[Insert American politician's name here] wants to destroy America!

It’s not difficult to find examples of hyperbolic, character-maligning in US political culture. What is difficult is understanding why I, or anyone else, should vote for somebody who deliberately and irresponsibly misrepresents the thoughts and attitudes of their competitors. It is immature and entirely unhelpful.

Here are some examples from Newt Gingrich (I could have used quotes from nearly any politician in the current race) from a couple of days ago, just to give you a taste:

• “President Obama is the most dangerous president in modern American history”
• “The President wants to unilaterally weaken the United States.”
• “Obama’s energy policy is anti-American.”

These are the kind of visceral, emotion-laden phrases that politicians often use to convince an electorate that they believe is either too stupid or too apathetic to need to know more.

They are ridiculous claims first and foremost – it would be a complex conspiracy, indeed, that involves an American citizen spending years of his life and vast resources climbing the political ladder to achieve the nation’s highest office, a position that will cost him even more time and effort, all because secretly, deep down, he despises America and everything it stands for and just wants to slowly destroy the country from within. Also, such claims are completely useless from the viewpoint of a critical news consumer because they cannot possibly be verified because WE CAN’T READ MINDS. Let me translate the phrases above into more useful, less mind-ready versions:

• “I think President Obama’s policies are putting America in a vulnerable position relative to other countries and time periods.”
• “The President has enacted policies that I think put America at risk, from a military and defense standpoint.”
• “I think President Obama’s energy policy is inappropriate to create a beneficial economic environment for America.”

You see? Much more useful. The simple phrase “I think…,” besides indicating that the individual is using his or her brain, lets us know that what follows is something on which we can build an opinion about this candidate (an important quality around election time) and it lets us know that no mind-reading is going on (phew!). Besides being more useful for discerning news-goers, my little translations have another important quality: they are incredibly sterile and boring. Which is why politicians and news programs tend to prefer the other versions.

Nevertheless, I think my translations would be a much better way to do politics. I might disagree with Newt Gingrich’s politics but I don’t think he hates America. I think he loves America, probably very much. Others might disagree with Obama’s politics but, chances are, he loves America, too. Chances are, too, that you and I and most voters out there see right through politicians’ childish attempts to make us dislike their opponents. We should let them know that we don’t think it’s okay.

Why Political Ads Are Ridiculous

With election season come political ads and political ads drive me crazy.

No candidate is going to convince me to vote for them either by smearing an opponent’s character or by standing by the family dog and promising me things will be better with him/her in office.  Political ads are nothing but hot air.  The smears they make against opponents are just as likely false as true.  The same goes for the promises they make.

I have two major beefs with political ads.  First, it seems ludicrous to me that making a smear ad should make voters more likely to vote for the one doing the smearing.  What it says to me is that the candidate is immature and has too little confidence in his/her own platform to rely on it alone.  Indeed, in the case of Whitman and Brown in California, their back and forth smearing has caused me to dislike both of them.  And I still barely know what they actually stand for.

To talk about my second beef I’m going to get psychological on y’all.  Stay with me here.  In the early 80s, two psychologists, R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo, developed the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion.  This model states that there are two routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route.

The central route requires a lot of thought and rational consideration of the merits and flaws of a particular message.  People use central route processing when the message is very important to them and they are willing and able to give it a lot of attention.  Therefore, people engaged in central route processing are only convinced by strong evidence and rational arguments.

The peripheral route does not require much thought or rational consideration and instead relies on environmental characteristics of the message such as the credibility of the source, the perceived quality of the message, the attractiveness of the source or a catchphrase, for example.  Peripheral route processing occurs when the message isn’t particularly important to a person or they are unwilling or unable to make a thorough, rational consideration of the message.

Political ads contain no information that is useful in making a rational and thoughtful decision about the merits of a political candidate or platform, they are only meant to stir up the viewer’s emotions.  This makes me mad for two reasons.  First, politicians are assuming that most of the electorate is either too apathetic or too stupid to carefully think about the candidate for whom to vote.  Second, politicians keep making these ads because many people are too apathetic or too stupid to realize they are being duped by immature emotional appeals.

