The End of Aviation

http://www.tnr.com/environmentenergy/story.html?id=78260c55-a850-478f-9ffd-b8023fd89459

“The End of Aviation” by Bradford Plumer (from The New Republic)

“The End of Aviation” discusses rising gas prices and their effect upon commercial flight and long-distance travel, and also what that means for people’s lifestyles. The rising oil prices have shown a definite trend of destruction, causing the end of “twenty-five airlines… this year… three to four times the usual yearly rate.” Another issue mentioned is climate change, and how several eco-groups are fighting for higher aviation taxes and speaking out against planes (“WE FLY, WE DIE”), as they are a high energy-consuming form of travel. It is mentioned that the cutbacks in airlines could actually be beneficial for them, if handled correctly, but sharp downsizing could still cause bankruptcy.

The article also notes the difference between the attitude towards flying in the 1950s, and that of today. Before, it was ridiculously expensive, and people dressed up when they went on extravagant planes with dining salons and beds. But after Congress deregulated the industry, smaller airlines began to gain more hold because middle-class people were willing to ride in discomfort to get to places that were previously inaccessible. The expansion of air-travel allowed people to vacation abroad, communicate over longer distances easier, and jump on a plane to go to a meeting for just one day; it also provided an opening for terrorism and communicable diseases. But nowadays, the increasing cost of flying will mean more teleconferencing, reluctance to move away from family or vacation far from home and hurt hot vacation spots like Las Vegas and small towns with struggling airports.

Making air-travel eco-friendly is, however, much harder than it will be with cars. Cars already have early improvements to use less gas, and more independent hybrids are on the way. On the other hand, airplanes use so much more energy that the task will be much harder. The technology required to improve jets’ fuel efficiency even further besides small things like charging more is at best, in early-planning stages. Other options that the article suggests are high-speed trains, and the return of airships and zeppelins.

Follow-up Questions:

1. Do you think that America’s air-travel would ever come to a complete stop?
2. How would the bankruptcy of airlines affect the U.S./world economy?
3. Is there a significant cause for worry in regards to global warming coming from the inefficiency of airplanes?

The Media

Considering what Ari said, I believe that the media definitely is the fourth branch of government. The smallest unfortunate sound bite, slip of the tongue, or immoral action performed by a candidate under constant surveillance can instantly change a voter’s opinion or even sway their vote. In fact, the public probably pays much more attention to the media than to the legislative, executive, or judicial branches combined. Rather than continuing the trend of blowing small, irrelevant personal issues way out of proportion, the media should use their huge influence to their advantage and focus on helping voters make an informed decision. For example, Americans are much more inclined to watch television shows such as Saturday Night Live than they are to read a newspaper and try to decipher a candidate’s true opinions. Yes, Palin is from Alaska, and maybe she can “see Russia from her house,” but that is not why I would never vote for her: it is her lack of experience and ideologies that in my mind make her an unappealing candidate. The media has much more influence over politics than they realize, and their most important goal should be informing the voters.

The most important part of a candidate's campaign is to clearly state his or her position on all the issues. However, the personality of the candidate plays a huge role in who becomes president. Yes, the media should cover the issues - economy, war, education - but it doesn't have to pick apart each and every word that the candidate says and twist it into something different. Likewise, the candidate's personal life should simply be presented and not attacked. Americans need an unbiased source to compare candidates. Americans may not know exactly how to solve the current economic crisis, or what to do about the war in Iraq, but they are definitely qualified to judge the character of a candidate.

I think that the media has somehow decided that bringing in more personal and side issues, as opposed to the main ones, will attract more attention. Some of this news may be more interesting for some people, but I think that there has been a huge loss of balance between what issues and topics are adressed. I think it would have been ok if the media included some of these side topics, nothing too personal though, on a very minimal scale. However, they have begun to treat these topics as the major ones, and are discussed way too often. I think the quote from Obama, that Alex mentioned, was perfect. It is a clear sign that the focus needs to change, when one of our candidates is forced to try to redirect the area of discussion back to more important issues.

Iraq?

I know that personally, I do not follow politics as much as I should, but I think one of the biggest questions that should be crossing the minds of voters and presidential candidates alike is what we are going to do about the war in Iraq. This war has been going on for a long time now, with no real evidence for why we invaded in the first place, right? I mean, Bush claimed to know of certain weapons of mass destruction that were being housed in Iraq, but we have yet to find any evidence of that. And not only is this such a big problem, but the candidates have two totally different ideas on how the war should be handled. Electing Obama over McCain could mean the end of the war shortly, and the election of McCain could potentially lead to another 4-8 years of hostility. I think it is very important that voters stay informed on how the candidates feel towards the war in Iraq because it is one of the biggest issues of this election.

