The 1 September Diary: Day 1

 

It’s sometimes amazing the things you say on radio.

On last Saturday’s The Full Catastrophe I promised something on air that would cause me to really confront one of the biggest issues I’ve dealt with for my whole entire life: my body dysmorphia.

Body dysmorphia is when you have skewed version of how you look.

For me, it’s meant that I’ve gone through eating disorders at least twice in my whole entire life so far.

It was recommeneded to me by a medical professional some time ago that I start writing about it explicitly. And well, frankly, I figure why not do it publicly somewhat.

This week I’ll be writing and podcasting this journey through to Saturday 1 September.

Day 1 podcast

 

The Full Saturday Smile and Partial Catastrophe

Men in lederhosen

Men in lederhosen (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In probably the most ambitious edition of The Full Catastrophe on JOY94.9 so far, Andy Bell and myself gave the first hour to The Saturday Smile Show…and managed to recover ourselves for the Partial Catastrophe.

It’s a 52 minute podcastravangaza and you can listen and download it here.

And yes, true to my word, I am now on the hunt for lederhosen and visual verification of me wearing it during next week’s show will be provided.

And finally, and most importantly, thank you.

Where You’ll Find Me Every Saturday

I’ve been honoured to be part of The Full Catastrophe with Andy Bell on JOY94.9 for 10 shows now.

The Full Catastrophe, or TFC, airs every Saturday at 9pm here in Melbourne, 12n in the UK, 7am in New York, and 6am in Milwaukee. Alas it’s only on your radio dial if you live in Metro Melbourne, but via the free JOY app for iOS and Android, you can listen to it anywhere with no fuss nor muss.

And get this! We podcast it now, so every day can be Fully Catastrophic! You can pick up the podcasts at our lovely Podcast central on Podomatic.

And the playlists and musings can always be found on our blog: The Full Catastrophe

More USA Q & A: Election time

 

English: Electoral college map for the 2012, 2...

English: Electoral college map for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections, using apportionment data released by the US Census Bureau. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

For this edition of USA Q & A, I’m going to delve into elections in the US. I will try not be too partisan, but the disclaimer from earlier applies. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I am a registered Democrat and a member of the DSA and Democrats Abroad. If this topic really intrigues you, I would also suggest going to the US Consulate in Melbourne’s website as well, which will give a wholly non-partisan view.

 

 

 

Q: Why do US elections take so long?

 

 

 

A: Technically, they don’t.  After all parties have their respective conventions, it’s about a 2-3 month long process where all the candidates campaign. What turns it into a 2 year process is the selection of the candidate. Because there are term limits, at least every 8 years, both parties select someone new. Generally, there always has been a touch of the old with the new, with the incumbent Vice President stumping for the top job, but in 2008, Vice President Cheney opted not to run, and it was the first totally new election I can recall ever happening.

 

 

 

How candidates are selected differs from state to state, and it’s staggered. In my home state (and I’ll be elaborating on that shortly), it is an open primary which means anyone regardless of which party they belong to can vote for whichever candidate they want to represent whichever party, even if it’s one that they don’t care for. You can only vote in one party’s primary, but every election you’ll find party loyalists voting in rival parties’ primaries to better the chances for their party. The crossing over, however, never really amounts to much in the end, so ultimately it’s  party members and independents that decide.

 

 

 

The first primary/caucuses occur in January, and there’s a good indication of who the presumptive nominee is by April. It was not always this way, and not too long ago, you wouldn’t have any idea who the nominee would be until voting started at the convention. Personally, I miss those conventions as it made for interesting viewing (and it must be said that no matter how contentious the selection was, after the nominee is decided, everyone does unite). The Democratic & Republican National Conventions are always broadcast by all the main networks in East Coast & Central prime time.

 

 

 

Q: Do certain states have more influence than others?

 

 

 

A: Yes. At the convention and later on at the election, each state’s vote is weighted according to its population. New York & California, two states with a very high population are very influential. Even though both are traditionally Democrat states, Republicans would campaign there during their primaries in order to get as many votes at the convention. A fair amount of states swing either way, Wisconsin, is one of them. Even though, Wisconsin has gone Democrat recently, it’s been by a knife’s edge, and at 6 million residents, it can help a candidate’s chances at becoming a nominee and/or president.

 

 

 

Q: What’s the Electoral College?