Don’t be fooled!  Politicians treat voters like Pavlov’s dog.  If Meg Whitman shows us pictures of Jerry Brown with a scowling face, while playing depressing music and using large, bold, red text, she’s trying to get us to associate Jerry Brown with bad things.  If Jerry Brown shows us pictures of himself with his smiling family, in front of a rose garden, with an American flag flying behind him(I don’t know if he’s actually done this, it’s just an example), all while playing inspirational music, he’s trying to get us to associate him with good things.  Neither message contains any useful information about a political platform.  Pay attention and look beyond the ads!

P.S. – Why can’t we have a viable third candidate in the California gubernatorial race?  I don’t want Brown or Whitman.

 

Cartoon from picturesforsadchildren.com. Funny stuff.

 

Recession Over? Let’s Get This Straight.

Last week the National Bureau of Economic Research reported that the recession officially ended in June of 2009.  For the week since then I have seen the issue rehashed over and over on the news.  Mostly, people are indignant and incredulous.  ”How can the recession be over?” they say, “The economy still sucks!”  These critics are only half right.

You see, economists and the lay public have vastly different definitions for the word recession.  For economists, a recession is a period during which economic activity declines.  Strictly speaking, economic activity did indeed stop declining in June of 2009 and it has been gradually improving overall since then.  So the economists are correct.

The disconnect appears with the lay public’s definition of recession.  They usually define it as “The Recession” with a capital “R.” It means a period of time (now) during which the economy is performing poorly.  And by that definition, they are correct.  The economy is still performing poorly even though economic activity has been slowly improving since June 2009.  But the fact is, they are talking about something completely different than what the economists are talking about when they say the recession is over.

It may seem like a petty distinction to make but I believe it is hugely important.  It appalls me that so many people are willing to dismiss the work of these economists and other experts out of hand and they don’t even realize they are talking about completely different things.  This is a huge problem in all areas where the lay public weighs in on complex issues that they don’t completely understand.  I’m guilty of this, too and I am constantly checking myself to make sure my definition of events or concepts matches those of the person or people with whom I am disagreeing.

I’ve seen plenty of examples of disagreement because of different definitions in my life.  Try asking members of different Christian sects to define what it means to be a Christian.  You’ll quickly understand why it’s so hard for some sects to get along.  Ask a Republican and a Democrat to define socialism.  Ask a man and a woman to define dating.

The point I want to get across is this, when you disagree with somebody take a moment and make sure your mental dictionaries are on the same page.  That way you won’t end up disagreeing about different things when you think you’re disagreeing about the same thing.

Freedom Of Speech, Freedom To Take Offense

Several incidents in the news lately have caused me to reflect on the First Amendment and what it means for US citizens.  First, there was the incident with Dr. Laura repeatedly using the word ‘nigger’ on her radio show.  There is the Ground Zero mosque and the criticisms it has received.  Then there was Pastor Jones and his ludicrous koran burning.  And today I heard about a cartoonist that called for a ‘Draw Mohammed Day’ earlier this year that has now gone into hiding to protect herself from the backlash.

With all these issues, and many others, the First Amendment is often brought up.  Whether to justify someone’s actions or to complain about their rights being infringed upon or whatever.  There are two points I want to make in this post.  To make the first one I will first ask you to read the text of the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first point I want to make is that people invoke First Amendments rights without really understanding what it means and they wrongfully cry foul about their rights being violated.  The text of the amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”  So, for example, when Dr Laura receives criticism for using the ‘N’ word on her show and she feels she needs to step down to regain her First Amendment rights, she is misinterpreting the First Amendment.  There is no law requiring her to resign because of what she said.  Indeed, there is no law requiring her not to use the ‘N’ word.  No First Amendment rights were violated in this case.

This brings me to my next point.  We may have freedom of speech in this country but we do not have freedom from the consequences of our speech or actions.  Everyone else in the country has the freedom to take offense to whatever you say or do.  Who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant.  If you say or do something that some people think is stupid be prepared for the consequences.  What the First Amendment guarantees is that the government will never pass a law that forbids you from saying stupid things.