I agree that a large part of the media focuses extensively on secondary issues while ignoring the important ones. There are two wars, a huge debt and urgent financial needs, and yet lately the comments I have heard most, are about the "lipstick on a pig" remark from Obama and the "difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull" joke from Palin. Why? Perhaps it is because both the media and the candidates are more concerned in looking for tiny sound bites that are easy to grasp and even easier to advertise, than in having a deep and thorough discussion of key political - but what some might consider "boring" - issues. It is really surprising the amount of publicity the candidates’ families, grooming, and lifestyles get, while their other, more important issues, such as their voting record, do not. I understand that people like to be able to identify themselves with their candidates, and feel that they "know" their candidate, hence the reason behind Palin’s charm: her folksy, down to earth manner. However, when one of the reasons you choose to elect one candidate over the other is how likeable they seem, there is something wrong with the picture.
The truth of the matter is that the media plays an enormous role in the election process. Throughout history, there has always been a "fourth branch" of government. For a long time this role pertained to the church, which had an incredibly immense amount of influence over society. Nowadays however, it is the media who has the ability to sway voters with the merest flick of a well done article or advertisement. A single phrase in a television advertisement, whether taken out of context or not, can be used to sway voters’ opinions. Maybe it is time for the media to remember that with power comes responsibility, and they need to play a better part in leading our Nation’s political discussion.

Some of these absences on election issues are the media's fault. The media exist to present news. But not all news is exciting. When Palin was chosen for McCain's running mate, for that short time period, Obama was forgotten. All the attention was focused on this new women. Looking back in history (around spring) before 9/11, Chandra Levy was the hot topic. All media networks covered her disappearance. But when the larger incident occurred and Afghanistan caught the worlds attention. The media likes to cover interesting, large topics such as Katrina, Housing market, AIG... The topics need to be new and fresh and need to be able to capture the public attention. It is true important issues need to be addressed, but there are many new fads.

The nation itself is usually evenly divided in politics. With two sides to every issue, candidates need to appeal the majority of the people. But there is never a perfect way to solve all problems. There are probably too many issues for each candidate to address. I think the media should continue to look at personal lives of candidates because it interesting, and it's news. But in addition to their personal lives, the main focus should be about the future.

It is just incredible how the media covers both political and personal aspects of running presidential candidates. Alot of uneccesary personal information about each candidate constantly circulates in the media-whether it be gossip or biased information

The other day I was on perezhilton.com and one of his blog posts mentioned that McCain has 13 cars to his name (some foreign made, apparently) while Obama and his wife only have 1 car. I thought it was funny how "critical" that piece of information will be for some voters. I figure that while that information can be casually mentioned socially, I'm positive that alot of Perez Hilton readers will use that biased blog post (whether it be true or not) when voting for president. Perez Hilton is open about his support for Obama and all of his blog posts are aminly biased in support of Obama, while posts on McCain are normally negative.

I think its fascinating how a candidate's personal life dominates the media coverage of the election, basically casting aside the candidates's political views and stances . I realize that allowing voters into the personal lives of candidates can advantage the candidate because voters may feel that they relate the most with that certain candidate--ultimately ensuring more votes for a certain party.

I also don't remember the presidential candidates's wives getting so much media coverage before. In the Washington Post's Style section, one can easily find reference to the designer Michelle Obama's dress came from all together not mentioning which event she wore it at, and why she was there (i.e. What causes does she value and support?).

The media does a poor job of covering the truly important topic of politics in one of the most important elections of our U.S. history.

Blue stripes, White stars, caught Red handed

Starting off, I would like to say that whoever becomes Americas next president will not only have to provide for American political and social needs but will need to present a positive image of themselves and thus for Americans as a whole as well. To make a well-reasoned and informed decision about the upcoming election, Americans need to have a 360 outlook about all aspects of the candidates’ and about their past, present, and future factors that will qualify either McCain or Obama for the oval office. However, as the article and many of my classmates agree, the media has defiantly begun to tip the edge between political and personal perspectives and with the upcoming debates on the way, this could pose a serious problem. Propaganda needs to step back and refocus its cameras on what is really going to help struggling America, for example maybe the crumbling economy, or perhaps the ever so prevalent war in Iraq (not how many houses McCain has, or if Palin is a grandma to be, for goodness sake). From the mouth of Obama himself, “Peoples families are off limits and they shouldn’t be a topic of our politics." Bingo Obama, couldn’t have been more simply stated!

