Advertisements

As the world globalizes, so does advertising.  You can find advertisements on anything just about anywhere there is a source of entertainment.  Magazines, radio, newspapers, flyers, signs, email spam, even while you play your latest free online game.  So, I've told you nothing you don't already know.  So, what's this all about?  This is about a decline in culture and sophistication.  As advertisers get smarter, they realize the more broad their hook, the higher the yield in attention to their clients.

Let's take a look at what something like that looks like.  Beer commercials advertise their product giving a "fresh cold taste."  Now, aside from that being impossible, think about how many people continue to confuse cold and hot as tastes instead of feelings?  This may not trouble you and seem like a nit picky observation.  Another beer advertisement encourages you to "taste greatness."  Now, aside from that being impossible, I invite you to look at what kind of advertisement that came from:

Enter: man at crowded bar with young attractive female bar tender.

Man: I'll have a light beer.
Tender: Okay, do you care how it tastes?
Man: No, I don't really care how it tastes.

Bar Tender serves the man.

Tender: Well, when you start caring, put down your purse and I'll give you a [advertised beer].

Man slowly reveals what's at the end of the strap on his far shoulder and looks at it, then turns back to the Tender.

Man: It's a "carry-all."
Tender: No it's not.

Commercial Narrator in deep baritone:  Man up...

[commercial ends with man eventually getting the advertised beer, but still ribbed by his friends at his table].

Now, before I get into this, I'll be the first to admit I was amused by this.  But, let's see exactly what was funny about this.  An attractive woman emasculates a man who prefers no particular beer, and associates masculinity with that product.  There is a series of these commercials and they all end the same, the man caves and chooses the advertised beer.

So, not only does the syntax have problems, the humor is a bit of a paradox, as well, isn't it?  Is capitulation to female interest masculine?  I think what this ad leads us to assume is at least that doing what the pretty woman wants is a good idea, and if her antagonism is what it takes, then that's okay, you can still be a man when you get that beer.  And all of this is below the radar during the interaction, the bar scene is a dog-eat-dog environment where whit, insults, and pride are fast currency, so no one seems to pay attention to the raw interaction.  The unexpected decisive blow wins, and it seems to be understood.  In any other context it would simply seem inappropriate for a woman to bully a man into buying something.  Yet, this isn't the result of natural female behavior, this ad blatantly targets men who don't have a sense of masculinity, and reinforces a popular belief that masculinity can be purchased at a bar.

I could go into greater detail with any ad running on TV on nearly any product, but I hope this quick look at ads being run today gives people pause to choose carefully when they purchase things.  What I am most concerned about is not whether the target demographic of men buys or doesn't buy that particular beer.  I'm concerned that young people, who are forming their understanding about gender roles and communication skills are learning from these subtle and otherwise harmless advertisements.

In other words, take this ad how you will, but there are many more like it, and in a globalized economy, I think it's becoming more and more important to reward companies with solid advertisement, and avoid companies that try to manipulate and distort reality.

What If America Fails?

The question in many social circles is unthinkable, and in others still, treason.  Why is that?  The idea that such a question is so ridiculous sounding and "extreme" is a symptom of the failures of government Ron Paul's November 2012 farewell address points to in front of the House of Representatives.

Let's think seriously about this hypothetical.  The founding of our Constitution was on undeveloped land over 200 years ago, far from serious threats, and plenty of room to stretch.  If our government fails, there is nowhere to set sail, nowhere to stretch out, and no protection for new beginning on earth.  This is all we have.  If our government descends into the depth of misery that is projected, then the cascade of potential tragedies becomes blindingly huge.  Your imagination should be sufficient, you don't have to rely on me to conjure examples.

