Castaway from Technology

(a picture of John as he tries to resist using modern technology for 24 hours)


I tried as hard as I could to survive the 24 hour period without technology that the assignment required. However, the forces of routine eventually did me in and resulted in my falling short. I started the day off pretty well. I made it through the first five hours after waking up by a combination of reading the newspaper, playing basketball outside, and reading a few books I'm working on. Technology eventually won the war, because while in my car on the way to a trail right near my house, I absentmindedly turned on the radio and listened for the whole drive. It is such a routine to turn the car radio on that it didn't even occur to me that it was a "banned" technology. I didn't experience physical convulsions when I was off the technology wagon like Donald described, but it was extremely difficult to not think about technology. My mind was filled with all these apocalyptic thoughts about all the things I was missing in the world by not being plugged in.

I have to admit that I did not go into the assignment with the same bravado as the American University students in Danna Walker's article. I was kind of dreading the experience going into it, but it would up being pretty entertaining. I asked my parents if they could ever go twenty four hours without technology, and their responses were mixed. My mom says that she would never be able to survive without her cell phone and laptop because of her job, and that she would be bored to death. My dad said that he would probably be able to manage to do it, if he were to schedule a full day of golfing and fishing outside. He doesn't use his cell phone all that often anyway.

I think our lives are so reliant on technology these days that modern people would never be able to survive for an extended period of time without cellphones, computers, radios, etc. It isn't just a "those young people are so lazy" thing. Even my grandparents more heavily then they would ever admit on their TV, car radio, and new computer to find out what is happening in the world. Too many companies are totally dependent on computers and would be unable to operate without them. Sure, the crops would still grow and the sun would still come out, but we are too heavily invested in technology, in all areas of the culture to ever totally eliminate it from our lives.

The one thing I did take away from this assignment is the realization that the vast majority of times I check my cellphone or the internet, it is for totally trivial things that are pretty much meaningless. There are tons of times I check websites four times a day to see if they are updated, when it all actuality they have very little importance on my life. It was nice to experience a few hours without meaningless text message exchanges to my friends about fantasy football or whether they watched the James Bond marathon on SciFi Thanksgiving Day. I think our obsession with instantaneous discussion over trivial matters has also crossed over to the news media. It seems like every time Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN are on there is a "Breaking News" alert every five minutes. Back when I was younger "Breaking News" was only used to describe monumental events like 9/11 or famous deaths like when President Reagan passed away. Nowadays every time Barack Obama looks outside his window or whenever a cat gets caught in a tree it is an even worthy of a huge red alert on the screen with "Breaking News" on it.

Another concept this challenge spotlighted was our society's appetite for instant entertainment. Its hard ti imagine how lost I would feel if I had to go on a long drive or walk and didn't have my Ipod with me. Now, I don't need to have technology to entertain myself all the time, just because I didn't own things like an Ipod or an X Box 360 when I was little. I owned a Sega Genesis that was fun, but its games were nowhere near as lifelike and engrossing to play as something like a Nintendo Wii or XBox 360 that my thirteen year old cousin Brendan owns. Brendan has been firmly entrenched in these technologies since day one, at least when people my age were little we weren't quite as reliant on technology to be our friend. However, that is not to say that things haven't rapidly changed for people my age also. Who would have ever imagined that writing a blog would ever be a part of a curriculum?

TV is actually what we see

It was very difficult for me to arrive at a decision when trying to decide whether the perspective or Neil Postman or Carmine Paglia was closer to reality. I love to read and watch television so my allegiances over what is better at shaping reality could go either way and I would feel fine about it. However, I think I am going to give a slight edge to the majority in my mind that is pointing towards TV. Its a close race, more Bush/Kerry than Obama/McCain. I think that seeing actual reality on television take place barely edges out reading about a reality in a book and then having to decipher it for yourself.

I thought Paglia used many great analogies to describe how scanning through television channels is actually a representation of the way we go through life. She says that the way a quarterback quickly analyzes a defense at the line of scrimmage is comparable to how a TV viewer is quickly scanning images while surfing through the channels. This type of quick thinking takes places many times throughout a day. It can be evident when quickly looking through all the clothes in a closet to find something to wear, to quickly glancing left and right when trying to merge on a highway.

