On this day, 36 years ago, John Gardner issued an announcement from his office at the Urban Coalition Action Council, located one block from where I write today.  In it, Mr. Gardner proclaimed that he was launching a new membership for Common Cause, "a nationwide, independent, non-partisan organization for those Americans who want to help in the rebuilding of the nation."  Indeed, on August 18th 1970, this was a nation in great need of rebuilding and because of Mr. Gardner's tremendous effort and dedication, Common Cause, the United States' first "Citizens' Lobby" continues to do just that today.

The press release that Mr. Gardner issued outlined some of the reasons for Common Cause's creation as well as some objectives he had for its purpose.  By way of reasons, he wrote that although the citizens of 1970's America recognized that their nation's priorities needed changing, "they (didn't) know how to go about it."  Common Cause, therefore was designed, "to assist you speak and act in [sic] behalf of the legislation designed to solve the nation's problem."

Mr. Gardner, in effect, sought to hold public officials accountable for their decisions, "we want weak public officials to know that they will be subject to criticism.  We want strong and concerned representatives to know that their efforts are appreciated." He, like millions of Americans at the time, had grown very fearful that, "most parts of the system (had) grown so rigid that they cannot respond to impending disaster."  It is in this last phrase that we see what a long fight Mr. Gardner was preparing his organization for, as the same complaint still echoes through the public today.  

Similar coincidences should be noted of Mr. Gardner's announcement.  Primarily the fact that at the heart of Common Cause's inception was a response to the outcry generated over the seemingly pointless continuance of hostilities in Vietnam.   "We believe," he writes, "there is great urgency in ending the Vietnam War on a scheduled timetable.  We believe there must be a major reordering of national priorities.  We believe the problems of poverty and race must be among our first concerns."

It begs the question; if John Gardner were here to evaluate his proud organization 30 years after its creation, would he remark on how different the world had become or how eerily similar?

Last night, Daily Show host Jon Sterwart and frequent contributor John Hodgman gave a simple, albeit satirical analysis of the Net Neutrality issue.  This is the second time in as many weeks that the popular television show has chosen Net Neutrality as the subject matter for a piece, suggesting that perhaps it is not the technocratic issue that some claim it to be.

During their discussion, Hodgman (the resident `expert' on the Daily Show) makes a very funny reference to his work in the Mac Vs. PC commercials--and succeeds in explaining how `packets' are distributed through the internet, and how granting certain firms greater bandwidth would affect smaller organizations... like F%#$timewarner.org.  

You can watch the Daily Show clip Here

Residents of Arizona may have a few more reasons to go to the polls this November... about a million to be exact.  Mark Osterloh, the NYT-dubbed "political gadfly" behind the Arizona Voter Reward Act, has collected 185,902 signatures for a ballot initiative that qualifies anyone and everyone who votes in a general Arizona election for a chance to win $1 Million.  

The signatures (far more than the requisite 122,612) and the subsequent approval from the AZ Secretary of State mean that the initiative will be voted on this November, and since approximately 2 million people voted in Arizona's last general election, the chances of winning the million dollar prize are about one in two-million--considerably better odds than winning Powerball (odds: 1 in 146,107,962).  

However, Osterloh's initiative has already received some strong criticism from some who see the million-dollar-vote idea as "crass commercialization" and others who find it simply illegal.  Critics of the initiative argue that the higher number of voters guaranteed by this initiative do not necessarily mean a better outcome for the state and the country.  Others cite Arizona law which threatens prison time for up to one year for anyone who, "makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote".

So far, Arizona political leaders have refused to take a stance on the issue.  

Source: NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/us/17voter.html

UPI
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060717-020203-3196r