Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/10/26

Hi Gigi,

Here are my comments on last night's debate show.

First of all, you were the star of this episode, along with Dr. Tsang.

- The debate was quite chaotic, with the debaters talking over each other - I felt bad for Marina Tse at several instances.
- The show covered many topics, though not enough time for each topic.
- It would make more sense for the "independent" Dr. Tsang to sit in the middle. However, I understand the male-female-male arrangement that you had. Also, the sofa was too small for the three debaters.

Who was the best?
Dr. Tsang > Chester Chong > Marina Tse

- Dr. Tsang: Calm, knowledgeable, articulate.
- Chester Chong: Calm, okay but not spectacular.
- Marina Tse: Nervous, hurried, confused. Failed in her effort to be a GOP loudspeaker.

For the most part, Dr. Tsang and Chester Chong walked all over Marina Tse (maybe because Marina has difficulty with Cantonese? Or maybe because she was confusing facts with GOP spins?). It was to the point that Marina started to make things up. Here are two examples:

1) She stated that the U.S. has 50% of the world's oil reserve. The more common number I have heard about 3%. I'd be interested to know how Marina arrived at the 50% value.
2) She referred to "Obama's Islamic background"? That's a myth originated early in the campaign season and it has long since been debunked. It was memorable when Dr. Tsang gave an expression of "付之一笑" in his response to Marina.

Two other classic GOP comments by Marina Tse:
1) Marina seemed to imply that all Muslims are violent extremists. Ironically, this characterization of Muslims makes Marina quite extremist as well, pun intended.
2) Marina mentioned that Sarah Palin has been a governor for "many years." The fact is that Palin has been governor for less than 2 years. Interesting to note that Obama has been a senator for more than 3 years.

Of course, the highlight of the episode was when you rebuffed Marina's "Michelle Obama never loved America" comment as 斷章取義. Twice.

Overall, you kept the debate reasonably under control, given the format. Good job as moderator.

Thanks.
P.S. Please congratulate Dr. Tsang for me.

Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/10/26 to 2008/11/01)

今期26 Oct ~ 1 Nov期間, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:


Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.48;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$0.77.

以上十二件產品, 合共付US$0.29.

延伸閱讀: Walgreens (2008/10/19 to 2008/10/25)

Walgreens (2008/10/19 to 2008/10/25)

今期19 Oct ~ 25 Oct期間, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.96;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$3.72.

以上十七件產品, 合共付US$2.76.

延伸閱讀: Longs Drugs, Rite Aid (2008/10/19 to 2008/10/25)

Longs Drugs, Rite Aid (2008/10/19 to 2008/10/25)

今期19 Oct ~ 25 Oct期間, Longs Drugs, Rite Aid推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:


Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$2.33;

Longs Drugs - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$2.28.

以上四件產品, 連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$4.61.


延伸閱讀: Rite Aid (2008/10/12 to 2008/10/18)

My response to TVB's response

Dear [TVB],

Thank you so much for your response. I want to thank you for producing shows that encourage voting. Produced well, these shows provide a great service to the public.

I also reviewed the show and agree that the segment in question pertained to the role of referendums, defined widely to include initiatives, propositions, and "actual" referendums.

State referendums deal with state issues. Even in rare cases where referendums touch federal issues, are the results even binding or enforceable? Using sophisticated concepts like "constitutional amendments" and "presidential impeachment" and "federal" phrases like "100 senators" and "435 representatives" to explain referendum is confusing at best, and misleading at worst. "Federal" examples are inappropriate for that segment, if the goal is to keep it simple. Focusing on simple, state-level examples like state law and state spending would have been better choices.

Let me give you an example of how confusing that segment was. During the show, my wife - who is unfamiliar with politics - asked me, "Professor Tong just said that voters can impeach the President. If people in the US are so dissatisfied with Bush, why don't they impeach him?" Of course, I explain the actual impeachment process to her after the show. I would not be surprised if other viewers were confused as well.

Why explain referendum with rare events such as presidential impeachment when state spending is the common theme in many referendums? Consider this: When you try to explain the role of the Secretary of State, do you say "the fourth person in line to be President" or "the head of the State Department"? Both are true; but I certainly hope that you mention the latter first. Yet, based on the way Professor Tong explained referendum, I won't be surprised if he mentions the former first. And unfortunately, due to time constraint, he may not have time to mention the latter.

I applaud your effort in seeking examples to justify Professor Tong's points, though I am doubtful these examples were what he had in mind as he explained the role of referendum. Here are my responses to some of them:

"... On the federal level, Art. 5 of the US Constitution provides for a special convention to ratify a U.S. Constitutional Amendment as an alternative for Congressional approval."

