheit 451
Bruce Schneier

3
Little Brother
United States Constitution
The Federalist Papers #84
United States Declaration of Independence

2
Little Brother
The Federalist Papers #51
United States Constitution, Bill of Rights

1
Little Brother eBook Introduction
Preserving Life and Liberty (a Department of Justice website)
Daniel Solove (summarizing - and then refuting - the �Nothing to Hide� argument)
ACLU Watch List Counter

Senator Ted Stevens - Please Don't Come to RNC

Wikipedia Knew VP Picks Before You

The Washington Post has an interesting story about predicting who Senator Obama and Senator McCain would pick as their running mates:

In the days leading up to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate announcement, political junkies glued to broadcasts and blogs for clues of McCain's veep choice might have done better to keep a sharp eye on each candidate's Wikipedia entry.

It turns out that some folks were watching the Wikipedia entries for clues to both picks, and both Biden's and Palin's entries saw the most substantive action in the days before the picks were announced. The story doesn't say whether this is due to insiders updating the entries to get them "accurate" before the announcement ("some of the same wiki users [that were making changes to Palin's page] appeared to be making changes to McCain's page"), or whether this is another Wisdom of Crowds situation, but I suspect it's a little of each.

I also find it interesting that there's a company, called Cyveillance, that has analysts monitoring sites like Wikipedia.

Cyveillance normally trawls the Internet for data on behalf of clients seeking open source information in advance of a corporate acquisition, an important executive hire, or brand awareness.

Now that's an interesting phrase, "seeking open source information," that I'm going to have to ponder for a while.

My Question for Senator Obama

As I posted about previously, the DNC is soliciting questions to be addressed at the convention next week. In that post, I suggested that edubloggers - and everyone reading the post - should submit a question. Well, I began to think that after suggesting that, I probably better go ahead and submit my own question, even if I still didn't feel like I had the perfect question. So, here's the video question I submitted:

Not the perfect question, but perhaps a conversation starter.

What question will you submit? Deadline is August 27th.

Follow-Up to Questions for Senators Obama and McCain

Thanks to Ben Nuebel in the comments, I wanted to include this follow-up to my earlier post about wanting to have a good question ready in case I ran into Senator Obama when he was here in Denver.

Ben points out that the DNC is at least making a show of soliciting questions from all of us:

As part of throwing open the doors to the Convention, we�re inviting Americans from around the country to contribute to the program by asking questions in America�s Town Hall. We want to hear your questions for our elected leaders and national experts. While your thoughts on any topic are welcome, we are particularly interested in hearing your questions and personal stories about how to change politics as usual, fix our economy, make America safer and restore our nation�s standing in the world.

Of the many submissions received, we will select a few questions to use at the Democratic National Convention from August 25-28. These questions will be answered by speakers, live from Denver in front of thousands of delegates in the hall and millions of Americans watching from home. We will also be answering questions online throughout the Convention.

Deadline is August 27th.

Now, they pretty clearly state that they will only be selecting a "few" questions to use at the Convention, so it's pretty unlikely that any of our questions will be addressed (especially if they don't match the message they're trying to deliver - see the four suggested topics above). But, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, so - edubloggers (and others) - submit your questions (text, video file, YouTube link, or they may come make a video of you asking the question if you're selected).

Questions for Senators Obama and McCain

So, both the calendar and my jam-packed and very messy office tell me it�s August. In addition to the usual "It�s the beginning of the year how am I ever going to get all the stuff done that I need to get done before the students arrive?" panic attack, I had an additional panic attack. What if I bump into Senator Obama and I don�t have a good question ready?

Seriously, I�m worried about this. I live and work just south of Denver and, as you hopefully know, Denver is hosting this little thing called the Democratic National Convention coming up here at the end of August. While I know that conventions are pretty much completely scripted, Senator Obama doesn�t strike me as a man � or a candidate � who would spend the entire four days in his hotel/the Pepsi Center/Invesco Field at Mile High. So what if I�m at the grocery store and run into him, or what if he decides to visit my school? Hey, it could happen. George Bush (#41, not the current President) spoke at my school when he was Vice-President (before my time, but there are pictures to prove it � and we didn�t own Photoshop then), so I think it would be somewhat symbolic if Senator Obama stopped by.

I�m not very good at the "elevator pitch" - once a conversation gets going I think I get warmed up and can contribute, but put me on the spot for a serious and thoughtful question � not so much. So I�ve started trying to think of the one question I�d ask him if I did bump into him by the blueberries (or walking across our cafeteria).

I mean, there�s the obvious:

When are you going to name Chris Lehmann as your Secretary of Education designate?

Yes, I realize I already volunteered for this position, but sometimes you have to take one for the team.