If that scares you a bit, then you're doing it right.  If you have no reaction to the thought of a failed United States government, then it's up to you to wonder why.  But, I know why I would ignore something like this.  I would ignore this had I not had a background in political science.  I would ignore this if I was not taught at my university that written and spoken news is vastly superior to what somehow still passes for news on television.  I would ignore this if I didn't have a background in history that shows what it takes to earn freedom, and more foreboding, what happens when freedom and liberty is lost.  I would ignore this if I believed it just couldn't happen.  But, based on what I see in politics, attitudes of the ignorant, and the economy; how could this not fail?  If you are unchallenged by this, I challenge you now, look at this country with new eyes.

We live in an age of distraction and complacency unrivaled throughout the ages.  It is easier now, more than ever before, to find satisfaction in ignorance.  I believe I have grown up in a generation that was given every opportunity to avoid reality.  Reality, in the broadest sense, is the beginning to growth as an individual thinker.  Reality allows people to consider their life priorities.  Reality allows people to measure themselves, their talents, their weaknesses, and their hopes and dreams against the world in which they live.

In other words, I hope to remind people that invincibility is impossible, especially to something man-made like the land of the free and the home of the brave, but that does not mean it's not worth saving.  Good can come from man, but never has good come from selfish ignorance.

I believe the United States government can fail.  And if there's anything I can do to keep our Constitution alive, I will.  Will you?

Commonweath vs. State

There are 4 commonwealths in the United States.  They are Virginia (yay), Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.  You can notice right away they're geographically eastern political territories and, generally speaking, older governments than most of the United States.  The only commonwealth not in the original 13 colonies was Kentucky, and they were at one point simply an extension of Virginia and kept commonwealth status when they gained their autonomy in 1790.

Legally, commonwealth = state under The Constitution.  So why make any distinction?  Most people don't.  Even residents of the commonwealth in which I live refer to this territory a state, and even I find it hard to remember, (but I do correct myself)!

I've found there are two reasons these 4 territories remain titled commonwealths.  First, these commonwealths have a tradition, a history, to uphold in their formation and foundation as political entities standing against tyranny and oppression.  There's a matter of pride and tradition involved in titles and historically significant events each of these governments hold.  Second, is an extension of the sentiment through the history of "the commonwealth."  Commonwealths are governments entirely devoted to the good of the people, often used interchangeably with the word republic, (keep in mind the United States is a democratic republic).  This, however, is in contrast to what is an acceptable determination of statehood.  Statehood is simply a governance of political community.  But, to what end?  Is it implied that the good of the people is the interest of the government?  I'll leave those questions to rumination.

Now, I'll address some perspectives that are bound to arise.  Is a commonwealth communist or socialist in nature?  No.  Could a communist government be a commonwealth?  Sure, (though probably not for long if history is any indication).

In other words, there's a difference between a state and a commonwealth.  It may not be a legal one, it may not be tangable in the basic sense, but commonwealth representatives are automatically held to a higher standard than other public officials.  They are responsible for good of the people, not simply entrusted with the governance or oversight like most governments.

Iran Lately

If you're not particularly keen on keeping up with international affairs, it may surprise you to know that many news agencies abroad are state controlled.  This means the government filters what stories do and don't get seen by the general public.  In the case of Iran, this is also true of certain online news agencies like the Fars, the English language outlet of news for Iranians closely controlled by the Islamic clerical Iranian regime.  What may also surprise you is that they recently decided to publish a news story from The Onion, a satire news organization that prides themselves for off-the-cuff and, at times offensive, comedy.  The Fars reprinted a (completely fictional) Onion News story that rural white Americans were polled to prefer President Ahmadinejad over President Obama.

Now, it's embarrassing enough to get something wrong, but blatent plagiarism, a pseudo-apology, and personal endorsements for the story's validity after the facts were straight leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  And the impression starts to form that a government unwilling to acknowledge the Holocaust while pursuing nuclear weapons is unstable, in the rational/sane sense of the word.

In other words, if you're wondering why Obama and Romney couldn't stop agreeing with each other about bombing Iran during their foreign policy debate, now you know.