 

 

 

A: The electoral college is a really odd thing. Some advocate scraping it altogether as it’s archaic and keeps the US from being a true democracy, but some also say it counteracts the influence of bigger states. Basically, when any American votes in a Presidential election, they are not really voting for President–despite what the ballot says–they are voting for electors who then go on to vote for the president. These electors are not bound to vote according to the votes of the state they represent (it must be said that there really aren’t national elections in the US, just state elections with national ramifications) , but by practice, they do.

 

November 2: George W. Bush re-elected President

November 2: George W. Bush re-elected President (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

Remember the debacle over Florida’s electoral votes in 2000? Even though Al Gore had won more votes nationally, because he hadn’t won a majority of states, the presidency went to George W. Bush who won a majority of the states. If the population was evenly distributed over the country, then this would not have occurred as he would’ve won in both areas.

 

A core belief of the US system of government is to have checks and balances, and this one way of keeping the power of more populous states in check.

 

Q: If states matter so much, how is the vote of Americans who live and reside overseas counted?

 

A: Remember what I said about US national elections being essentially state elections with national ramifications? This is it in play. When I left the US, I was, legally, a resident of the state of Wisconsin. This means no matter where I move in the world, my vote will always be counted in Wisconsin’s tally and nowhere else. My children will be able to vote in Wisconsin’s elections. If I had become a legal resident of New York, my vote would count in New York’s, and so on. The state you are legally resident of matters very much. I am, for all intents and purposes, a Wisconsinite inasmuch as I am an American.

 

 

 

 

 

Q & A on the USA

 

This (attributed to ) originally appeared duri...

This (attributed to ) originally appeared during the , but was recycled to encourage the American colonies to unite against British rule. From The Pennsylvania gazette, 9 May 1754. Abbreviations used: South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England. This is a somewhat odd division: New England was four colonies, and Delaware and Georgia are missing (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

I recently recorded my first solo podcast for The Full Catastrophe, on which I talked about the US and tried to explain–in my own fumbling way–how the US is pretty much 50 separate little countries that agree not to attack each other.

 

Expanding on it, I’d like to answer some questions that might also help better explain the USA to non-Americans. A disclaimer: I can only speak about my own experience, and to presume that there is only one American experience is to presume that there is only one Australian/New Zealander/English/Scottish/Irish, etc.

 

Q: Do all Americans want guns? Why do you always talk about the “right to bear arms?”

 

A: Not all Americans want or feel the need to own guns. I am one of them. I’m a major advocate of gun control, I believe guns should only be available to registered hunters who go through an intensive national database as well as psychological profile. My father owned guns and after he passed away, my mother & I immediately got rid of them. Gun Control enjoys varying support depending on what area of the country you reside in (and it can vary not just from state to state but from city to city). There is a strong gun owner lobby in the US, and one of their main ways of maintaining support is by invoking the American Revolution, where colonists’ rights (including whether they could have firearms) were strictly controlled by laws enforced by the United Kingdom. American history is strongly emphasised at US schools and one of the most emphasised aspects is personal liberty. The gun owner lobby views gun control as an attack on the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reflects the colonial experience.  Those who believe in gun control, like myself, take the view that as the US is no longer a wild frontier and that there is no need to feel armed against a dangerous environment. The fact that a lot of American literature and folklore is about conquering a hostile environment is part of the reason why guns hold an emotional appeal over many Americans despite the fact that modern life does not reflect that.

 

Q: Why does the American Revolution hold such an emotional impact over the US?

 

A: Beyond the clear answer that it’s the sheer reason that the US exists, it must be pointed out that the US was a radical experiment. In 1776, most of the Western world lived in monarchies with varying degrees of concern with regards to the rights of the people living within it. It must be pointed out that essentially, the American Revolution started out because the American colonists were being taxed by the United Kingdom without having representation in Westminster. This is where the phrase “no taxation without representation” comes from. (Washington D.C. residents find this very ironic, understandably.) The Stamp Act of 1765 where a tax was imposed on any official document was a major point in the build up to the Revolution as it was seen as a major insult to “fellow Englishmen,” who already were not represented in the British Parliament, which made the Colonists feel not part of the United Kingdom, but as a distinct group. The fact that a Stamp Act exists in both Australia and the UK to this day is a bit of a surprise to Americans.

 

Q: Why do laws and taxes vary so much from state to state?

 

A: States’ rights is something you hear a lot in US political news, and again, it goes back to the Revolutionary period. When the 13 original states were created there was little that united them beyond the fact that they wanted not to be British. There were states founded mostly on economic grounds (Virginia being a prime example), states founded on religious grounds (Maryland, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts), and some that were a bit of both (Pennsylvania, for example). The experience of living under the British crown left most of them rather wary of creating a powerful central government, but there did need to be one, and after one misfire that gave the states too much say (the Articles of Confederation) the current system of government came into existence under the US Constitution.