Or there�s the standard:

Most educators think that NCLB has some serious flaws, and you seem to agree. What would you replace it with?

But then I�d just get the talking points.

Or I could reuse the question I didn�t get to ask Governor Richardson:

You have a statement in your plan about rigor, relevance and relationships. Too often in education I feel like rigor is defined as simply "harder" or "more homework." It seems like folks are saying that what we�ve been doing isn�t working, so let�s just require more of it. Instead, I think often what we should be asking is, "Are we doing the right things in the first place?" Can you talk a little bit more about how you define rigor and what are the key skills, abilities and habits of mind that our students need to be successful in the 21st century?

But I didn�t particularly like that question and it was directed specifically at a statement Governor Richardson had in his own plan.

You see, I�ve read the highlights of both Senator Obama and Senator McCain�s education stances, and looked more deeply at their web sites (Obama's Education Page, McCain's Education Page). And I�ve even listened to these three short NPR pieces on their personal tech literacy and how they would address technology in their administrations. (Apparently it�s a necessity to have a former FCC chair � from your own political party, of course - as a technology adviser. Hmm, if not Secretary of Education, perhaps I could be Senator Obama�s Technology Czar. I�ve never been a Czar.)

But I�d really like to ask that deep, meaningful, thoughtful question that gets to the heart of it all and allows us to really see his baseline, fundamental beliefs about education and what needs to change in order to meet the needs of our students. To help us understand if he thinks education is at a tipping point, and that it�s a different world out there, and schools need to adapt and change to meet it? Or if he believes that, while changes and improvements are always necessary, things are basically good as they are. And a question that gets beyond the usual talking points and helps explore all the ideas we�ve been talking about in our blogs for the last few years.

Now, I don�t mean to be partisan about this, I�d want to ask the same question of Senator McCain, but I just figure that�s it�s more likely I�ll run into Senator Obama here during the Democratic Convention than Senator McCain. (Although Arizona is just a long day�s drive southwest of here, perhaps he could come up for the day.) So, I said to myself, "Myself, you have a blog. Why don�t you ask for some help?" If you�re so inclined, please leave a thoughtful question in the comments for Senator Obama, Senator McCain, or both of them.

This is not a political blog, and I don�t want your "question" to really be a statement of political beliefs. So, if you comment, please honor this post in the spirit in which it's intended. I really want to know the one question you would ask either of these gentlemen that might help us better understand their beliefs on education. A question that hopefully gets away from the talking points and gives us a glimpse of the vision they have � or don�t have. This would help me out if I happen to run into either of them and, frankly, would help me out in case I find myself in an elevator with other important folks. (I�ve been having more of these "opportunities" than usual in the last few months, and have a few more coming up, it�s kind of weird - and I don't think "Hi, how are you?" is quite cutting it.)

Finally, if either Senator�s campaign staff stops by, I�d also like to formally offer to host a conversation between the two Senators regarding education. (Come on, staffers, Colorado may be the swing state, it's the perfect place to do this.) And I chose the word "conversation" very deliberately. I don�t really want to host a debate, at least not what passes for political debate these days � where each candidate takes whatever the question is and morphs it into the same old sound bites. I really would like to see both of these men have a thoughtful conversation about education. A conversation where, yes, we would indeed see the differences between them. But also a conversation where we could see the similarities, the common ground where we are most likely to be able to move forward together. A conversation where they were genuinely looking for solutions, not just trying to score points off one another. And, while I know this is terribly na�ve of me, a conversation that perhaps actually generates some new ideas of how we can move forward together. Wouldn�t that be something?

(As a mostly irrelevant side note, I happened to mistype a URL on Senator Obama�s site while testing a link in this post and got the image below, embedded within the frame of his site. I gotta say, it seemed consistent with his campaign and made me smile a little. For the record, Senator McCain�s site gave me the standard 404 Page Cannot Be Found page, without the frame of his site around it.)

Congressional Committee Urges CEOs to Make Fair Deal

The following letter was sent out today by three members of the US House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor. (via Variety's Scribe Vibe blog) -JA

February 1, 2008

Mr. Peter Chernin, Chairman and CEO
The Fox Group

Mr. Robert Iger, President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company

Dear Messrs. Chernin and Iger:

As Chairs and Members of the House Committee on Education and Labor, we have monitored the ongoing labor dispute between your company and the Writers Guild of America with particular interest and growing concern. We were pleased to see that, after suspension of formal negotiations, you and the other members of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) have convened informal discussions with Writers Guild representatives. The purpose of our letter is to encourage you to seek a fair, just, and swift resolution to this labor dispute.

The television and film industry is a significant part of our national economy. It provides thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly, each year. It generates critical revenue to cities, counties, and states. Its products are among the country�s most valuable exports.