China

If you watched last night's Presidential debate, though "debate" would be a lofty way to describe it, you'd think Iran would be a topic of choice.  But, even for as much as the candidates would like to appear opposed they have such similar foreign policies you might as well flip a coin.  As a rational actor (for the most part), the United States' Executive Branch has dealt with countries with relatively little partisan bias over the last decade.  In fact, Obama seemed to be channeling Hans J. Morgenthau with his political vocabulary in his response to the question, "would you consider an attack on Israel an attack on the United States?"  By the way, neither candidate answered that question directly.  But there are some foreign policy topics out there that appear divided.  So, what is it about China that makes people say, "hey, yeah!  China's a 'cheater,'" or "let's get tough on China!"?  Well, if you're Mitt Romney, you know that taking a position against the incumbent will garner support from voters' ill-will toward President Obama on any number of other issues.  This is based on reports of manipulated currency value, industrial espionage over many decades, and other issues.  Whether Obama is on the opposite end of Romney's attacks is up to you to decide.

China's primary interests are within its immediate scope.  According to the International Herald Tribune's (NY Time's world edition) October 23rd 2012 front page, China doesn't have a party favorite, and they view Romney's rhetoric as simply that.

Rumors about China ought to be addressed:

1) Million-man Army?

False, it's approximately 2.3 million (or 200 waang where 1 waang = 10,000), and it used to be closer to 10 million than 1 million.

The flip side to this is that with only 4.3% GPD spent on their military, there's not much to fret over as far as overwhelming numbers are concerned.  Those number are likely to be less trained, and less equipped than the United States.  And the logistics of an overseas offensive would boggle the mind of any commander charged with the task.

2) Are the Chinese "cheating" the world economy?

Absolutely.

And they're doing it a lot of different ways.  The 14th Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said so.  Apart from resisting currency appreciation against the dollar to improve exports and domestic growth, they heavily subsidize these areas to ensure such business remains stable, which isn't completely out of line, the United States subsidizes lots of industries.  However, its industries are primarily concentrated on domestic standards like food supply, and imports like oil to keep the economy growth up.

On the flip side, no one said they couldn't play this way.  The international market is rarely regulated by rules we would consider laws that one could "cheat."  Their primary responsibility as a government is to their people and to themselves second to no other consideration.  Human rights violations aside, no one can tell them to behave.  World economic growth is only their concern as far as it effects them negatively or positively.

3) We are all going to be speaking Chinese soon.

No one knows the future, but just to give you all an idea about how unlikely that is, there are 8 significant Chinese dialects in the world, and the leading two Mandarin and Cantonese have been compared to how different English is to German.

On the other hand, China could strong-arm an exclusive language in China and over time unify the language base, but that's just the apocalypse conspiracy theorist in me playing devil's advocate.


In other words, you can love China, or hate them, or be completely indifferent, and have plenty of reasons why.

Gender Equality

NPR posted a blog by Maria Godoy on a topic centered around a comment Mitt Romney made during the recent political debate in New York.  Ordinarily, NPR is an excellent educational and news outlet with their partnerships with the BBC.  This was an exception to their stellar reputation.

The title of the blog is Out of the Binder, Into the Kitchen: Working Women And Cooking.  In it, Maria places a massive black-and-white 1950's ad portraying a woman, presumably a housewife wearing an apron and a smile as she opens an oven to place a meal out on the table.  The image takes up more space than her blog text.  It's quickly followed by an image of actor Ryan Gosling in a meme that capitalizes the feelings of Internet communities on Mitt Romney's expression.

The blog stems from survey data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on time use between men and women who are working.  The result was that, on average, women clean and cook about twice as much as men do in addition to their job requirements.  The gap widens with those who have children.  The conclusion and quotes that make up the remainder of the blog take those details and harp on gender equality.

Unless I'm missing something, this was the most incomplete trash I've read in a long time.

