Monday, October 25, 2010
Meaningless Testimonials
Politicians love to have commercials where an ordinary person tells us why we should support them, or more frequently, why we should vote against their rival. Almost 100% of the time we should ignore these ads. What does it mean if one lifelong Democrat is going to vote for a Republican candidate for Senate? Is it important if one person who lost their job blames the Republican Congressman who voted to approve a free trade pact with Central America? The answer is no, or at best not really. It also doesn't matter if the newly unemployed person is standing in an empty factory looking sad. This is smoke and mirrors, and we should ignore it.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Taking Back America
“We’re taking back America” is a popular refrain these days. Popular, but nonsensical. What is America? Who took it? Who exactly is the country being taken back from? What did they do with it?
The perpetrators of this travesty of logic never explain what they mean by America. Was the country physically taken? Did someone abscond with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Grand Canyon? Is it a copyright issue? Did someone take the name from us? Did we have it to begin with? Maybe we have ceased to be a democracy, and these kind folks running as Republicans are going to take it back. But aren’t they taking it back in an election? Aren’t elections usually found in democracies? Maybe someone has absconded with a symbol, like the flag. A lot of Americans do seem to think that the flag is the backbone of democracy rather than just a symbol. They often give it more reverence and protection than the freedoms and people it is supposed to symbolize. Maybe this is about the Constitution. Maybe the Constitution itself, and/or the freedoms protected by it have been taken away. I had thought all that Tea Party bluster about the Constitution was empty talk to get people riled up. Whatever it is, I guess I should be upset that it has been taken.
Who should I be upset at though? I guess the Democrats did it, so I should be upset at them. Those damn liberals. I’m not sure what a Liberal is, but I know that I should probably hate them. They must be like Nazis and Satan’s spawn the way they are talked about. There is no possibility that they are just Americans who want to the country to do well and just have a different opinion of how to do it. It’s a good thing the Republicans have refused to work with them to solve the problems facing the country.
So the evil Liberals have stolen something important from us, but who are us? Are we real Americans? Are they fake Americans? Does America belong only to us? Maybe we are the people, and they are just a few Liberal, unionized, communist teachers. What made them think they could have America? It’s not like they are citizens. Even if they are citizens, they’re not real citizens. They’re all Muslims. They all want to build their own house of worship in the country where they live, work, raise families, and were probably born. They have some nerve.
Before we get America back, I want to know more about what they did with it. They must have savaged it terribly. Obviously it was in great condition when they took it. I’m sure they did awful stuff like try to extend health coverage, bail out failing industries, and attempt to reform a financial sector that had just helped to usher in the worst depression in recent memory. How dare they!
I get it now. Count me in! Let’s get America back. While we’re at, it let’s take it way back. Let’s go back to when only white folks could vote and women stayed at home. I’m nostalgic for slavery and Polio too. Whatever we do, let’s not engage in real debate on the issues. Let’s avoid give and take and compromise like it was Polio. Let’s call each other names, and spend a lot of money doing it. Time’s a wasting we’ve got a country to take … back.
The perpetrators of this travesty of logic never explain what they mean by America. Was the country physically taken? Did someone abscond with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Grand Canyon? Is it a copyright issue? Did someone take the name from us? Did we have it to begin with? Maybe we have ceased to be a democracy, and these kind folks running as Republicans are going to take it back. But aren’t they taking it back in an election? Aren’t elections usually found in democracies? Maybe someone has absconded with a symbol, like the flag. A lot of Americans do seem to think that the flag is the backbone of democracy rather than just a symbol. They often give it more reverence and protection than the freedoms and people it is supposed to symbolize. Maybe this is about the Constitution. Maybe the Constitution itself, and/or the freedoms protected by it have been taken away. I had thought all that Tea Party bluster about the Constitution was empty talk to get people riled up. Whatever it is, I guess I should be upset that it has been taken.
Who should I be upset at though? I guess the Democrats did it, so I should be upset at them. Those damn liberals. I’m not sure what a Liberal is, but I know that I should probably hate them. They must be like Nazis and Satan’s spawn the way they are talked about. There is no possibility that they are just Americans who want to the country to do well and just have a different opinion of how to do it. It’s a good thing the Republicans have refused to work with them to solve the problems facing the country.