Article 5 does say that – however, it does not explicitly describe how such a special convention would work. In other words, a state-wide popular vote might be involved, or it might not be. In any case, it is such a fine point that I hope Professor Tong did not have Article 5 in mind as he attempted to explain referendums to the general Chinese viewers.

"... On the state level, some states (e.g. Massachusetts) provide for a state-wide vote to approve U.S. Constitutional Amendments."

Unfortunately, Massachusetts' state-wide voting on U.S. constitutional amendments is advisory only. (Source: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/elebalm/balmover.htm) Without researching further, I would think that "advisory" means non-binding. In any case, I hope Professor Tong would agree that this example is too narrow in scope to explain the general role of referendum to general viewers.

"... But some state legislations also stipulate the rights of citizens to introduce initiatives in ballots calling for the impeachment of the U.S. President and Vice Presidents, as many local electorates have done in recent years."

While this is true, when was the last time such an "impeachment" initiative was put on the state ballot? In public service programs, shouldn't common examples (e.g., state spending) trump the obscure ones? Keep it simple, remember?

"... He agrees with you that few of the propositions involve conflict of interest, and believes that it has been used by special interests to end-run the legislative process."

This makes me wonder why Professor Tong decided to spend several sentences on "conflict of interest" and zero time on special interests. Or was this an oversight during post-production editing?

"... In trying to keep it simple for our general viewers, it might have appeared to be simplistic for you."

I completely agree with you that public service programs should be simple, NOT sophisticated. No, it was not simplistic for me. In fact, when Professor Tong used federal issues such as impeachment and U.S. constitutional amendments to explain referendum, I was confused. I would suspect that even sophisticated viewers were confused as well. Linking referendum to national politics and constitutional law is exactly the kind of sophistication we don't need in service programs aimed at the general public.

I have confidence that Professor Tong is well-versed in American politics. As such, I will have to believe that the confusion in the segment was due to editing. In public service programs, leaving out confusing and potentially misleading portions is probably the best policy. If one has to resort to little-known cases or special examples to support or explain a point, that point is likely too confusing to the general viewers.

Thank you.
-M.W
P.S. There is a confusing ad about "the one vote in Tennessee that gave women the right the vote." Since the goal of the ad apparently is to encourage voting, one would likely assume that the one-vote difference was in the state-wide election. Yet, the fact is that the one-vote difference happened in the state legislature. I asked a couple of people and they were surprised as well.

Link:
TVB's response to "Comments on <<我們有權選總統>>"

TVB's response to "Comments on <<我們有權選總統>>"

Dear Mr. Woo,

Thank you for your comments as well as those you sent earlier regarding previous episodes of the "We have the right to vote" program. Let me respond to your comments as the producer of the program. We are gratified that our program has such well-informed viewers like you to offer useful feedback. Your email also validates our editorial intent to generate more interest in the U.S. political system in general and the presidential election in particular.

We have reviewed the tape of the program and have consulted with Prof. Tong on your comments. If we are not mistaken, all the three comments pertain to the section on the role of "Referendums" in the U.S. In that episode, we aim to explain the purpose of voting, both to elect government officials and to vote on specific issues, on both the federal and local levels. In that segment, we ask Prof. Tong to explain the purpose for Referendums, given the fact that legislators make laws, and the citizens' views are already expressed by legislators who represent their positions. The obvious question is why with laws made by elected legislators, we would still need Referendum. He is trying to explain the conditions under which the legislative votes are not the sole determinants of some issues. He is using the Constitutional Amendment and President Impeachment as examples, among others.

You are of course correct in stating that there are no nation-wide referendum on either the Constitutional Amendment or the Presidential Impeachment processes. Indeed, there are no national electorates in the U.S. Unlike in many nations, referendums in the U.S. are voted on only in the local elections. On Constitutional Amendments, both federal and state legislations do provide for citizen input as a check against an unresponsive legislature. On the federal level, Art. 5 of the US Constitution provides for a special convention to ratify a U.S. Constitutional Amendment as an alternative for Congressional approval. On the state level, some states (e.g. Massachusetts) provide for a state-wide vote to approve U.S. Constitutional Amendments.

On Presidential Impeachment, you are also correct in pointing out that it is the U.S. House and Senate that vote on impeachment. But some state legislations also stipulate the rights of citizens to introduce initiatives in ballots calling for the impeachment of the U.S. President and Vice Presidents, as many local electorates have done in recent years.

Your point that many propositions do not deal with conflict of interest issues is well taken. Prof. Tong is trying to explain the legislative intent to have an alternative to legislators making laws. He agrees with you that few of the propositions involve conflict of interest, and believes that it has been used by special interests to end-run the legislative process.