Paglia also brings up an excellent point in explaining how changes in a person's presence can be realized on television in such a way that is hard to convey with literature. She cites a great example from the Presidential campaign in 1988. Paglia writes that George H.W. Bush had a dynamic machismo about him after naming Dan Quayle his Vice-President that he never had serving under Ronald Reagan. Paglia says:
"He was this totally new person, a man no one had seen before. It was then I knew he was going to be president. I called people up and told them, but no one believed me. If you didn't know how to read TV or weren't watching, you missed it completely."

Literature requires an interpretation and analysis of the reality being presented to the reader. One can imagine the situation being described , but they can never truly see what actually happened during an event. There is always room for misinterpretation and its difficult to convey the atmosphere that an event takes place in. With television the viewer actually sees reality as its happening. There is no room for misunderstanding because what is taking place is being witnessed as its happening. The television viewer gets access to complete un-doctored reality as it is taking place.

One of Neil Postman's complaints about television is that news coverage of tragedies causes an unnatural emotional response due to the rapid switching from reports about the tragedy to humorous commercials and then back again. Paglia counters by saying:
"By moving from disaster to commercial TV creates the effect of Greek tragedy: emotion, then detachment; contemplation of loss, then philosophical perspective. At the end of Hamlet, there are four corpses strewn all over the stage."
She is saying that just because TV will jump around from one thing to the next, it does not take away from the final loss in a tragedy. It is similar to how in real life no person is focused on any one issue for twenty four hours a day. There will always be a distraction that takes attention away from an issue at hand.

It was close, but I just think the actuality of television wins out in the end and does a better job of capturing the essence of reality in a moment better than literature. The more we talk about the emergence of television in class, I can't help but think of U2's Achtung Baby and the Zoo TV tour that came with it. The explosion of television and images was the main theme of the album. Maybe everything you know is wrong.

NBC wins battle of hologram brinksmanship

Watching last night's election coverage was like an old episode of the A-Team. It was fast paced, exciting, and from the very beginning you knew who was going to win. Despite the best efforts of Brian Williams, Brit Hume and the rest of the anchors shepherding last night's broadcasts to delay the inevitable, the writing was on the wall for John McCain by 9PM when Pennsylvania fell to Barack Obama. By that point Jack Nicklaus, John Elway, and the 2004 Red Sox couldn't conjure up enough magic to make a comeback from such a large deficit. McCain put up a valiant effort but just could not overcome one of the most poisonous political climates for Republicans in the past fifty years. However, McCain's campaign was not perfect and for the last month and a half time has had a "Just happy to make it this far" vibe to it. McCain's campaign shortcomings aside, the night belonged to Barack Obama. I personally did not vote for him, but I believe that if he brings to the Presidency the results oriented, pragmatic atmosphere that he brought to the campaign, he will have a very successful Presidency. I believe he will create a cabinet and team of advisers who are the most capable in their fields, instead of party loyalists receiving a thank you gift. It is an exciting time for America, and the President-elect deserves our full support.

I thought last night's election coverage had its highs and lows. The majority of the coverage I watched was on NBC the network, not MSNBC its cable partner. I found Brian Williams to be a very engaging anchor who kept the mood jovial and positive. He had Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell at his side for most of the night. Brokaw and Mitchell are two of the best of their craft on television. I was constantly informed and educated by their analysis. They were able to rise above partisanship and bring the best information possible to their viewers. NBC did a great job of letting the viewer soak up the atmosphere of the occasion.

The worst thing about last night's coverage was the contest between all of the stations to have the most over the top interactive hologram graphs, charts, and maps. CNN and NBC had full sized hologram rooms that looked like something from Star Trek the Next Generation. Poor Chuck Todd and John King seemed totally lost in the shuffle in the clouds of graphics flying over their heads that they had marginal control over. I understand that the networks are trying to be as futuristic as possible in their presentations, but sometimes the best ways of conveying information are also the simplest. I guarantee you that twenty years from now, people will remember the late great Tim Russert's whiteboard from 2000 with "Florida, Florida, Florida" written on it more than the Anne Curryitron 9000 from last night. The other minor glitch from last night was the uncanny ability of all 47 stations covering the election to go to commercial at the exact same time. I understand that the stations all schedule their commercials at similar times to discourage flipping around to keep the ratings consistent, but it can really be a pain in the neck for the viewer. Those two things aside, I found my experience to be a good one for the vast majority of last night's coverage.

