MSNBC orchestrates a gang-bang in Philadelphia
Tim Russert: "Senator Obama, my cousin's neighbor's vet claims that Senator Clinton is, quote, 'a cold bitch from Hell', whereas my sister-in-law's hairdresser refers to Senator Clinton as a 'dynastic money-whore serving the interests of the corporate elite'. Who would you agree with?"
Peter Jennings: "Senator Edwards, a reporter once overheard Senator Clinton saying that the taco she ate for lunch was 'so-so'. Does this mean that she hates Mexicans or that she is unable to make tough decisions regarding immigration reform?"
Now, I'm no fan of Hillary (although I will vote for her over any of the Republican candidates), but MSNBC's full-frontal attack struck me as unnecessary and counter-productive. The candidates don't need help pointing out each other's faults. Along the same lines, the question to Kucinich about his UFO sighting was preposterous. Don't we have better things to discuss? For example:
1) Education. The candidates were limited to one "lightning round" of 30-second responses to outline their plans for education. That's like asking them to fit their foreign policy strategy into a fortune cookie. (Summary of recent McKinsey report on why schools in Canada, Finland, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea kick ass: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9989914)
2) Decriminalization of marijuana. As pleasantly surprising as it was to hear this issue raised in a question to Chris Dodd, it was equally disappointing to see the debate restricted to a form even more demeaning to the public's intelligence than the lightning round - the "raise your hand if you disagree" method. It would have been nice to hear someone mention the report that Milton Friedman and 529 other economists have endorsed which estimates that ending marijuana prohibition would save the government $10-14 billion annually (we could fund three weeks' colonization of Iraq with that cash!) (http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/). Or to listen to a discussion of how and why minorities are disproportionately likely to be busted for pot.
Those are long-term issues that will require focused grassroots movements to enact change. More immediately, we have a once in a 4-8 year chance to nominate the least-sucky candidate with a realistic chance of being elected.
It would be a start...
SNL skit
ReplyDeletehttp://rawstory.com/news/2007/Brian_Williams_media_has_already_chosen_1104.html
To convince and to persuade : a common objective (making your audience approve or adopt your opinion, your argument) but two different kind of intellectual operations. When one tries to convince another one, he develops arguments, uses rhetorical tools to achieve his goals. He calls on the intellectual skills of his audience. Whereas when one tries to persuade, he will support his arguments calling on to his auditors'feelings, sentimental references. It's more like a seduction operation.
ReplyDeleteThe main "tragedy" in our supposedly civilized and intellectualy advanced society is that intellectual stimulation and questioning is rarely encouraged. How can you develop a reasoning and convince your electors in 30 seconds? How can you talk about serious issues such as education when you're limited in time just like in a TV show where you can win a car (evil pollutors!!)if you're able to answer a stupid in less than 15 sec?
Thus, presidential campaigns avoid challenging debates because people who think are embarrassing people who could question what the authorities offer as the best for us. And education is one of the most efficient way to become able of questioning. Better promiting more money in order to consume more... Of the alienation of consumption