As the last point illustrates, Prof. Tong was prepared to speak on much greater detail in the program. He wanted to differentiate various types of propositions, referendums and initiatives; trace the historical evolution of these institutions; use U.S. Supreme Court cases to illustrate the nuances; compare the Californian experiences with those of other states. Given the time limitations of our program and the demographics of our viewers, we have suggested that he should keep it simple, since most of our viewers are not as sophisticated as you are. In trying to keep it simple for our general viewers, it might have appeared to be simplistic for you. We regret if that is the case.

I hope I have clarified some issues raised in your comments. Let me thank you again for drawing them to our attention. We share your interest to bring quality public service programs to our viewers.

-[TVB-USA producer]

Link:
Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/10/12
My response to TVB's response

Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/10/12

Hi TVB,

I watched the third episode of "We have the right to vote" last night. I like the simple graphics used to explain concepts.

Unfortunately, some "facts" were misleading or simply wrong.

What I found particularly troubling are the comments by Professor Tong towards the end of the show regarding "other issues" that are determined in nation/state-wide elections.

Professor Tong seemed to say that presidential impeachment and ratification of constitutional amendments are determined in nation-wide elections. Both are wrong in fact.

1) Simply put, the impeachment of a president is handled by the House and Senate, with no involvement by the common citizens via nation-wide elections, as the show seemed to imply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

2) Constitutional amendments are ratified by state legislatures or ratifying conventions, NOT by a nation/state-wide election, as the show seemed to imply.

One might argue that citizens are "given a voice directly" in matters of impeachment and ratification, via the election of senators and congressmen. However, this indirect "voice" is a stretch and hardly fits the context of the comments.

Professor Tong also mentioned "conflict of interest" as a reason for how propositions are "chosen" to be put on ballots, with examples like "length of term" and "increase of salary." While these are valid reasons, they are reasons for relatively few of the amendments (national or state). For example, most of the California state propositions this year have little, if any, to do with conflict of interest by elected representatives. It would be better for Professor Tong to pick "reasons" that are more common.

I hope you can clarify these points in the next episode so viewers are not confused or misled.

Thank you.

Link:
TVB's response to "Comments on <<我們有權選總統>>"

Rite Aid (2008/10/12 to 2008/10/18)

今期12 Oct ~ 18 Oct期間, Rite Aid推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 以上十二件產品, 合共付US$0.33.

延伸閱讀: Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/09/28 to 2008/10/04)

Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/10/5

1) As long as the viewers see the show as a high school "US History/Government" class lecture, it is an informative show. The UCLA(?) professor definitely brought to the Chinese audience many common textbook concepts of US government. That said, I would say that these concepts are somewhat far from what happens in real life - based on history, court cases, and things like executive orders and signing statements.
2) How in the world did you manage to find those three students!! (Especially the bespectacled one who pursues his happiness in video games and restaurants.) I suppose their apathy made them the perfect "negative examples" of what the show encourages viewers to be. (I hope that was done on purpose.) It would be better to have the following mix instead of three indifferent/uninformed students:

- A student completely indifferent to voting/election
- A student who votes but is not actively involved
- A student who votes AND is actively involved in college political organizations like Young Republicans or Young Democrats

I hope these three students do not represent the political views, or lack thereof, of UCLA students.

Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/9/28

In summary, the election show is informative for first-time voters. Although I am not a first-time voter, I enjoyed the information presented. However, the show has too much feel-good propaganda for "democracy in America" and "the power of the vote." To people familiar with "American democracy", such grandiose presentation is almost nauseating because democracy in America is almost an oxymoron.

I agree that it is important to vote (and I do vote) and to encourage people to vote. But to present "voting in the presidential election" as almighty is a little misleading given that:

- With electoral college, marginal votes in most states are basically meaningless. For example, long before the actual election, those who follow the news know that California and New York will go Democratic while Texas and Oklahoma will go Republican. I long for the day when presidential elections will be decided by a national popular vote - where everyone's vote will actually count.
- The 2000 election was decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court. Nine justices rendering the 100-million-vote election irrelevant - that decision spoke volumes about American democracy.

Even at the state level where elections are determined by individual votes (instead of electoral votes), the vote does not always matter. For example, our votes for state propositions matter ONLY when no one challenges their constitutionality in court, where one or a handful of judges can overturn the will of the people. Prop 187 in California is an example.

That said, while the show itself looks like a gratuitous advertisement for democracy, the concept of the election show is a good one, especially since many Chinese do not vote. Yet, the show should tone down the "effects/power" of voting. Being stirred enough to finally take the leap to vote only to find out that a judge has just made the final decision will make someone lose faith in "democracy" for a long, long time. After all, the larger the expectation, the larger the disappointment.