Well, we all survived the two year campaign journey that began way back at the end of 2006. It will be strange going back to a news-cycle that just focuses on governing the country. I'm going to miss it all. From certifiably crazy candidates like Mike Gravel to the First Dude. From John Edwards' Two Americas to Joe the Plumber. From the Maverick to Nader. From Mitt Romney's great hair to the first African American to the highest office in the land, It has been a fun ride.

But don't worry. It will all start up again in 2010 when Governors Palin, Jindal, Romney and many more Republican hopefuls start crisscrossing the country from Iowa county fairs to coffee shops in New Hampshire, making their first baby steps in the primary. It will all be back soon.

How to win a consumer in 10 days

Mass media hosts such as radio stations, television programs, newspapers, catalogs, and billboards have long been a battleground for advertisers to fight over, in order to establish their product to the largest audience possible. Advertisers want to feature their product in the medium that gets the largest amount of viewers or readers, so as to maximize exposure for their product and increase sales. TV stations, magazines, and the rest try and make their product as attractive as possible, to increase ratings and readership so advertisers will pay top dollar and go into bidding wars against each other to get their product in the most possible venues. This process creates a constant circle that is positioned to produce the highest revenues possible for the product maker and the product placer.

Advertising through mass media became popular in the early twentieth century when advertisers realized that their messages could be manipulated and changed to appeal to specific demographics who were more likely to go about purchasing the product they were trying to sell. Jackson Lears in Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society writes about the process of advertisers trying to direct their product to certain demographics with the following quote:
"To know consumers, one had to do more than speculate about their psyches or observe them in hardware stores: one had to count them, categorize them by income, neighborhood, ethnicity, and religion, correlate these data with their brand preferences and test their reactions to specific ads."

The use of market research to evaluate the effectiveness of ads in mass media is two-fold. The media itself tries to appeal to a certain demographic so that they can come back and show the advertisers the type of people who watch their station or read their magazine. Secondly, the advertisers are able to take the market research on the people watching or reading the station or newspaper and are able to make their ads fit into the demographic of the people who are partaking in the media. That is why an advertisement for hybrid vehicles is more likely to appear on MSNBC then Fox News. Advertisers realize that the people who regularly watch MSNBC's programming are more likely to be liberal, eco-friendly people then the viewing audience with Fox. An oil company like Exxon would find Fox to be a better host for their advertisements then MSNBC. The constant development of new media has created more and more marketing opportunities for advertisers. In the old days advertisers would have to spend most of their money in a newspaper or periodical that had the widest readership, but did not necessarily appeal too much to the certain audiences the advertiser wanted to reach out to. However, the growth of mass media has led to greater opportunities to appeal to a specific audience. They key concept that has been developed over the past century with advertisers has been refinement.

As mass media has expanded, people now have a greater sense of the world outside their own small town. They have been exposed to lifestyles other than their own. It allows people to imagine what it must be like to be rich and famous. Advertisers have been able to take advantage of these yearnings and through the use of celebrity pitchmen and creative marketing schemes have tapped into the psyches of people wishing to mimic the celebrities they see on TV. For many years advertisers have tried to portray their product in such a way that captivated the imagination. Rosalynd Williams in Dream Worlds of Consumption writes about this advertising phenomenon:
"From earliest history we find indications that the human mind has transcended concerns of physical survival for a finer, richer, more satisfying life....But in the late nineteenth century, commodities that provided an approximation of these age-old longings began to be widely available. "

The concept of evoking fame and fortune can still be found in advertisements today. The image I chose for the assignment is a magazine advertisement for Dolce & Gabbana's "the one" cologne. It is a two page ad. The entirety of the left page is a large image of Matthew McConaughey from the waist up. He is wearing a white dress shirt and has a serious look on his face. He is shown in a luxurious looking room that is likely a rich penthouse suite or part of a mansion. The right page has an image of the cologne bottle itself and the phrase: "The new fragrance for men: Dolce & Gabbana the one" written in large white letters. The advertisement has an air of luxury to it. By showcasing the product next to Matthew McConaughey and in the setting of a luxurious room, the advertisers are trying to portray the cologne as a must have item that will leave the buyer with feelings of wealth and celebrity.