So the evil Liberals have stolen something important from us, but who are us? Are we real Americans? Are they fake Americans? Does America belong only to us? Maybe we are the people, and they are just a few Liberal, unionized, communist teachers. What made them think they could have America? It’s not like they are citizens. Even if they are citizens, they’re not real citizens. They’re all Muslims. They all want to build their own house of worship in the country where they live, work, raise families, and were probably born. They have some nerve.
Before we get America back, I want to know more about what they did with it. They must have savaged it terribly. Obviously it was in great condition when they took it. I’m sure they did awful stuff like try to extend health coverage, bail out failing industries, and attempt to reform a financial sector that had just helped to usher in the worst depression in recent memory. How dare they!
I get it now. Count me in! Let’s get America back. While we’re at, it let’s take it way back. Let’s go back to when only white folks could vote and women stayed at home. I’m nostalgic for slavery and Polio too. Whatever we do, let’s not engage in real debate on the issues. Let’s avoid give and take and compromise like it was Polio. Let’s call each other names, and spend a lot of money doing it. Time’s a wasting we’ve got a country to take … back.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Smile ... You're on Candid Camera
J.D. Mullane, a news writer and columnist for the Bucks County Courier Times, has written two columns in the last week about hidden surveillance cameras that are being installed in Bristol, Pennsylvania. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/opinions/columnists/news_columnists/jd_mullane.html) He is concerned that more cameras mean fewer cops. He worries about terrorists using them to plot attacks, as one did recently in New York. He is concerned about ominous Orwellian consequences. Most of all, he is concerned that this is another insidious tentacle of Big Government. I’m not about to belittle anyone who is fixated on the size of government rather than its effectiveness, who is trying to hide from or fight government rather than taking control and ownership over it, at least not much … right now. Right now, I kinda almost agree with the unreasoned reactionary. I am troubled by hidden surveillance cameras in parks, on busy street corners, and in dark alleys. I’m not worried that the Mayor of Bristol is trying to micromanage my life or that a godless and un-American Muslim is going to blow up something on Radcliffe Street. I’m a Liberal, so my concern is more emotional and romanticized. A camera in a public place means that I can’t step out of character anonymously. Like most intellectuals, I’m not really worried about losing the right to do something I actually do. I am worried about losing the possibility of doing something I would almost assuredly never do. But, what if I wanted to slip a few dollars to a known fugitive, clandestinely plot to overthrow the Mayor, innocently sneak a swig of some potent and frowned upon beverage or a drag on a cigarette, wear a Metallica shirt, or have a dangerous liaison of some sort? What if I just wanted to go to a public place and be a little less me, and have no one know about it? I think, whether we take advantage of it or not, we all need the possibility of retreating to the margins of our lives and acting out of character. Maybe if we had more of those places, we’d have fewer J. D. Mullane’s bringing their faulty, fallacy laden, and unsupported arguments to the masses.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Political Advertising
The advertising put out by political candidates is unlikely to represent a good use of money, public or private. It might be effective in helping candidates win. It might be a complete waste of money. The sheer annoyance created by mailers, phone calls, and television ads might overwhelm any perceived value. I don’t really know about any of that, or at least I don’t really care. One thing I am fairly certain and care about, however, is that political advertisements have little value when it comes to assisting voters in making logical decisions at the polls or anywhere else. These advertisements play to anger, fear, and jealousy. They do not appeal to reason or logic.
To illustrate how little value these advertisements have for voters who feel like relying on reason and logic rather than fear and anger, I will examine a mailer that found its way into my mail box. This one is for Republican Mike Fitzpatrick, who is trying to reclaim the Congressional seat he lost to Patrick Murphy four years ago. It might, however, have been from any candidate from either party.
I’ll start by examining the layout. This mailer has two sides. The good side has a photograph of Mike Fitzpatrick. He is wearing a Polo shirt and smiling against a soft and fuzzy back ground, and angelic glow around his head. The bad side has a grainy picture of Patrick Murphy in a suit, mouth open in conversation. His picture is placed leaning to the outside frame. Some of the font on the bad side is blood red. This is designed to make you feel comfortable with Fitzpatrick and angry or afraid of Murphy, and has nothing to do with issues.
Both sides of this advertisement contain claims. There are four bullet points on the good side. The first is: “Mike Fitzpatrick will fight to end Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi’s spending spree.” This tells us very little. Nancy Pelosi is not running for this seat, and we know nothing about this “spending spree.”