The entertainment industry not only supports writers, actors, and producers but is a major source of middle class jobs for California, New York, and the rest of the country. We appreciate that the issues at stake are critical to the future of your business. As the entertainment industry grows and changes, we hope that any new business models will allow for creative talent to grow with the industry.

Maintaining the middle class jobs that your industry provides is among our greatest concerns. The growing cost of this dispute is of increasing concern in the Congress. We understand that Los Angeles County, for example, has lost an estimated $1.6 billion in economic activity due to the strike. Given the House Education and Labor Committee�s jurisdiction, we are exploring the need for further Committee attention to this matter. The impact of this strike on workers, the industry, and our economy is simply too pronounced to ignore.

We urge you to work to resolve the dispute with a fair and just agreement for all parties as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

GEORGE MILLER
Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor

LYNN C. WOOLSEY
Chairperson
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

LINDA T. S�NCHEZ
Member
Committee on Education and Labor

cc: Patric M. Verrone, President, Writers Guild of America West
Michael Winship, President, Writers Guild of America East
Jeffrey Zucker, President and CEO, NBC Universal
Les Moonves, President and CEO, CBS Entertainment
Barry M. Meyer, Chairman and CEO, Warner Brothers Inc.
Brad Grey, Chairman and CEO, Paramount Pictures Corp.
Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Harry Sloan, Chairman and CEO, MGM

I Heart Huckabee

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who has actively sought union support during his campaign, crossed WGA picket lines outside NBC studios in Burbank Wednesday in order to appear on the Tonight Show, all while offering several (often lame) excuses for his actions.

Before heading to LA for his appearance yesterday, according to the AP, Huckabee told reporters traveling with him that he wouldn't be crossing any picket lines because the WGA had made interim deals to allow all latenight shows back on TV.

"My understanding is that there was a special arrangement made for the late-night shows, and the writers have made this agreement to let the late night shows to come back on, so I don't anticipate that it's crossing a picket line," said Huckabee.

"I support the writers, by the way. Unequivocally, absolutely. They're dead right on this one. And they ought to get royalties off the residuals and the long-term contracts. I don't think anybody supports the producers on this one. Maybe the producers support the producers, but I think everybody in the business and even the general public supports the writers."

However, when the reporters told Huckabee he was incorrect and the WGA had only made a separate deal with David Letterman's company - and not the Tonight Show - Huckabee pled ignorance: "But my understanding is there's a sort of dispensation given to the late-night shows, is that right?"

Uh...no.

And when the reporters tried yet again to tell Huckabee he was flat out wrong? His response: "Hmmm. Oh."

So he knew. And not just from the reporters. UH.com has confirmed that members of Huckabee's staff were in contact with Guild officials while Huckabee was on the NBC lot - but before the Tonight Show taping started. To again explain the situation and clear up any "confusion" Huckabee had. To make it crystal clear that he was indeed crossing a picket line (all this is in addition to Guild members having discussions with Huckabee's communications director a day earlier, giving him plenty of time to "understand" the situation and change his plans).

But to no avail.

Apparently "unequivocally" and "absolutely" don't mean what they used to. Or perhaps "this show has an agreement, this show doesn't" is really, really, really confusing. Unlike less complicated issues such as foreign policy and the economy.

UPDATE: FCC Continues to Push Media Consolidation - Act Now!

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin seems dead set on pushing through a wildly unpopular media consolidation policy that would allow media moguls to gobble up more local news, radio, and newspaper outlets. The American people aren't happy about it, and neither are many leading politicians.

How, you ask, is this directly related to the writer's strike against the giant media conglomerates? This policy would consolidate more power in the hands of few. There is already too much media consolidation, too much vertical integration, and too much abuse of power by the few who own these companies: Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, New Corp., GE, Sony...



To read posts and conversations from Sen. Kerry and Rep. Louise Slaughter regarding their disappointment with Martin's actions, check out:
http://freepress.net/actionnetwork/node/335

And to sign a petition urging your Senators and Representatives to ask Congress to stop media consolidation,
click here.

Just the Facts, Ma'am: AMPTP Causing Havoc to SoCal Economy

Interesting things, facts. They are simply what they are. And yet sometimes you can read a lot into them.

Here's a fact:
On December 18, the Writer's Guild testified before the Los Angeles City Council about the economic impact of the strike.

Here's another fact:
The AMPTP didn't show up. [Gosh, just like at the negotiating table.]

Instead, they asked the MPAA to take care of it. The MPAA represents the AMPTP before all levels of government throughout the world. The MPAA also provides economic data and information on the motion picture and television business to the public.