Matthew McConaughey is featured in the ad in a different way then we usually see him. Generally when people think of McConaughey bongos and surfboards come to mind. However, he is all cleaned up in this ad and has an air of domestication about him. By showing McConaughey they way that they do, the advertisers are able to appeal to free-spirited people who are fans of McConaughey, and more conservative people who wish they were more outgoing. The ad speaks to men stuck in office buildings that there are ways to be like Matt that do not involve quitting your job and living on the beach.

I think this is a very effective advertisement because Dolce and Gabbana is able to hitch their product to Matthew McConaughey, and tie in their product with all the symbols that McConaughey represents: celebrity, luxury, living life to the fullest, adventure, romance, sex appeal, and fame. Advertisements that are able to make their product become associated with these ideals will always be successful and tap into the public's collective desire for celebrity and a better life-style.

Deadlock- Political Blog #2

Just off the bat I have to say that I am not a huge fan of the formats of Presidential debates. I feel that the candidates do not have enough time to thoroughly explain their stances on issues and are forced to use too many media friendly sound byte cliches like "Trying to save Wall Street to help Main Street" instead of offering a cogent analysis on how they really feel on a political issue or how they would confront a situation as President.

I believe Markos Moulitsas' post "My reaction" on his website Daily Kos is pretty much in line with how I feel the debate went. Kos writes:

"And given where McCain is in the polls (lagging and getting worse), this wasn't what he needed tonight.
And given that the status quo probably remains, in a debate that was supposed to focus more on McCain's "strength" (national security), Obama wins."

I do not believe McCain's poll position is quite as dire as Moulitsas is making it out to be, but I think his point about Obama winning because McCain should have done better in a debate over foreign affairs is a solid one. I do not think either candidate really made any huge errors or anything to establish a clear victor. Performance wise I would grade them about the same, but give Obama a slight victory just because foreign policy is supposedly McCain's strongest area and Obama was able to hang right with him. I think McCain tried to attack Obama's personal traits a few too many times instead of trying to clarify his own positions.

I was actually pretty surprised how close McCain and Obama are politically on a number of issues. Their disagreements over Iraq notwithstanding, they both agreed with the buyout plan. They both agreed we should eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. They both do not want to increase taxes for people making less then 250,000$. They both distrust Vladimir Putin and Russia. They both don't think the President should meet with Iran's leaders without pre-conditions. Of course, they both tried to make it sound like they had disagreements on those issues, but fundamentally their opinions weren't that far apart from each other. I think this just goes to show that both candidates are closer to the center then the media make them out to be.

Obama's victory aside, I do not feel that the debate really did anything to sway people's opinions really will not make a huge difference to one side or another. Most people choose who they will be voting for some point on October. Right now they are just getting to know the candidates and I can't imagine there was anything significant enough in the first debate to make an undecided voter lean in one direction or another. Debate performance tends to be overrated in terms of impact on a race. Most people would agree that Al Gore and John Kerry out-performed President Bush in the 2000 and 2004 debates, however Bush was able to overcome his debate performances and win his elections thanks to an otherwise strong campaign. I think the Vice-Presidential debate will be important for introducing Sarah Palin to a national audience. It will be fun to watch, but probably not too important because most people vote for the top of the ticket. Vice-Presidents are important, but they aren't calling all the shots.

This is election is going to be a close battle. Debate performances notwithstanding, I feel that the eventual winner will be whoever is able to generate the most excitement and buzz about their campaign in early November. Whichever candidate is able to establish the most late momentum will become the next president.