The second bullet point reads “Mike Fitzpatrick opposes all efforts to raise our taxes.” This appeals to a primal fear of taxes. It has little basis in reality, however. He opposes all efforts to raise taxes? Every single one? It doesn’t matter why? Most of us, when we take a deep breath and think about what taxes can be used for, would be willing to pay higher taxes in at least a few scenarios. Most of us will also concede that anyone who tells you that he or she opposes all of anything is stupid or thinks you are stupid.
The third bullet point gives us this gem: “Mike Fitzpatrick will protect our children by reducing the national debt.” “Protect our children?” Where did the kids come in? Is Murphy’s goal to massively and permanently increase debt in order to harm future generations?
Finally, the reader is left with this: “Mike Fitzpatrick supports policies that keep our jobs in Pennsylvania.” What policies would these be? What jobs? Is Murphy trying to move jobs out? How?
The bad side continues where the good side left off, but does it with more drama. There is still little real information and plenty of fear mongering, but now some of it is done in blood red. And the bullet points are gone, replaced by blood red check marks. Around these check marks Murphy is called “Liberal Patrick Murphy.” Calling someone a Liberal is about as instructive as blood red font when it comes to telling people about someone’s record, views, or anything even remotely substantive. It plays on people’s conceptions of Liberals, and on their own fear and angry.
The first check mark is as close as it gets to substantive: “Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for a trillion dollar Stimulus Plan that has failed to create jobs and stimulate the economy.” It would be interesting to know what they mean by “create jobs” or “stimulate the economy.” It would be nice to know what Fitzpatrick’s plan is. It would be nice to know why we are resorting to name calling.
“Since Liberal Patrick Murphy took office, our national debt has grown to 55%, to 13.4 trillion.” Is Liberal his first name? Was he the only one in government over that period of time? Wasn’t there a Republican President for his first term? Wasn’t Fitzpatrick the guy who came before him?
“Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for the government takeover of healthcare that will raise our taxes by over $500 billion.” Liberal is a common first name, apparently. Does everyone think of it as a “government takeover”? What makes it a “government takeover”? Is $500 billion going to be billed just to me? Is it the only estimate? Over what period of time? In the absence of the health care reform, what would the costs be?
Lastly we get this gem: “Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for 1.2 trillion in new spending in the first 50 days of this Congress.” They probably spent every dollar by themselves. Just the two Liberals. It doesn’t matter what it was spent on. Doesn’t even matter if it was actually passed, just that it was “voted on.” What does that really mean?
The bottom line is that lots of money is spent in order to make us angry and afraid, no money is spent to educate us on issues or positions, and this set of circumstances sucks.
To illustrate how little value these advertisements have for voters who feel like relying on reason and logic rather than fear and anger, I will examine a mailer that found its way into my mail box. This one is for Republican Mike Fitzpatrick, who is trying to reclaim the Congressional seat he lost to Patrick Murphy four years ago. It might, however, have been from any candidate from either party.
I’ll start by examining the layout. This mailer has two sides. The good side has a photograph of Mike Fitzpatrick. He is wearing a Polo shirt and smiling against a soft and fuzzy back ground, and angelic glow around his head. The bad side has a grainy picture of Patrick Murphy in a suit, mouth open in conversation. His picture is placed leaning to the outside frame. Some of the font on the bad side is blood red. This is designed to make you feel comfortable with Fitzpatrick and angry or afraid of Murphy, and has nothing to do with issues.
Both sides of this advertisement contain claims. There are four bullet points on the good side. The first is: “Mike Fitzpatrick will fight to end Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi’s spending spree.” This tells us very little. Nancy Pelosi is not running for this seat, and we know nothing about this “spending spree.”
The second bullet point reads “Mike Fitzpatrick opposes all efforts to raise our taxes.” This appeals to a primal fear of taxes. It has little basis in reality, however. He opposes all efforts to raise taxes? Every single one? It doesn’t matter why? Most of us, when we take a deep breath and think about what taxes can be used for, would be willing to pay higher taxes in at least a few scenarios. Most of us will also concede that anyone who tells you that he or she opposes all of anything is stupid or thinks you are stupid.
The third bullet point gives us this gem: “Mike Fitzpatrick will protect our children by reducing the national debt.” “Protect our children?” Where did the kids come in? Is Murphy’s goal to massively and permanently increase debt in order to harm future generations?
Finally, the reader is left with this: “Mike Fitzpatrick supports policies that keep our jobs in Pennsylvania.” What policies would these be? What jobs? Is Murphy trying to move jobs out? How?