In other words, facts like "time spent cleaning" should be given SOME kind of specificity.  Like, how many tasks completed during time spent, or quality of completed tasks, or maybe measure the attitudes toward cleaning of each participant, or something!  Anything!  I can easily see men coming home and putting something in the microwave, whereas I can just as easily see a very involved and high quality recipe being made by women.  And I'm not saying that because of any reason other than I've seen it with my own two eyes; I couldn't tell you what my male roommate eats when he comes home I happen by him as he's eating.  When my female roommate is cooking, I could be anywhere in the house and the smell gets to me.

I was reminded of a similar, and popularly cited book, The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine, for the statistic that women use an average of 20,000 spoken words in a day versus a 7,000 spoken-word day for males.  The conclusions drawn from most of the front-running distributors of this finding were that women were simply superior communicators and that men were simple, predictable creatures.  A NYTimes article on the uselessness of men goes so far as to joke that as long as men remain entertaining, women will keep men around, and the author thoughtfully shares the hope that it is enough.  Dr. Brizendine's finding has been disputed (though poorly, likely due to financial limitations).  Another fun argument is that women, possessing more genetic material was an obvious advantage.  If only genetics were so simple.

The data collection needs to include, for example, in the word collection, efficiency of language, what is the topic of communication, social dynamic, etc.  Otherwise, we're left at the mercy of people who believe they can glean truth from incomplete facts and make broad-based claims about gender equality.  On the one hand, you'll have the ultra feminist claiming superiority in communication, and on the other you'll have masculinists and entertainers saying women are incapable of being quiet.

Coming full circle, the Godoy blog about gender equality in time spent cleaning needs serious details to draw any meaningful conclusion, and a piece of advice for their next blog, don't try to cover poor journalistic work ethic with an Internet meme.  Seriously.

Presidential Debate 2012

I wish I didn't have to post about such a hot topic.  I respect people enough to see the debates and draw their own conclusions, but there are a few things about my background that make me feel qualified to add to your informed opinions.

Yes, Mitt Romney had a better showing, that's not exactly a (seriously) disputed fact except from the most die-hard Democrats.  Romney made a strong stand where he knew he could, and he defended well where he knew he must.

On the other hand, if this debate had been held in say, Florida, where senior citizens would have packed the audience, the (silly) undecided-voter meter CNN showed might have told a different story.

Full disclosure: I'm not in support of either candidate.  My candidate is Ron Paul, and I still plan to vote for him due to personal convictions.  However, I believe it's important to pay attention to the primary candidates, because they will have the most impact on politics for the next 4 years.

In other words, I want people to be able to take away what I took away from this debate.  I want people to know that as Democrats, your president is not out of the race, no matter what the "talking heads" say about that first debate.  For Republicans, yes your candidate did very well on the aggregate, but even his best critics are saying this is his best appearance yet; there's no guarantee he will be able to maintain his composure.

Obama used up more time during this debate, and with good reason.  He has a lot to answer for after 4 years in office.  Romney has it easy in terms of debate during tough times.  All he needs to do is close his eyes and point to a topic to catch the President on his heels trying to catch his balance.

I've made some bi-partisan questions up to ask yourselves in case you consider yourself one of the few undecided:

-  What does the size of government mean to me?

-  What candidate supports my most important issue(s)?

-  Do I know where my polling center is for when I go vote and when election day is?

Happy election year everyone.  Please go vote.

Population

In 2008, I heard from a fellow undergraduate that population control was a major issue.  In fact, it was such a big issue that it was labeled non-partisan.  And when you can find a non-partisan issue, it's relatively easy to fix when you get the word out, right?  Right?  I know you're probably wondering why I'm asking and not telling you.  It's because the answer to that question is case by case.

I have been reminded of this issue more and more frequently throughout my life.  It comes up in history class, it comes up in philosophy, it comes up in domestic politics, and most recently it was brought up in a National Geographic video that I'd like to share, (don't worry it's short and you don't have to pay very close attention, but I think you will):

http://www.wimp.com/worldpopulation/

In other words, there are too many people in the world, given our ways of life.