Papyrus leads to change we can believe in

Along the course of human history there have been many inventions and developments that have changed civilization for the better and have led to a betterment of society and have allowed positive evolutions to take place. The use of papyrus for writing is one of these developments. The concept of using papyrus as a host for written ideas was seminal development in the process of creating the highly literate culture that we have today. Like most examples on new technology, papyrus led to a better way of life, more convenience, and an easier spread of knowledge.

Prior to papyrus all written communication was completed through impractical means such as stone engravings or messages carved into clay. Papyrus created a written portability with communication that had never been seen before. Now people could have the written materials come to them, instead of having to travel to the location where the text was previously carved into stone or clay. The easiness of mobility with text written on papyrus benefited the Egyptians in many areas. In the economic sector long distance business became easier because theoretically now a merchant in Cairo could hire a scribe to write a letter for him to a potential buyer somewhere down the Nile, whereas before the only way the merchant could talk to faraway buyers was through a messenger, who could be unreliable or by traveling a long distance himself to conduct business, which could be dangerous and too costly. A portable writing surface allowed texts to be spread amongst the common people for the first time, and eventually led to more and more becoming literate. The impetus to learn to read and write was much stronger due to the writings themselves now being out amongst the people, whereas before residents had to take the initiative themselves and travel to wherever the stone blocks with text on them were located.

According to Harold Innis in Communication in History writing on papyrus also changed the way letters themselves were written. Gone were the days of taking hours to carve even the simplest of messages into a rock, now using ink and papyrus, a scribe could produce a message in far less time. According to Innis:"Writing on stone was characterized by straightness or circularity of line, rectangularity of form, and an upright position, whereas writing on papyrus permitted cursive forms suited to rapid writing."
The new quickness of writing led to more shapes and characters used, and got away from the plodding style of pictography that had been previously carved into the stone. On papyrus it was easier to write down what was truly on one's mind. This led to the development of new alphabets and ways to write. Now thoughts that had previously been chained to the mind could now be transcribed to paper for all to see. Previously unknown ways of thinking developed. New ideas spread faster and led to changes in all areas of life.


The use of papyrus as a host for written text was an important development for literacy. In his article: "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading." Howard Gardner argues that literacy and written language is always changing and evolving. The argument can be made that papyrus was a major stepping stone to the literacy we today enjoy via computers or reading. Papyrus set the concept in motion of writing down on sheets of paper. That concept eventually evolved into books. Papyrus also changed the way text was written, much the way computers and cell phones today have changed the format we read texts. Papyrus as a new host for written materials created a debate that closely mirrors the one Gardner brings up in his discussion of how new communication mediums have shaken up the culture:

"In the past 150 years, each new medium of communication -- telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, the digital computer, the World Wide Web -- has introduced its own peculiar mix of written, spoken and graphic languages and evoked a chaotic chorus of criticism and celebration. "

Forget 150 years; papyrus caused this debate 4500 years ago when it was first used. Papyrus' detractors could point to many arguments as to why civilization should have stuck to using stone carvings as the premier material for hosting written texts
They could have easily said: "papyrus is very thin and is not durable at all. It can be torn easily and unlike rock carvings, damaged if left out in the elements. It will disintegrate if touched by water and would burn quickly in the event of a fire. Papyrus was a tremendous material for writing down day to day transactions and other notes for the short term, but a unreliable instrument for writing down a civilization's history. A long narrative describing the mummification process would be far more likely to survive to the present day, if it had been carved into stone as opposed to written on papyrus. Papyrus played an important role in advancing society, but not in preserving society."

The detractors were probably proven right many times since papyrus does have a propensity for being destroyed, however the positive changes it had for society, as well as its role in improving literacy have shown that the use of papyrus was indeed a good move and a positive development for human society.


Sources:

Howard Gardner, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html

Harold Innis, Communication in History. Pp 23-29.