It's funny how the media's favorite topic is the media. Bring back the golden age of Lincoln and Douglas. Back then, campaigns were strictly ideology and principle. At the same time though, this 2008 election, like Soumya said, is a huge turning point for America and it's understandable that the media might get a little carried away. However, when the press starts turning a presidential election into a popularity contest, you know it's gone too far. We should be concerned! Matt Damon was spot on! It's a scary thought to think that if McCain wins and then for some reason can no longer be president--resignation, death, you have it--next in line is someone America hardly knows anything about. We should be concerned that America's economy is at a free fall, and we should be able to rely on the idea that we have a president who is doing all he or she can to help. The nation's going through a tight spot, and whether or not Sarah Palin's daughter is a young mother isn't going to change much.

As young Americans, the new president and their four to eight years of office will have a major effect on people our age. Trying to understand the candidates stances on any issue is a challenge. It is obvious that both parties would rather focus on the shortcomings of their opponent than focus on their own strengths and beliefs. When watching the candidates speak they obviously spin questions to areas they feel comfortable addressing. By asking general and non-pointed questions the media allows and promotes this behavior. There is a great need for head to head debates with direct questions and real answers. It is time for the candidates to stand on their beliefs and allow America to understand their platforms so we can choose the better path for our future.

Response to Unbearable: Focus on bigger issues

When it comes to politics, it is impossible to find unbiased information. Just as history is told by the winner of a war or conflict, it all depends on who tells the "truth." There are many truths, and the fact that there are many types of media and forums only further supports this concept. Today's media strives to twist truth and damage the reputations of many politicians.

In addition, the media is focusing on digging up things about candidates' personal lives because many of us have this image of the perfect leader, with no smears on their reputation. But does any of us know someone like that? Palin is being attacked because of her unwed, pregnant daughter. Not only is the vice presidential candidate not trying to hide the incident, but she is also supportive of her daughter. Instead of focusing on Palin's possible redeeming qualities, the media attacks her for what happened to her daughter. While many may argue that she should have been more strict or a better parent, one can safely say that many teenagers today are unwed and pregnant. The media's actions were parallel in dealing with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the nomination period. Countless accusations are made daily about the candidates' personal reputations, and no one is focusing on serious issues, such as the rumored oncoming "depression," health care, and taxes. Just because Palin's underage daughter is pregnant does not not mean the way the country is run will be negatively affected.

I agree with a lot of the points Soumya (and Daphne) made: the media is feeding on the bad things and only presenting the face value of many issues. Though people will not always take the time to really learn about the candidates, they still have no problem picking up a cover story ranting about Palin's daughter's baby. Media has not really become unbearably light, but rather unbearably empty, lazy and paparazzi-like. With a race that either ends with an African American president or a female vice, the media analysis has dropped to a level where they only discuss race, gender, and the effect upon the race. They are so eager to show diversity and people's reactions to these inspiring figures that it has created a sort of reverse discrimination, and the only reference to their policies is usually crammed onto a one page where they have a very sketchy table comparing them. Sure, the public knows a basic idea of the candidates' views on the war and the economy, but the presidency deals with more than that. Then, when the candidates do outline their plans, the media glosses over it and hurries to cover the name calling and insults.

As for unbiased information, its up to the individual to read both sides of the situation, and even then there's a lot of guesswork and benefit-of-the-doubt because of information that's been skewed or manipulated.

Response to "Unbearable Lightness"

In order to find unbiased information about a politician, you have to look through a variety of sources. For example, although in her acceptance speech Sarah Palin stated that she refused to use federal money for the "Bridge to Nowhere", later on it was found out that she not only received the money, but she actively worked to get it.
As long as the personal life of a candidate does not show their true character, it should not be part of the debate. But anyone who seeks public office is subject to scrutiny by the public. As employers of the presidential candidates, voters are putting their lives in the hands of these politicians and end up paying for their salaries. As with any employer, citizens have every right to know who they are hiring. Therefore, any question asked to a candidate is a legitimate query.

Where are you Edward R. Murrow?

First of all, I just want to say: great pick group #1! This gives us so much to talk about. Love the comments so far.