Another important point to make is that even when you misinterpret the First Amendment, it does not apply outside the US.  This is particularly relevant in the islam-related incidents in the news.  If you disrespect the religion of Islam, expect its members to be offended and don’t expect them to abide by US law if they choose to retaliate in some way.

To conclude, let me quote Michael Shermer from his blog post on this same topic, “The government is not—and never should be—in the business of regulating stupidity or making laws respecting the free exercise thereof.”  People in the US are free to say what they want – and that is what makes America a great country – but you have to be willing to face the consequences.

A Lesson on the First Amendment

I came across this blog post by Michael Shermer today on Skepticblog.  He explains how it is incorrect to claim that building a mosque near ground zero and Dr Laura receiving criticism for using the N-word are not violations of the First Amendment, as many are claiming that they are.  I think it ties in well with my recent posts.  I also think we should remember it the next time someone cries foul about their First Amendment rights.

This Is Why I Blog

I’m pretty excited that I’ve been able to rekindle my blogging fire a bit.  And I’m even more excited that people are reading and commenting on it!  I typically blog about issues that are pretty important to me and I like the feeling of starting a bit of a dialogue with my readers (all 10 of you) on these subjects.  Speaking of which, I want to address some of the comments about my Politics and Cola post.  Really it’s just Brittney’s and my Dad’s comments, because they were the ones who disagreed with me.  And honestly, I have to agree with them on the points they made.

Democrats are different than Republicans in some fundamentally important ways.  In my post I said that they were too similar, but I also admitted to exaggerating the extent of their similarities.  I think I was reacting to the tendency for the media and the public to seem equally dissatisfied no matter who is in charge.  And to the castrated policy making that occurs when one side is forced to play to the middle.  And also to the fact that people don’t even seem to know the differences between the parties, except when it comes to topics with religious undertones.  So, I think there are political phenomenon that occur across the board to both parties and at times this gives me the impression that not much is different from when the others guys are at bat.  But, Dad and Brittney, you’re right that the ideological aspect of each party is much more important than I gave it credit for in my post.  It is the most important distinction between the parties and it is what motivates the actions they do take.

Thanks for being involved in my blog!  Let’s keep the discussions coming.

Mosque = Muslim = Terrorism? Really, America?

It’s on the news every day lately and I decided it’s time for me to weigh in on it.  To recap, there are plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York.  The plans have met with opposition because many think it is insensitive and inappropriate to build an Islamic monument of sorts so close to the site of what is considered to be a Muslim-perpetrated act of terrorism.  I’m not going to talk about whether or not the mosque should be built in this post.  But this story has sparked a lot of discussion about Muslims in America and people have been sharing their opinions of Muslims.  I have been very disappointed to see how many people have negative opinions about Muslims in general.  That is what I want to address here.

Several months ago, I wrote a post about how overprotective Americans are becoming and that it’s getting out of hand.  I explained that people overreact to statistically very unlikely events and hyperinflate the probability and dangerousness of those events.  And they ignore how common it is for those same events NOT to happen.  (The Base Rate Fallacy, for anyone who wants to read about it.)  Well, that same phenomenon appears to be at work when it comes to Americans’ opinions of Muslims.

Why do people think poorly of Muslims?  I imagine it mostly has to do with Islam’s connection to the September 11th tragedy and to other widely publicized terrorist groups and the actions of these groups.  I don’t think anyone would argue with the claim that the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims.  Now, let’s look at some numbers:

Muslims in the world: about 1.5 billion

Fundamentalist Muslims with Jihadist tendencies (according to this website that seems to think poorly of Muslims): about 1.8 million or 0.12% of all Muslims.  Keep in mind that this statistic is an estimation of the number of Muslims who have a mindset likely to lead to acts of terrorism, not necessarily actual terrorists.

Proportion of Terrorist acts in the last 30 years perpetrated by Muslims: 6%  (from FBI report on terrorism; and this site graphs the info)

So let’s get this straight, many Americans base their opinion of all Muslims on the actions of less than 1% of all Muslims.  They are allowing a statistical improbability to get in the way of seeing what is far more likely, ie. that the Muslim next door is completely harmless.