The bad side continues where the good side left off, but does it with more drama. There is still little real information and plenty of fear mongering, but now some of it is done in blood red. And the bullet points are gone, replaced by blood red check marks. Around these check marks Murphy is called “Liberal Patrick Murphy.” Calling someone a Liberal is about as instructive as blood red font when it comes to telling people about someone’s record, views, or anything even remotely substantive. It plays on people’s conceptions of Liberals, and on their own fear and angry.
The first check mark is as close as it gets to substantive: “Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for a trillion dollar Stimulus Plan that has failed to create jobs and stimulate the economy.” It would be interesting to know what they mean by “create jobs” or “stimulate the economy.” It would be nice to know what Fitzpatrick’s plan is. It would be nice to know why we are resorting to name calling.
“Since Liberal Patrick Murphy took office, our national debt has grown to 55%, to 13.4 trillion.” Is Liberal his first name? Was he the only one in government over that period of time? Wasn’t there a Republican President for his first term? Wasn’t Fitzpatrick the guy who came before him?
“Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for the government takeover of healthcare that will raise our taxes by over $500 billion.” Liberal is a common first name, apparently. Does everyone think of it as a “government takeover”? What makes it a “government takeover”? Is $500 billion going to be billed just to me? Is it the only estimate? Over what period of time? In the absence of the health care reform, what would the costs be?
Lastly we get this gem: “Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for 1.2 trillion in new spending in the first 50 days of this Congress.” They probably spent every dollar by themselves. Just the two Liberals. It doesn’t matter what it was spent on. Doesn’t even matter if it was actually passed, just that it was “voted on.” What does that really mean?
The bottom line is that lots of money is spent in order to make us angry and afraid, no money is spent to educate us on issues or positions, and this set of circumstances sucks.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Interesting Quote
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest." - Unknown
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Quran Burning
This is really simple.
First, if you want to burn a Quran you can. If you want to burn a flag you can. If you want to burn a Bible you can. It’s called freedom of speech.
Second, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it is a good idea.
Third, Christians would have a cow if Muslims gathered to burn the Bible. Many Americans have a cow when someone burns a flag.
Fourth, Islam isn’t evil. The Quran isn’t evil. Muslims aren’t evil. The Quran, like the Bible, is an old document that incorporates some practices that we no longer sanction (slavery, stoning, etc.). Like the Bible, it also contains ideas and values we aspire to. Islam is a religion that should be treated with the same respect one treats Christianity, or any other religion.
Fifth, some Muslims are Americans. This is their country too.
Sixth, freedom of religion is an important concept in American history. It’s an important concept in our Constitution. It’s just a plain old important concept. It’s more important than the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
Seventh, burning Quran’s will send a message. Muslims will be hurt and offended. Some Muslims will interpret this as a great insult. Radical Muslims will use this event to gain recruits, just as radical Christians would use similar affronts to Christianity.
These are just facts. Do with them what you will.
First, if you want to burn a Quran you can. If you want to burn a flag you can. If you want to burn a Bible you can. It’s called freedom of speech.
Second, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it is a good idea.
Third, Christians would have a cow if Muslims gathered to burn the Bible. Many Americans have a cow when someone burns a flag.
Fourth, Islam isn’t evil. The Quran isn’t evil. Muslims aren’t evil. The Quran, like the Bible, is an old document that incorporates some practices that we no longer sanction (slavery, stoning, etc.). Like the Bible, it also contains ideas and values we aspire to. Islam is a religion that should be treated with the same respect one treats Christianity, or any other religion.
Fifth, some Muslims are Americans. This is their country too.
Sixth, freedom of religion is an important concept in American history. It’s an important concept in our Constitution. It’s just a plain old important concept. It’s more important than the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
Seventh, burning Quran’s will send a message. Muslims will be hurt and offended. Some Muslims will interpret this as a great insult. Radical Muslims will use this event to gain recruits, just as radical Christians would use similar affronts to Christianity.
These are just facts. Do with them what you will.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
National Anthem
We have the wrong national anthem. The Star Spangled Banner needs to be replaced. Anything would be an improvement, but the best choice would be This Land is Your Land.
I am sure that it won't be enough to simply say that The Star Spangled Banner is deficient, nor should it be, so ...
