Kony and Psychopharmaceuticals

Today in class we had a discussion about the implications of the "Kony 2012" video, and what types of action it should necessitate.

We spent a long while talking about the appeal to the media god (I call it that because it seems as though we have become disciples of our own talking boxes) present within the video, the streamlined and sexy way that it was portrayed.

But as we abruptly finished our discussion on the topic, I was left wondering what exactly caught our attention about the video other than its aesthetic appeal.

In order to understand the phenomena of this appeal, it is important to view our motivations themselves as plots, such as Ahab's obsession with Moby Dick, or Jack Gladney's obsession with death from which he proclaims that "all plots tend to move deathward", which I take to mean as that they eventually end, sometimes in the death of the protagonist.

As the consumerist society we are, we have an obsession with satisfaction. This is evident in the rise of the psychopharmaceutical industry (the moment we feel sad we tend to gravitate towards ending it, instead of accepting the rich emotional experience that it allows), the centralization of sources of nutrition in gigantic superstores (it is too much to walk across two isles to get milk and a couch for your living room, nonetheless the village green), and in many other areas.

I believe that the most reflective of this urgent need for satisfaction is the response to the Kony video - people justify their indifference/ignorance to the true moral implications of a horrid scenario by writing it off in the form of a check, and I believe that this form of providing the necessary means, without any effort, is at the center of the American value system.

I truly wonder whether or not we could actually inspire some kind of change through any other action - it intrigues me that not more people are flying over to Uganda in order to try and create change - I wonder what kind of society this necessitates.

Powerful Labels: "GOP War on Women"

One of the themes that we have been discussing in class lately, is how types of advertising, or labeling become more powerful when more provocative words, with much more powerful connotations are used to back up their message.

One such example of this would be the labeling of a proposed Inheritance tax as the "death tax", a scheme that has been deployed by the GOP since the early 1990's as a way to scare off potential congressional reforms to the flawed tax structure.

Something that was slightly touched on, was the fact that the GOP seems to have been much more successful in the past with how they label certain projects or beliefs, and how that has effected the direction of voters support. This is not to say that Liberals cannot use powerful labels, or that they have not used them in the past, it is only to put forth the fact that the Conservative project has been much more successful.

Yet as much as this remains true today, there is a liberal project every now and again that catches peoples attention and recently I discovered one example that I think is important to share.

The "GOP War on Women" as it is has been labeled, is term used to call out Republicans on comments that are inherently anti-women's rights/progression of equality.

One such example of this rhetoric is a recent radio broadcast done by personality (if you can call him that) Rush Limbaugh, who wanted women "to post videos (of the sex they will supposedly be having) online so we (him and his purported audience) can all watch" in relation to forcing employers to cover birth control medications.

This harsh insensitivity is evident in the rhetoric of many Conservative "personalities (most emphasized in the rhetoric of men, but also evident in that of women as well... cough cough Bachmann, cough cough Palin) which they justify through a constructed lens of "family values" that they see fit to push on their supporters.

Yet this problem has an impact outside of the rhetoric that is being used solely against women; Limbaugh chooses to brand women who support the advancement of equal rights legislation as "feminazis".

This literal connection to the Nazi party, I would argue, has a societal impact as its use engenders hatred not only towards women of activism, but also towards the Jewish population, the Jewish race should no longer be forced to serve as the scapegoats of society - end the Women's rights movement - but do it for the Jews!

This relation to the fight for equality makes an uneducated and hate-filled person seem knowledgeable as they are relating something we know little about to something we fear - that is a manipulation that should be punished in some way.

Do you see any labels around you? Have you been persuaded in the past based solely on powerful (and/or hateful) rhetoric?

TV Tokenism: In Treatment

For our TV Tokenism project, we are to analyze an image. Here is mine:

And here is another I will use for contrast/comparison:

Analysis:

I believe that the thesis of TV Tokenism still holds true in "In Treatment", an HBO premium cable drama. The reason is that the way in which minority characters are used, through their allotted screen time as well as the type of character's they portray is very similar to the way in which they are portrayed in network drama's. There are a few key differences, though, that may make the phenomena a bit more intense.

First, a little background - the show revolves around a Dr. Paul Weston who runs a psychoanalytic practice out of his apartment, and through seven weeks, it chronicles up to six patients, as well as his own sessions with another psychoanalyst.

Every season so far, only one of the patients has been a minority.

Out of eighteen people so far, only three have been portrayed. This disparity in representation is a relic of the same exclusionary casting principles that we have discussed in class.

Beyond this, the minority characters, specifically the one pictured, "Alex" (portrayed by Blair Underwood) are always depicted as recovering from some horrible, life-altering event. None of the other characters are portrayed this way, as their problems stem from insecurities about body image or failed marriages.