If you look at the graph I linked to above, you’ll see that the majority of terrorist acts in the US were perpetrated by Latinos.  Why aren’t we afraid of them in the way that we seem to be afraid of Muslims?  Is it because Latinos are usually Christian?  Is it a case of preferring the devil we know to the devil we don’t?  I don’t have the answers, I just know it’s foolish.

In America, we think pretty highly of Christians.  The different Christians do not always agree but, generally speaking, Christians are good.  But not all.  For example: the Ku Klux Klan is a Christian organization; the Army of God was responsible for attacks on abortion clinics; the Hutaree Christian militia group that made the news earlier this year didn’t practice the kind of Christianity most of us do.  Do we judge all Christians by the actions of these small groups?  Of course not.  We know that would be foolish.

So why do we do it with Islam?  Are there bad Muslims out there?  Sure, there are groups like Hamas and Al-Qaeda and others that I don’t know about.  But we need to be smart enough not to let our fear get in the way of reason.  Statistically speaking, it is very, very unlikely that the Muslim you meet at the store is any threat to you at all.  And we should not act as though they are.

To conclude my little rant, I would like to refer you to an episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Aug 19).  While addressing this same topic (although much more humorously than I) Jon eats some humble pie and plays part of a speech given by Charlton Heston after the Columbine shootings.  I encourage you to watch it thoughtfully.  The relevant part of the video begins at about 7:40 and goes to 9:55.

Politics and Cola

Sometimes I feel like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same party.  Call me ignorant if you want but think about it.  Both parties, when in power, receive the same criticisms: they’re spending too much, they’re accomplishing too little, they’re too corrupt, they don’t have their priorities straight, they raised taxes even though they said they wouldn’t, they lowered taxes even though it’s irresponsible, they’re un-American and trying to sabotage the country, and so on.  The policies they enact always tend to be the feeble step-cousins of what was promised in campaign time.  Unilateral decisions are condemned as tyrannical.  Supporters always complain that their party is leaning too far in the other direction.  The good stuff is always the same, too: they gave a good speech, they created some good will with somebody, they created policy to help the poor, they’re committed to peace, etc.

I think what all this means is that when you boil down these political parties to what they can actually accomplish while in office you have essentially the same party.  Sure, their ideological starting points are different to start with but come time to make policy it all dissolves into some sort of moderate political cocktail anyway.  And when policy is made, each party justifies it with their own ideology giving us the illusion that they did something the other side couldn’t or wouldn’t do.  What we have with both major parties is the same product, marketed differently, repackaged and sold as ‘new and improved’ and better than the other guy.  Democrats and Republicans are the Pepsi and Coke of politics: huge competitors, each with a loyal following, and each tastes about the same.

Am I exaggerating?  Yes.  And I’m doing so on purpose.  I don’t know if my point is that we need more viable options when it comes to political parties so that when we vote we’re actually getting a change and so that we can base our votes on something other than a candidate’s position on abortion or the second amendment.  Or maybe my point is that we need to grow up a little and realize that our goals are more common than we think so that we can eliminate some of the counterproductive mud-slinging and name-calling that constantly thwarts good politicians in America.

Final thought:

Liberal ≠ Conservative, but

Democrat ≈ Republican

Think about it.  Next election, vote Green! (or Libertarian!)  Or whatever. :)

Chill Out America

We’re living in very partisan times right now.  There is a lot of disagreement when it comes to politics and government policy.  Not that that’s different than any other time in American history.  But it is getting a little out of hand right now, I think.

I’m sick of the mean-ness in politics.  I’m sick of the violent action and symbolism.  It is NOT patriotic to throw bricks in windows, it is NOT patriotic to threaten our President or other politicians with violence, it is NOT patriotic for protestors to become violent, it is NOT patriotic to intimidate with threat of violence.  I’m sick of political speeches where more time is spent disparaging one’s opponents than explaining one’s own goals and ideals.  I’m sick of the junior high name-calling and intentionally offensive language that our adult politicians so casually throw around.  I’m sick of people making money from that name-calling.  I’m sick of all the political hyperbole. Healthcare reform is NOT a socialist government takeover; Obama is NOT a modern day Hitler, America is NOT on it’s way to a God-less, Communist state.  We are NOT China or North Korea or Honduras or Afghanistan or anywhere close, so let’s stop acting like our problems are as serious as theirs.  It might feel like it sometimes but the facts do not support it.