Issue of similarities between Bush and McCain being overblown

Before I dive into an issue, I’d like to let you know that I have decided to change the political blog I am going to follow from Ben Allen’s Politco blog to Daily Kos. Allen’s blog is informative; however all of the posts are way too short and basically just news pieces without any substantive opinions. Even though I agree with very few of the things on Daily Kos, at least the blog has issues to comment on, unlike Allen’s where the only comments I would have been able to make would be about the issues he brings up, but I wouldn’t be able to have any arguments about the content on the blog itself. So, for better or worse, it will be the Daily Kos for the rest of the semester.

A recent issue about the 2008 Presidential election that has been bothering me is the insistence by Democratic leaders, talking heads, and candidates that John McCain is somehow the second coming of George W. Bush. I believe this characterization is deceiving and is completely overblown.

The following post from Daily Kos that really does a good job of expressing the extreme left’s view that McCain is Bush, is the following entry taken from the post “Liveblogging at the Convention” by a writer named “MissLaura”. She writes:

“Hey, I believe in recycling, but that's ridiculous. With John McCain's support, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have led our nation into one calamity after another because of their indifference to fact; their readiness to sacrifice the long term to the short term, subordinate the general good to the benefit of the few and short-circuit the rule of law.

If you like the Bush-Cheney approach, John McCain's your man. If you want change, then vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

This point was also expressed several times during Barack Obama’s acceptance speech in Denver.

“But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Sen. McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives -- on health care and education and the economy -- Sen. McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this president. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisers -- the man who wrote his economic plan -- was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

Ever since he was selected as the Republican nominee Democrats have tried to portray McCain as being politically to the right of Strom Thrumond in an attempt to tie him to the hip of many of the failed policies of the Bush administration. In reality, over the past eight years, McCain has broken away from his party more than almost any other Republican Congressman and has been a constant independent thinking thorn in the side of the Bush White House political machine. McCain has formed alliances with the likes of Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold and has differed with the party on many issues from illegal immigration to tax cuts. Dan Nowicki in the Arizona Republic does a strong job of chronicling many of the issues that McCain differed with the administration on. Some of his examples include: the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which conservatives hate. McCain’s criticisms over the Bush Administration’s policies on climate change, as well as how McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against Bush’s 1 trillion dollar tax cut in 2001. (Nowicki)

If John McCain was really a Bush clone, does it seem logical that in 2004 then Democratic Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle would have flown to Arizona in an effort to recruit McCain to the Democratic Party? (Cusack). Obviously Daschle saw something there that convinced him there was a chance of being able to McCain into a Democrat. He wouldn't have tried that with just any Republican Senator. That conversation would have never happened with Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo or any of the other Republicans who sought the Republican nomination back in the winter. John McCain was also seriously considered by John Kerry as a potential running mate in 2004, before selecting John Edwards. (Bumiller) Once again I am pretty sure that McCain was the only Republican that Kerry would have ever thought about selecting, due to McCain's oftten independent thinking.

The dirty truth that Democrat talking heads and candidates don't want you to here is that McCain has based his Congressional career on his willingness to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats. The campaign rhetoric about change is nice; however the next President is going to have to deal with a severely divided Congress in terms of trying to pass any meaningful legislation. The Democrats will likely retain the majority in both houses, but realistically the margins will be so close that the Republicans will have be able to filibuster and block many of the things Democrats try to pass, much like Democrats themselves did to Republicans the first six years of Bush's administration. The only way things will actually get done in Congress is if the President is willing to compromise. John McCain's record has proven time and time again that he will. Up to this point in his legislative career Barack Obama hasn't really proven anything at all to preview whether he will be willing to compromise at all. Unless the President is willing to swallow his ego and accept some of the things the other side is willing to offer nothing meaningful will get done in the next four or eight years. The Maverick John McCain is the real thing, not the Bush following conservative monster that people are trying to make him out to be. His record reveals the real truth, not the capaign rhetoric.

References:

Bumiller, Elizabeth. "McCain asked about Kerry's VP Offer."

The New York Times. 7 March 2008. 12 September 2008.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/mccain-asked-about-kerrys-vp-offer/

Cusack, Bob. "Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP."

The Hill. 28 March 2007. 11 September 2008.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

Nowicki, Dan. "The 'Maverick' and President Bush."

The Arizona Central. 1 March 2007. 14 September 2008.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter11.html