And one more fact:
The MPAA wasn't able to attend, but they did prepare a statement to be read into the record. Now the facts start to get really interesting. Here are the salient facts from the MPAA's statement:

From our member companies' perspective, the most immediate impact has been felt in television production. Production, which has stopped, hurts the men and women who depend on that production for their livelihood.

Hmmm. That second sentence. Probably a typo, but still, an interesting Freudian slip.

The strike has forced our members to shut production of 74 television series, and consequently, nearly 10,000 workers are out of work.

Other entertainment guild and union production employees have not been receiving paychecks for many weeks, which is especially difficult as we enter the holiday season. Those employees are the men and women who belong to the Directors Guild of America, the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, Screen Actors Guild, Teamsters and the Basic Crafts Unions including plumbers, electricians, and laborers.

The reduction in employment represents a loss of wages upwards of $350 million since the strike began. We estimate $120 million to WGA members, $205 million to IATSE members in the Los Angeles area alone, and $50 million to the Teamsters and other Basic Craft unions.

The economic consequences of the strike cannot be measured solely by wages. In addition to lost wages are the costs from the lack of sales of goods and services that go into production, which is an estimated additional $300 million. It also means that scores of other businesses from prop houses to caterers that serve productions daily in Los Angeles have also had to lay off employees.

Each day the strike continues, more people and more businesses are impacted - more layoffs and more lost revenue...

That's a lot of facts about the impact that the strike has had. Facts that make it hard for the AMPTP to justify staying away from the table over a contract for a mere $150 million dollars over three years.

But you know what's not in those facts? Defense or blame. And isn't that interesting? Wouldn't you think the representative of the AMPTP would take every opportunity to defend its sister association's righteous position and condemn the WGA before the LA City Council? Unless, of course, they don't want to.

Emails Flood City Councilmembers -- Time to Do More!

Thank you for your overwhelming support in our email campaign earlier this week � councilmembers collectively received thousands of emails, and our work had a very real impact.

Now they know that people are engaged and paying attention, and we need to let them know our involvement is serious and ongoing. Although the special motion does not compel the AMPTP to come to the table, it becomes part of a �paper trail� that shows the AMPTP�s behavior, which will matter as we go up the political food chain (Congressional hearings, anyone?)

We're making a difference, and we need your help to keep it going.

Please send two emails � one to City Council President Eric Garcetti, and one (or more) to any of the listed Councilmembers below. Please send it today, before everyone is gone for the holidays.

CUT AND PASTE THIS EMAIL:

Dear Councilmember [choose from Eric Garcetti, Herb Wesson, Bill Rosendahl, Tom Labonge, Richard Alarcon, Janice Hahn, Wendy Greuel, Tony Cardenas, Greg Smith]:

I�m writing to express my gratitude to you for passing the special motion encouraging the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) to return to the negotiating table with the Writers' Guild of America. I deeply appreciate your support and your recognition of the impact this strike and the AMPTP's refusal to negotiate is having on the City of Los Angeles and the State of California.

The AMPTP�s refusal to even attend the City Council meeting is very disturbing. It is unacceptable for the AMPTP to refuse to bargain when the strike is costing the economy $20 million a day, at a time when budget shortfalls and the mortgage crisis are already putting a strain on California�s economy.

To give the WGA everything it�s currently asking for would cost Sony $1.68 million a year; Paramount and CBS $4.66 million a year; Disney $6.25 million per year; Warner Brothers, $11.2 million per year; Fox $6.04 million per year; NBC/Universal $7.44 million per year; and MGM $320,000 per year.

The corporations are given tax breaks and huge incentives from California and Los Angeles, all of which are underwritten by taxpayers. The amounts they are being asked to pay yearly are small � Les Moonves guaranteed salary alone is twenty-one times what it would cost for his company, CBS, to settle the strike. For these corporations to put our economy in jeopardy just so they can avoid paying a fair wage is irresponsible and unfair.

All writers want is fair compensation for their work. I hope for your continued support to get the AMPTP to come back to the table, and negotiate a fair and just resolution to this strike.

Thank you,

[insert your name here]


EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR COUNCILMEMBERS:

LA City Council President Eric Garcetti -- councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org

Councilmember Herb Wesson --
councilmember.wesson@lacity.org

Councilmember Bill Rosendahl --
councilmember.rosendahl@lacity.org

Councilmember Tom Labonge --
councilmember.labonge@lacity.org

Councilmember Richard Alarcon --
mailto:--mcouncilmember.alarcon@lacity.org

Councilmember Janice Hahn --
councilmember.hahn@lacity.org

Councilmember Wendy Greuel --
councilmember.greuel@lacity.org

Councilmember Tony Cardenas --
councilmember.cardenas@lacity.org

Councilmember Greig Smith --
councilmember.smith@lacity.org