America is a democratic nation, free to determine its own course.  We have a leader elected by the voice of the people who acts on behalf of the people.  We are incredibly fortunate to have that.  If you don’t like something, change is just an election away.  It has been that way in the past and it will be that way in the future.  That’s not going to change anytime soon.

I’m sure it’s fairly obvious where I stand politically but I sincerely hope that the sentiments I’ve expressed above are bipartisan sentiments.  And wherever anyone, regardless of party affiliation or political views, acts as I’ve described, I condemn it.  I hope that reasonable Americans can agree that behavior as described above is unsustainable, counterproductive, divisive and dangerous.  Everyone is allowed to strongly disagree with current policy – it’s our right.  But if you have to disagree, do so in a civil manner.  I wager that a lot more would get done in Washington if that was the case.

Rumor Has It

I’m sure I’m not the only one who gets emails of questionable content and authenticity.  Every day at least one phishing scam makes it past my junk mail filters, not to mention the plethora of emails with questionable attachments from senders I don’t know.  And then there’s the forwarded emails from people I do know, mostly benign, cheery things, but now and then with some unabashedly inflammatory content.

Now, I don’t want to open up the wrong can of worms here.  I’m not writing this entry because of one particular instance or one particular person.  And I don’t mean to complain about my friends and family sharing things with me about which they feel passionately.  On the contrary, power to you for doing so!  Instead, what I want to address is the fact that a goodly proportion of media circulating through our inboxes is of questionable authenticity, if not an outright fabrication.

By this point I hope it’s becoming obvious that when I speak of fabricated, inflammatory emails I’m referring mainly to the hateful, politically motivated messages that have been circulating through inboxes pretty much since email came into existence.  I urge everyone within the reach of this blog to think critically about the material you choose to pass on to those you care about.  I know you’ve already thought about it enough to care that those close to you know about it.  The only other thing you need to do is make sure that what you pass on is true!

To this end, I will now redirect you to the popular rumor verification website Snopes.com.  The rumors they deal with range from the trivial to the very important.  You can learn about today’s popular urban legends or rumors about Coca-Cola or you can discover for certain that the Sony-Ericsson giveaway in your inbox really is too good to be true.  Take a look at Snopes’s Top 25 Urban Legends at the moment.  There’s some fun stuff to look at and some useful items about virus-containg emails, but I think it’s most important function by far is that it can shed some light on many of the unkind political rumors that do nothing but sow disunity among the American people and the people of the world.

For example, today I received an email from a family friend that was sent with genuine concern.  The email contained pictures of angry Muslim protestors in London carrying some very threatening signs.  The text of the email explained that these pictures were not shown in the US because they’re afraid to offend people.  The email used these images to justify war against the muslim world.  Simple enough, right?  Please follow this link to the Snopes treatment of that email.

The real story, according to Snopes, is that the protestors in the email were reacting to the insulting political cartoons published in a Dutch newspaper in 2006.  They had a right to be upset but went overboard in their protest.  Their threatening behavior was condemned (and rightly so) by English authorities and by most other Western Muslims.  Nor do I condone the actions of these protestors.  But the email I received today is designed to create anger towards a group of people without attempting to make any distinction between them and the larger group of people they claim to represent and without attempting to explain what got them so angry in the first place.  It is immature and irresponsible.

Whatever you say, whatever you share with your loved ones, do it with courage, do it with good intention, knowing that you have the right to feel passionately about things in the world and that you have the right to speak freely as your conscience dictates.  Nevertheless, the onus remains on you to ensure that you’re disseminating truth.  Make the extra effort to learn if something is true or not before you spread it around.  The truth can often do plenty of damage on its own, but it’s redeeming quality is that it is the truth.  There is no need to add to the damage with lies.  Whatever case you happen to be making, if the truth is insufficient to get your point across, perhaps it is time to reconsider your position.