Negative Ads have become Political Dialog

Just when people thought politics couldn't get much worse, the 2012 presidential election managed to pump $6 billion dollars worth of negative ads across television, radio, print and the Internet. Some estimates claim that more than 80% of all political ads this year were negative nature. Worse than this though, the downward spiral of political discourse is taking the rest of the media with it - tarnishing the image and credibility of everyone involved.

If you don't have anything nice to say...

Perhaps it is to be expected that with the dual influences of the campaign spending explosion triggered by the Supreme Court "Citizen's United" Campaign Finance decision and the still sluggish economy that the election advertisements would be overwhelmingly negative. Even with those rationalizations though, it was still hard to watch. One wonders if any election these days can elevate itself beyond the level of mutual character assassination. Even more to the point though is whether any meaningful political dialog can occur in these types of environments.

Does this seem silly, well, don't the other negative ads seem goofy as well?

First we need to make a distinction regarding negative ads and let's say attack ads. Perhaps such a distinction is not formally recognized but for the sake of argument let's contrast these two types of combative ads:

1. The Traditional Negative Ad - It is first and foremost a personal assault. The personality of the candidate is under fire; the types of charges leveled can include ideology but the main thrust of the strategy is to tarnish the character of the candidate. These ads are part of the main dialog between the candidates - in fact this year - nearly all of the dialog has been negative.
2. The Proxy Attack - The proxy attack is something that's been around for a long while but has now taken on new dimensions given the virtually unlimited influx of cash and special interests participation. The proxy attack allows a much wider variety of attacks and all sorts of related propaganda. Since these ads are not officially linked to the campaigns there is little or no restraint or responsibility shown. 

Both types of ads have been around since political advertising began. The problem of course is not the existence of these types of ads but rather our increasing reliance on them to convey the majority of our national political dialog (at least during election cycles). Neither of these types of ads is concerned with or does a good job of actually establishing a dialog. The Voters have a right to know what the differences are between those who would represent them.

Ads like this are quite simply embarrassing the nation...

What seems clear is that the Negative Ad is gaining momentum and is becoming the primary form of all political advertising and perhaps the primary form of all political dialog. Positive advertising is relatively rare as candidates seem hesitant t talk about what if anything they intend to do if elected. So, why do politicians seem to be moving en masse to the least civilized of the available options? Well - they think Negative Ads (personal assaults) work. Do they, really?

It's hard to quantify that answer given that other factors are usually involved. Someone who outspends their opponent 3 to 1 and uses negative advertising and wins could point to the money, the ads or both as the keys to victory. What does seem clear is that negative advertising turns people off - first towards the candidate being targeted, next towards the candidate making the attack and lastly towards the entire unpleasant process. Eventually these people become turned off altogether and stop voting or participating in politics at all. And that in itself may be a victory for someone.

This parody managed to capture most of this campaigns core themes - that kinda of scary...

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

Looper Dooper?

It had all of the elements of possible science fiction classic; Bruce Willis, time travel, Philip K. Dick and yet somehow this movie failed to achieve its desired paradox. But before we delve into the movie itself we must describe the strange dimension we were transported to when our local theater decided to sell beer and wine at the concession stand. Never before (at least not since the days when people used to sneak in their own refreshments to drive-ins) were we exposed to interactive cinema like this. 

Let's all go to the Lobby - and get plowed

So, during the film, there were these two guys behind us - we knew they had been drinking because at several points during the movie they discussed whether or not to go back out and buy more wine. They decided to engage in an interactive dialog between themselves and the movie. The first comments ranged from - "I can't follow this, what's happening here" and quickly degenerated into - "Oh my god this is the worst movie ever - what the hell is going on - how could anyone understand this - it's impossible." This went for nearly the entire film.

Now we could spend a lot of time dissecting the movie, but why bother, we'll never remember it as well we will as the theater dialog about it. Let's do a quick overview on Looper anyway:

• The near-future looks really depressing
• The distant-future looks worse
• Bruce Willis and Robin really don't look much alike
• Bruce Willis with long stringy dark hair is just not something you want to see (5 seconds onscreen was 4 seconds too long)
• That little kid really needed a time-out (no time travel puns intended)
• There was lots of gratuitous violence towards the end - but where were the laser guns ???!!!!

 I'm not working for Batman one minute longer!

Anyway, enough of that, what we really need to address is time travel and paradoxes. This is what seemed to be troubling our intoxicated fellow movie-goers. The basic premise is this; if you change something in the present it effects not just the future but any future travelers who happen to be visiting your own temporal neighborhood. Now just to be clear for all you doubters out there - time travel is in fact possible - we all do it every day - only it's one way - forward. This movie assumes that there is a device which looks like a cross between an iron lung and a vacuum cleaner that can somehow send people back in time (the other way). To help better understand how this might be possible we've brought together the world's two foremost experts on time travel and physics, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking...

 Time Travel is simple, don't believe us, just ask Einstein and Hawking

So, now it's all perfectly clear now right? Still don't get it. We'll this isn't a science blog, but we will provide a checklist to determine whether or not you should attempt to watch complex, alternate reality and time travel movies.

The Sci-Fi IQ Test:

• Jean Luc Picard is the guy who directed The Fifth Element. (T or F)
• If you go back in time and kill your grandfather the only thing you miss out on is Christmas presents. (T or F)
• In the show Sliders, there was an alternate Universe where the Bengals actually made it to the Superbowl and won! (T or F)
• In the original planet of the Apes, the three guys and 1 girl were supposed to repopulate the human race (T o F)  and BTW who came up with the math on that?
• In the Matrix, it was the Machines who scorched the sky or was that the Terminator series? 
• How many levels of dream reality (Inception) can you sink into without getting lost?

Does all of this seem too complicated, perhaps you should just head to the concession stand and get liquored up.

Read More