First of all, it feeds into the fetishization of the flag. We have a real flag worship issue in this country. I think sometimes we forget that it is a piece of cloth. The American Flag is a symbol for a lot of good stuff, but it isn't the good stuff. When you burn it you aren't bruning the freedom of religion or the right to vote. You also aren't burning something that anyone fought and died for. Soldiers mostly fight and die for one another, and their families, and maybe for the freedoms we have and teh laws and institutions taht protect them. They don't die for a flag. Again, it's a symbol. It's a meaningless symbol, if you take away freedoms to protect it. Simce it's a symbol, I'm not sure why it should be at the center of our national anthem. I also don't know why we have to face it every time we sing the national anthem. Why don't we face each other. For better or worse, we are what makes America America.
The problems with our current anthem don't stop with a flag fetish. The song is all about war, and it's not even a war most of us know took place. I think there are some folks who couldn't say when the War of 1812 took place, let alone who we were fighting or why. Even if it was about the revolution, which was obviously a formative moment, I'm not sure we should sing about it every fifteen seconds. Our country is about more than any one war. There has to be more we could sing about.
The third problem is about the historical anchoring of the song. We've had a lot happen since 1812. WHy should our anthem only speak of a moment in history that took place almost two hundred years ago. I think it feeds into the strict constructionist mind set, which as it is has way too much sway these days. We have to look beyond the founders and their lives to determine what our country and its laws should look like. A lot has changed since then. Besides, neither the Constitution nor the country it was written for were meant by anyone to be static entities incapable of growth and change.
Lastly, the song is just plain hard to sing. The national anthem of a democratic country built on immigration should be easy for every one to sing. I happen to know of a song that is easy for everyone to sing.
My song is a folk song. It is even a protest song of sorts, and this country is built on protest. It is written by one of the great song writers and protesters in American history. It describes the country, from its forests to its deserts to its coasts. It talks about how it is a land for all of us. It also mentions how it is not a perfect land, how the questioning and protest that built the country has never vanished. It is simple, inclusive, questioning, and beautiful. I nominate it. We could do a hell of a lot worse ...
THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND
words and music by Woody Guthrie
Chorus:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!
Chorus
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
Chorus (2x)
I am sure that it won't be enough to simply say that The Star Spangled Banner is deficient, nor should it be, so ...
First of all, it feeds into the fetishization of the flag. We have a real flag worship issue in this country. I think sometimes we forget that it is a piece of cloth. The American Flag is a symbol for a lot of good stuff, but it isn't the good stuff. When you burn it you aren't bruning the freedom of religion or the right to vote. You also aren't burning something that anyone fought and died for. Soldiers mostly fight and die for one another, and their families, and maybe for the freedoms we have and teh laws and institutions taht protect them. They don't die for a flag. Again, it's a symbol. It's a meaningless symbol, if you take away freedoms to protect it. Simce it's a symbol, I'm not sure why it should be at the center of our national anthem. I also don't know why we have to face it every time we sing the national anthem. Why don't we face each other. For better or worse, we are what makes America America.
The problems with our current anthem don't stop with a flag fetish. The song is all about war, and it's not even a war most of us know took place. I think there are some folks who couldn't say when the War of 1812 took place, let alone who we were fighting or why. Even if it was about the revolution, which was obviously a formative moment, I'm not sure we should sing about it every fifteen seconds. Our country is about more than any one war. There has to be more we could sing about.
The third problem is about the historical anchoring of the song. We've had a lot happen since 1812. WHy should our anthem only speak of a moment in history that took place almost two hundred years ago. I think it feeds into the strict constructionist mind set, which as it is has way too much sway these days. We have to look beyond the founders and their lives to determine what our country and its laws should look like. A lot has changed since then. Besides, neither the Constitution nor the country it was written for were meant by anyone to be static entities incapable of growth and change.
Lastly, the song is just plain hard to sing. The national anthem of a democratic country built on immigration should be easy for every one to sing. I happen to know of a song that is easy for everyone to sing.
My song is a folk song. It is even a protest song of sorts, and this country is built on protest. It is written by one of the great song writers and protesters in American history. It describes the country, from its forests to its deserts to its coasts. It talks about how it is a land for all of us. It also mentions how it is not a perfect land, how the questioning and protest that built the country has never vanished. It is simple, inclusive, questioning, and beautiful. I nominate it. We could do a hell of a lot worse ...
THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND
words and music by Woody Guthrie
Chorus:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!
Chorus
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
Chorus (2x)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)