The main concern I have after hearing all of these perspectives is that there is one thing standing in the way of progress, let alone resolution, for this situation in the United States.  The U. S. Constitution keeps legislation from doing things like fertility capping (as in China) or sterilization (as has been done in India).  These would impose inhibition of our declared right to pursue happiness, and in some cases completely violate human rights.

Now, what can be done with this non-partisan issue?  We're already doing it.  While government may not be good at most things, it has recognized this issue and made it a priority at both state and federal levels.  Illegal immigration, migration, and legal immigration is such a huge issue that this non-partisan issue is becoming partisan.  How?  Immigrants (such as those of Hispanic and Asian heritage) are becoming a larger and larger voting population, which translates into a louder voice for politicians to hear.  And as soon as one side took a stand on the non-partisan issue, the other side saw the opportunity to secure almost guaranteed votes on the growing minority population (which is projected to swell into the majority in a very near future).

In fewer words, the government recognized the detriment of overpopulation, attempted to do something about it, and it got infinitely and irrevocably worse unless something else changes.  We are currently headed toward one of many possible worst-case scenarios in which our pandering exclusively to votes rather than responsible and rational thought is becoming an acceptable political strategy.

I could end this with a joke or some reassurance, but I actually want people to stop what they're doing and think about this, even if you don't agree with anything I've said.

Highest Grossing Films

The wonderful world of radio brought cinema discussion into my ears one day.  They talked about the "surest" grossing genre in cinema.  They asked me to guess, and I couldn't get it.  Was it action?  Was it romance?  Comedy?  Romantic comedy?  Horror?  None of the above.  It's children's computer generated 3D.  Cars, Toy Story, Madagascar; you know them.  They are almost sure investments.  And that's what the entertainment industry has come to.  When was the last time you saw a very bad movie?

In other words: this is a result of the unstoppable power of capitalism.  Think about it: CGI (computer generated images) are only getting better and better, and while they are incredibly expensive you always get what you pay for, celebrity voice acting, and some of the best writing in the industry (capable of writing in clever quips for adults while captivating a child's mind) makes this enticing to every member of the family.  Investors want to be so safe and so sure in their risk, that risk is a minority factor.  This is the result of trial and error, perfection of a well-oiled money-making machine.  It's amazing!  However, the new battleground for innovation and creativity appears to be on television.  Shows like Spartacus, Game of Thrones, True Blood, and any CSI ever are where any entertainment seeker should look to have a good time that isn't based on numbers spewed from a diabolical mathematical formula.

Spartacus has to be the best historical fiction since Gladiator or The Patriot.  A heartbreaking tale off screen might pique your interest before anything else about the plot.  It breaks dialogue and relationship boundaries that simply cannot be done on the big screen, and entertains just as well and at times better than even the most seasoned franchises.

Game of Thrones is based on a series of novels by George R. R. Martin.  The man is a genius of sorts in his representation of less than ideal characters clinging to absolutely ideal character traits that unravel in unexpected ways.  The characters speak with such exact purpose and scale that you'll beg your friends to catch up to the newest season for their own sake.

True Blood is actually a bit of a formula, but it's not one people mind.  This drama series has revolutionized soap operas by combining fantasy style with romantic fantasy, and the blend has people forgetting when the next Twilight movie comes out on DVD.  The characters stand out to portray the desires of the lowest common denominator demographic, yet no one complains.

CSI is the new Law & Order.  The characters have more personal issues and have a modern perspective on moral situations with a solid base of old-fashioned justice.  Many people can tune into these shows at any 5 minutes and watch the rest, only to wish they had seen what was missed.  That's not to say that CSI doesn't play the numbers; each franchise is tailored to fit your personal interests and style - if you don't like any of them, then law & order style entertainment probably isn't for you.

If you haven't been watching television for a long time, then the DVD sets I could recommend would keep you busy for months, but I will say if you find yourself with even a bit of free time, believe me, these series can excite any emotion you've left idle in the interim.

Humanism vs. Christianity

This topic isn't going to be your usual let's hate believers, and it's not going to be an amateur apologetic piece.  This topic was inspired by two separate radio programs I heard on a long road trip which made me realize what educated people on both sides are doing with their time.