 

The fact is that the US is a big country with a big population and that different states have different needs. This is why taxes are collected by both the states and by the federal government. Being a resident of a state carries a lot more meaning in the US than it does in Australia, for example. The diversity amongst the states is also why laws vary so much.

 

 

 

 

 

A true National Broadcasting Company?

 

NBC News Truck

NBC News Truck (Photo credit: Indiana Public Media)

 

A long time ago in a blog not so far away, I wrote about a future where NBC became PBS 3.

 

Well, let’s take that thought and look at it.

 

NBC, for non-Americans, is the National Broadcasting Company. Despite the name, it has never been owned or operated by the US government or any of its constituent states or territories. (It might seem that way if you’ve ever visited New York City, but hand-to-god, it’s always been private.)

 

NBC, however, has pretty much acted like it was the US’s public-service broadcaster. How long has NBC been around? Practically since Broadcasting year dot. In fact, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC-US) owes its existence to a court order demanding that NBC spin off some of its radio stations.

 

I think there’s a bit of an affection amongst Americans towards the Peacock. It used to be that when you travelled overseas, especially to Europe, you’d see CNN and NBC programming which would allow you to keep in step with what was going on at home.

 

I’m from the last generation that can really remember NBC ruling the ratings, particularly on Thursday nights where the Cosby Show begat Seinfeld which begat Friends which begat…nothing.

 

And now, nbc (intentional lower case) has become hammered and nailed to fourth place, behind FOX! The network that most nights only has 2 hours of network programming. Let’s not even get started with the Olympics coverage which is managing to be successful despite an ever growing animosity towards it.

 

Well, I’d like to offer a suggestion to nbc’s woes.

 

Nationalisation.

 

I know, scary thought, but GM & Chrysler survived it and are now turning a profit, perhaps nationalising might make us love the Peacock again.

 

Television is such a part of what it is to be American, that it seems only right that we shouldn’t allow one of the big names to be a whipping boy.  We allow television programming into our homes to become a de facto member of the family, so by extension, why don’t actually make it a family member?

 

Ah, but if nbc is making money, then why does it need saving?

 

Well, NBC Universal is making money, because it’s a gigantic behemoth that incorporates theme parks, movies, and cable channels (it’s even owned by a cable provider–Comcast). nbc, the network, not so much.

 

So, what I’m suggesting is that we spin off NBCU‘s charity case network from the behemoth and let it get back to basics.

 

Right, now that NBC is on its own, let’s take a look at what we’ve got: A still prestigious name in the world of news and sports with one of the biggest networks of stations in the entire country, but with a programming that while often critically-lauded, seems to still keep it in 4th place.

 

Here’s the fun part.

 

If NBC becomes the public-service broadcaster  of the US, then into its corporate laws and regulations could be written that ratings aren’t the determining factor, relevance  is.

 

Use that wide nationwide network to go canvass the opinion of the American public. Instead of a group of LA-based executives trying to find out what will play in Peoria, why not let Peoria into the programming room from the  very beginning. You might very well be surprised.

 

What about the PBS stations?

 

I’m so glad you asked that question: PBS is its own animal and it’s also NOT really a public-service broadcaster. It’s more like community access television with better equipment, with all the sponsorship ads, it’s also beginning to look more like a highbrow commercial network rather than the non-profit collective that it is supposed to be.

 

Here in Australia, there are two public service television networks: The ABC (note the article), or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS, or the Special Broadcasting Corporation. They manage to get along like peas in a pod of 25 million plus people, surely NBC & PBS could in a pod ten times that size.

 

Let’s give PBS the ability to run commercials and let’s kick the commercials off NBC.

 

This will have the added benefit of ending the much-dreaded PBS pledge drive, because all that commercial revenue now goes into keeping the network running and all the excess goes back to the government which could lead to tax breaks.

 

As for NBC, let’s start by funding it with a levy across all television networks, stations, and cable operators. They might cry fowl at first, but NBC programming now is “the nation’s programming” and they get it for free, perhaps not first, but they get news and sport coverage past and present for free, because they would’ve paid for it.

 

Plus, a leaner NBC, more focused on providing programming, won’t be so obsessed with haemorrhaging money for actual content.

 

Just a modest proposal.

 

NBC Peacock

NBC Peacock (Photo credit: afagen)