Projected US Federal Deficit for Fiscal 2003: $455 Billion
Projected US Federal Deficit for Fiscal 2004: $475 Billion (does not include expenses for security and reconstruction in Iraq)

2003 US expenditures on Iraq war, post-war security and reconstruction: $80 Billion
2004 US expenditures on Iraq war, post-war security and reconstruction: $110 Billion

How much is $80 Billion? Let's take a look at some other causes that aren't nearly as important as war...

Total Amount Spent on HIV/AIDS research, cancer research, alcohol and drug abuse research, cardiovascular disease research and child abuse research in 2000: $8.1 Billion Source
Cumulative US Federal Spending on Cancer Research, 1971 through Present: $40 Billion Source: NIH

"This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war."
President George W. Bush, April 24, 2003

Bush tax cuts in 2003: $205 Billion
Projected Bush tax cuts in 2004: $310 Billion

Uhh, how's that, Mr. President? Tax cuts caused the deficit. See, the figures above that show roughly half of the 2003 deficit was accounted for by tax cuts. War expenditures made up just 25% of the deficit.

Sources:
Christian Science Monitor, Opinion section

Outstanding article called WAR, TAX CUTS, AND THE DEFICIT
By Richard Kogan

Number of Iraqi co-conspirators discovered to be involved with 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon: 0
Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq: 0

Number of US soldiers killed in Iraq war and security operations: 423
Number of US soldiers wounded Iraq war and security operations: 1,967

May all of our fine men and women come home safely as quickly as possible. I feel terrible for these hundreds of thousands of pawns who put their lives at risk in a land on the other side of the globe for... for what? For their country? For the safety of democracy everywhere? For the freedom and human rights of oppressed people everywhere? For some nebulous economic dividend yielded by the ability to dictate favorable US trade policies with lesser nations? For the trickle-down economic benefits from the next generation of military-industrial complex designed to combat terrorism in the absence of a Communist threat? For what?

Why are our friends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons dying? Because the US, the UK and Australia were afraid of a dictator whose army it demolished and country it occupied in less than a week? Or because our nations' people and elected representatives were manipulated by a focused group of neo-conservatives intent to establish a new new world order?

Cronkite Fears Media Mergers Threaten Democracy

I was just on the phone with Ken about this today. Turns out Walter Cronkite's views are the same as mine. The fact that Cronkite is concerned about media concentration and their ever-increasing shallowness should be of note to anyone familiar with his record of covering news in the US for 50 years. I don't think anyone would question his passionate belief that a well-informed public is a necessary component of democracy. It's not enough to simply have free press and free speech if the control over the major channels of broadcast information are tightly controlled by a small number of individuals.

One might argue that whoever controls the presses has had disproportionate control of people's thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, politics and behavior.

That has always been true.

But I think the real substance of Cronkite's critique is that today's management and ownership of news programs place a greater value on providing headlines-driven coverage of events devoid of depth and analysis.

This superficial approach to news has the significant consequence of leading Americans to simply "watch" the news rather than thinking about it, reacting to it, and analyzing it. Paul Krugman, economist and columnist with the New York Times, put it very well when saying that today, major networks present "even-handed" coverage of issues, which means that if someone says the earth isn't flat, they'll show a 10 second spot of that person's reasons why the earth isn't flat, followed by another 10 second spot of someone who says the earth is flat. The segment will conclude with a wrap by the anchor saying "Well, it seems that this issue is still very much alive with some very interesting points raised on either side." Today's major news networks simply will not say that one side has more merit than the other.

Indeed, presentation of complex news and news analysis is dead, if it ever really existed.

This has something to do with the fact that too much openness to criticism of bias on one side or the other if you cross opinion with facts. True, the right wing has been extraordinarily effective in mobilizing criticism against what it sees as the bleeding-heart-liberal-dominated media and publishers.

But the rapid rise of Fox shows that there is a huge demand for more shallow, conservative, patriotic-slanted, and all-around more entertaining news and commentary. Factual accuracy, range of opinions represented, and depth of analysis are simply less important in garnering viewers and, therefore, ultimately less profitable to invest in; since news is a big business, responsible managers will work to maximize shareholder value like good capitalist businesses should, right?

The demand shown for such programming has resulted in loss of viewers and advertisers from news stalwarts like NBC/MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS. But the people who run those businesses aren't dumb -- they can see that their average audience member isn't really interested, at the end of the day, in news. After all, they could be watching any of 150 channels with far more entertaining programming. The Iron Chef. MTV. Discovery. The Wedding Channel. They could be playing video games. Or sufing the Internet. The range of things they could be doing other than watching news is enormous.

These alternate stations are subsititutes. What people are demanding from the news today is the same thing they're demanding from these other stations: Entertainment. It's just another channel on the TV. The purpose of the TV is entertainment. Therefore, news is just another form of entertainment. This isn't just fancy syllogism at work. Shocking headlines often lead news stories. Why? It's not necessarily that the story is that important to the viewers, or that the scope and scale of the impact is significant in the broader scheme of things. Most often, it's because it's attention grabbing. That's why, if it bleeds, it leads.

The fundamental problem that I think Cronkite understands but doesn't articulate here is really the same problem you see in many cases where capitalism breaks down. Basically, there's a positive externality here that's not being capture by the market. Democracy demands fair, balanced presentation of the news along with analysis, background and historical context to understand why events are significant, how they evolved, and what the future will bring. It is similar to public education. We believe that education has some universal, intrinsic value that is worthy of being both accessible and, indeed, mandatory for all. However, individual media outlets do not have incentive to serve this public good -- only their individual bottom lines. To compete with the range of entertainment alternatives in the media today, and to win a tiny share of the ever-increasingly short attention span of Americans, media stations have taken economically rational steps: They produce shallow (uncritical), even-handed (uncritical) entertainment package that only vaguely aspires to fulfill the functions I associate with journalism (broad and insightful coverage of news and events that are not merely interesting, but significant and important).

Platinum Trellis Setting for Round Diamonds

This is an example of the setting I am going to replace the original engagement setting I got for Anita. The current setting she has is a bit too wide and sturdy looking, which makes her fingers look less delicate and the rock a bit smaller. It's also about 0.25 ring sizes on the large side, so I've got some shopping to do.

Too bad Blue Nile doesn't sell settings without the diamond. Their loss.

Testing, testing... 1234.

So this is the world of blogging. I'm here. So far, so good. I'm not sure exactly where and what I plan to do with this. At first, I was thinking this might be the next generation of on-demand communications. Rather than broadcasting through e-mail, without context, you just tune into "Channel Mark" whenever the urge strikes you.

And that's probably what it will be. The real question is: Will it be a strong, clear signal amidst the vast volume of Internet noise? Or just more noise and clutter itself?

Time will tell, I suppose.