Humanists get together to have thoughtful discussions no less than annually, and they go over some of the more important topics (which inevitably involves a mention of religion).  They stressed the importance of self reliance.  A re-doubling of their personal efforts to find purpose in their life.  The group was entirely unanimous in their agreement that the task of finding meaning in life was completely up to the individual, and that it was subjective to each case, independent of any other, to succeed.

Christians have a similar discussion in progress as I found on another radio station.  Their dialogue is primarily given to them by trained leaders, such as ordained pastors.  This particular discussion addressed nearly every issue that humanists argue is the reason to reject religion.  Their response was somewhat counter-intuitive to the untrained listener.  What the speaker I heard spoke of was a re-doubling of their efforts to become better practitioners of Christianity; the response to criticisms of Christianity is not to compromise, but to become better Christians with "more Christianity" than before.

Now, before the gurus of either side can have their hand at this, I'd like to make it very clear that I'm aware of the obvious complications and problems that arise from that raw version of Humanism and the countless versions of protestant Christianity (some of which are comfortably within the definition of cult); as I said before, I'm not here to defend anything, I just want people to understand something very specific about each.  And there are two very distinct characteristics about the two that are worth mention.

First, they both talk about doing what they know how to do, but their ultimate aim is to do it better.  Both sides believe so strongly in their cause that they are willing to believe that any failure they've had previously is simply due to human error or some unknown ignorance.

Second, they both talk about each other, but never talk with each other (we all know each side talks AT each other).  This is likely the most problematic issue both groups face.  I say this because disregard for your opponent in any legitimate discussion is foolish, no matter the topic.  It appears that neither side has any intent on reconciliation, which is, in my personal opinion, pure shame.

In other words, regardless of what I think, it's important to take this into context.  A look into religion in politics during my undergraduate studies pointed out this issue in great length, and this circumstance is no different.  We have two factions polarized against one another to achieve their own aims, their own goals, regardless of what opposition may bring.  What we never see is collaborative efforts to bring to light common ground that plainly exists.  It is absolutely clear that both factions are acquiring the best chance they have at a meaningful existence.  This fundamental similarity ought to be enough to permit civil discussion and social progress.  Yet it goes undone.

If this matter was an easy fix, then it would have been done (notice I didn't say simple).  What I observe here requires the most trying individual feat to be had as a member of society:  to truly accept opposition as more than just that; we must understand that in the ways humans are most important we are also the same.  The differences remain trivial as they have for all of history.

The Electoral College

Most people immediately think about more interesting things and tune out the world when they hear the words "Electoral College," and I can't blame them.  It's a topic that gets glossed over with generalizations and the path of least resistance is often to consider it outdated in spite of its use today.

A brief-brief summary is the Electoral College is a group of representatives who vote based on the popular vote you cast (best-known example being presidential elections).  It's based on a winner-take-all system, so if you voted against the majority, your vote simply doesn't make an impact on the overall election.  Sounds crazy right?  Kind of makes you wonder why we still have it.  It's old and doesn't make sense today, right?

Bear with me while I attempt to bring us past that point where normally people go dead to the world hearing Charlie Brown's teacher.

In other words, the Electoral College is a clever check against the majority.  Wait what?  I know what you're thinking, I JUST said it kicked the minority votes out.  This remains true, but it's actually not designed to protect the minority within the state (or commonwealth).  Its design allows protection for the majority within the state against the national majority.

The best example I can give here is a fictional one: let's say the United States is made up of two states of equal population split right down the middle of the country.  This would give them equal electoral votes, as well.

Let's say the state on the left has a unanimous voting population.  And the state on the right has a very close division, but the majority votes against the left.  What the Electoral College does is protects the interest of the popular minority.  How cool is that?  I know, I know.  Not a huge improvement on the textbook version, but if minority rights or states' rights are important to you, now you know that the Electoral College is working for you!