You know, normal people stuff.

The minority characters are not as well represented, and when they are are portrayed as having "abnormal" problems that distance us from the character - I claim that this is a reproduction of the same "tokenist" values as we have talked about.

Short version:
Minority with Minority Problems
Troubled Background
Underprivileged in Contrast
Distancing from Lead

Sources:
1st: http://blog.nj.com/alltv/2008/01/large_intreat-alex.jpg
2nd: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/20/laura.jpg

Answer to David K. Post on Acceptance Without Justificaiton

Another long comment response that could also function as a blog post I believe - read it if you are interested in the debate over constructing the free market .... everything is a construction .. and every action has a justification and a subtextual meaning

David -

First, societal focus is important. It is an integral part of combating the negatives to the human condition. To put this into context, I will supply an analogy. Killing is wrong – we all know this is true – no one person should kill another – if I have to provide warrants for this I quit. Stealing is also wrong – this is another claim I do not think I need to support much to prove true. Absent the criminal justice system, though, it would be impossible to control individual’s incentives to commit these crimes.

The same concept applies to economics. Stealing is wrong – and government regulations are in place to stop people from gaming the system.

We are the only truly industrialized country that does not provide a national healthcare service for all of its citizens. This forces regulations to be put on small businesses that crushes their revenue and makes them fail.

In France, for example, the upper classes are taxed 60 percent of their income (both capital gains and normal income taxes) and the lower classes are taxed near nothing (in fact the lowest common denominator is not taxed at all).

This progressive tax system allows for massive government investment in institutions of education and healthcare that we in the United States desperately need.

It may be easy to see the world through the rose colored glasses of privileged white males such as the cove of entitlement that is the north shore and the politics of Mitt Romney and Co. propose we do – but the education that we are provided is not indicative of that which the rest of the nation is provided.

This may seem like a tangent that does not relate but here is how it supports my argument – in the animal kingdom, the animals that survive are the fastest, the strongest, and the ones with the biggest jaw strengths. In human society however, the ones that survive are the ones with the most money.

The ones that get the most amount of money are the ones that successfully play the system.

I am not saying this is a bad thing; I myself am a free market capitalist (a Keynesian one at that) but when you get to the point that we did in 2008, when derivatives and bundled mortgages (the kind of things that are a result of uncontrolled greed) and the entire economic market fails – you need to take that as a sign that something is massively screwed up.

China is able to compete so well with the United States for two reasons – the first reason is that their government developed programs (from the massively high tax rates that they impose) protect (at the most basic level) their proletariat citizenry, and second because the companies that provide compensation for their workers are not forced to a minimum wage – they have developed a system that feeds off of our exploitation incentivized economic system.

Our founders did not warn us of mob rule - this they warned us against rules that could be instated to favor classes - this is representative of the status quo fetish with protecting the richest, maybe we need some mob rule to straighten us out (1% reference).

Second, the private sector is a machine that's only drive is to make more money - it needs to be regulated because within a world of a single incentive all other issues get thrown to the side - wages, labor rights, working conditions, hierarchies of power, political sway, all of which would be highly infringed upon in a world of solely free market as the golden rule would hold true: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rule".

Your next argument I have already addressed - the idea the free market is the only thing that allows for an increase in the standard of living is fictitious - it relies on an ignorance towards the massive changes that government programs and non-pressurized incentives have created - multiple empirical examples are outlined in the father post.

The difference between the poor and the rich is not the type of car they have; although that would be amazing if that were the case. Take a moment to stop and reflect on the flaws of that one sentence.

The problem with a lack of regulations and government programs is that the poor get exploited and go hungry – half of my own family that lives in Chicago and deals with these problems on a daily basis do not even own a refrigerator, nonetheless a car.

This is the reason that a stable basis for living needs to be established and families of poverty need to be given healthcare, access to government education programs, food programs, and all of these “leviathans” alike. Nice Hobbes reference by the way – although I think he probably supports my side of the argument.

I always find it laughable when people dismiss the New Deal and the Great Depression as the free market fixing itself – please provide a warrant for this – it is just not true.

The great depression is an empirical example of the elimination of the middle class as well as an unregulated greed that crashed the stock market. People were forced to cut their losses and move on, and the New Deal made that possible.

In the most basic sense, sure, taxes are “stealing” and “coercive” – the difference between the government doing it and individuals doing it is in the effect I guess – if you do not like it, please leave society and live on an island somewhere that you bought with the billions of dollars you stole from the middle class in bundled mortgages friend.

If the government puts it into social programs, at least the base standard of living is increased for a vast majority of people – sorry you can’t benefit, but you already have enough cash money.