Are the days of the media speaking truth to power gone? What once began as the "Fourth Estate" of government, meant to provide additional checks and balances, has now become prepackaged news-lite. The question is, what was the turning point? I'd like to posit that one major shift occurred on September 11, 2001. In the face of our nation's worst tragedy, patriotism became the word of the day. Suddenly, it was deemed unpatriotic to question anything our government and politicians were saying or doing and the media got lulled into complacency. I think what you're seeing now is the pendulum starting to swing back the other way. Now, nothing is off limits.

I like the points raised by Daphne and Liam (enjoyed the Matt Damon video!) on this...should candidates be subject to inquiries about their private lives as well as public opinions? Our candidates are like celebrities in some ways--they choose to serve in the public eye and represent the best ideals of our country. History has shown that we elect candidates not only based on their platforms, but on their images. The Republicans are banking on Palin being just as charismatic as Obama, so now she is subject to the same vetting process in the media.

My question: how do you do about finding unbiased information when it comes to politics?

Response: The Unbearable Lightness...

The media has lost their focus because of the fact that this election has become a turning point in history because of the candidates more than the issues themselves. At this point in the race, there will be either a black president or a female vice president within the next four months. Both of these are huge, historically: never has there ever been a black presidential candidate in the general election and only once has there ever been a female vice presidential candidate (Geraldine Ferraro, 1984). These candidates themselves are so interesting with respect to their skin color and gender that people have stopped focusing on the troubles of the nation, possibly to escape the fact that they exist. The media is only feeding this because these are now the stories that sell: the fact that Barak Obama had advocated sex education for kindergarteners, or the fact that Sarah Palin has an unwed daughter who happens to be pregnant, despite the fact that Palin believes in abstinence-only education. Unfortunately, the media exists only to sell itself to be people, and stories and issues that don't get sold just don't get acknowledged.

Also, the candidates are not expected to know all of the answers, but they should have some of the answers on hand. If they vie to be leaders of the nation, they should have a basic understanding of what the problems are and where we would rather be instead. Nobody expects either candidate to have all of the answers, but a complete lack of knowledge is unacceptable.

Oh Palin...

You have to ask "Why is the Media attacking Palin?" Daphne.
It's not just that Palin's 17 year old daughter is having a baby, it's Palin, the zealot against premarital sex, has an unmarried daughter having a baby. The media tears into Palin because if she can't even instill her own beliefs in her 17 year old daughter, how is she supposed to instill belief, much less lead an America where premature sexuality is more than common? I mean sure the economy and foreign policy are extremely important topics that the media should be focusing a little bit more on, but do you see Bush about to do anything to help our economy or international image out? The reality is that in less than 4 monthes America will have a new leader, and that leader will be in charge of the economy and foreign poicy that the media should be focusing on. So the media should be informing the public about our possible new leaders, including all of their social mishaps, slip-ups, and beliefs because that is who is going to be running our country for the next 4 years.

On a side note...
Why we should be concerned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk&NR=1

Ratings vs. Real Issues

I definitely think that the media is more focused on dishing out the dirt on each candidate, like Palin's 17 year old having a child. The reason why they are probably putting focus on such issues is because that sort of information sells better and gives them more viewers. They've lost sight of the real issues, like the poverty in the nation as well as the failing economy, which is a giant issue. I doubt that America would appreciate having a Great Depression relapse. But I guess that really depends on the person leading the country and their decision on how to fix it, and it's definitely the media's job to publicize it because I seriously doubt that America would appreciate experiencing another Great Depression

The Unbearable Lightness of Election 2008

"The Unbearable Lightness of Election 2008" by Katrina Vanden Heuvel
9/16/2008
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/361113

This article addresses the absence of concentration on big issues in the coming election. Heuvel emphasizes the need to refocus the election on important issues. The questions for the candidates cover topics such as health care, trade deficits, unemployment, federal budget, NATO, childhood poverty rate, federal regulations, and other major topics that need to be addressed. The Institute for America’s Future (IAF) has recently launched an ad campaign to promote a push for better debates. With our nation deep in trouble, it is necessary that the candidates communicate their plans to help Americans. In an update, questions from readers are also provided, covering topics such as the spending of US tax dollars, the Iraq war, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, executive privilege, and Congressional power.

Follow-up questions:
1. What issues do you think the candidates should debate over?
2. Why is the media skirting these issues? What happened to their focus?
3. How deep is the nation’s trouble? Is it reasonable to assume that a candidate should have answers to all of these questions?