The Grinch who Shot Christmas

Yesterday a man shot 4 firefighters in New York (using the same type of assault rifle used in Sandy Hook) while they were responding to a fire, two died. Several days ago 4 were killed in a shooting spree across Pennsylvania. A week before that, we all witnessed the national horror of the mass killings of children at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. This has been a bloody, awful year for gun violence in America and it seems as though it's continuing to the last possible moment. But nothing was so disturbing perhaps as the NRA press conference held just days before the Christmas holiday. In this conference, the very frightening director of that, group Wayne LaPierre, outline his vision for the future and in doing so has become America's official Grinch.

There's a new Grinch in town...

Granted, there are a few things we happen to agree with America's new Grinch on - for example there are likely improvements that can be made to school security and America's popular culture does seem to have dipped lower and lower of recent years becoming ever more violent in nature. What we don't agree with however is the vision of the future in America that he seems to be espousing - a vision that requires every American to be armed in order to prevent - you guessed it - being shot by other armed Americans. Grinch LaPierre doesn't ever want to consider viewing guns a problem - instead they are always and ever will be his only solution. The Grinch wants more guns, guns carried in the open, guns that carry extended magazines as well as assault rifles with semi-automatic capability. Back in the 1980's we had an expression for places that were that heavily armed and dangerous - Beirut - sounds a lot like what the Grinch is advocating.

As for his proposal, what if Sandy Hook had hired an armed guard before the massacre? One man armed say with a semi-automatic pistol. How would that guard have fared against a lunatic with an assault rifle with unlimited ammunition? He or she would have likely ended up just another corpse. Of course, the Grinch might respond to that; let's place a 50 caliber machine gun out front or an armored personnel carrier. It works in the third world, right?

At least this Grinch ain't packin'

The reason why people are calling Mr. LaPierre crazy is simple:

1. He may be the most insensitive, paranoid man on the planet (e.g. his main concern regarding the massacre of 26 6 year old students and their teachers was that it might be seen as an attack on his organization).
2. He is blatantly incapable of participating in rational dialog. Each year in the US more people die from gunshots than in the past 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. The levels of gun violence are directly proportional to access to weapons.
3. He is advocating something no sane person in this country wants - a country where it's not safe to live in without being heavily armed. We don't want to be Beirut, or Juarez, Mexico or the wild west (which by the way was not as dangerous as the US is now because believe it or not there weren't as many guns).

The full NRA Press Conference last week

We need to ask ourselves, why has the national media been listening to this lunatic for so long? Why does his relatively small organization hold sway over the national dialog on guns? How can a gun industry that makes only a few billion a year make such an impact on our lives in a multi-trillion dollar a year economy? Every year we pay more in medical costs for gun victims (more than 100,000 per year) than the gun industry earns. 

If Grinch LaPierre wants to know why American culture is becoming so violent - he should start by looking at what the NRA has done over the years. He has advocated guns and violence as a means to control guns and violence - he's the Grinch who shot Christmas and he's taking aim at the New Year. 

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

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