McCain/Obama to suspend attack ads on 9/11

[Pangloss]

Interesting piece in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082000065.html

 

"Nine-eleven is not a day for politics," [McCain spokesman Brian] Rogers said.

 

"We hope Sept. 11th is a day when Americans come together and reaffirm our resolve to address the common challenges we face together," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said.

 

I think that's a good move.

[bascule]

I prefer the South Park / Daily Show approach of making as much light of 9/11 as possible. As far as national tragedies go it's pretty much a ton of hype and very little substance.

 

I can understand the rationale for Obama and McCain avoiding it. Possibly a little something called "political correctness"...

[CPL.Luke]

As far as national tragedies go it's pretty much a ton of hype and very little substance.

 

 

being the largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor and the largest attack on U.S. civilian populations in the nations history makes it a little bit more than just a little substance

 

 

granted the way it was manipulated by our political process later was rather discusting.

[bascule]

being the largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor and the largest attack on U.S. civilian populations in the nations history makes it a little bit more than just a little substance

 

Perhaps I should've said comparatively little substance. That said, here's a little perspective:

 

440,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking every year, despite the fact that many of the most potent carcinogens in cigarettes are preventable. That's the equivalent of 160 9/11s every single year.

 

1.67 9/11s worth of Americans have died in Iraq since 9/11.

 

I don't mean to downplay the lives that were lost in 9/11. Thousands of innocent civilians needlessly lost their lives. But at this point the whole thing is so ridiculously overblown that we've lost focus of things that really matter.

[Pangloss]

It's cool, I didn't take it that way and I don't think Luke really did either. I think it's a good point about relative dangers and 9/11 does get overblown sometimes, and IMO part of the reason why it's so significant is because of the perception that it was significant. It's not just a domestic impact, either. It could be argued that 9/11 has had more impact on international foreign policy issues (foreign policy issues of all countries) than any other single event since WW2.

 

None of which has anything to do with whether McCain and Obama should suspend their attack ads on the anniversary, of course.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, why pursue crime? Why get all worked up about substance free ridiculously overblown crap like rape, assault, theft, home invasion, child molestation? As long as something is comparatively worse, then anything less has "comparatively little substance". Let's make fun of little kids getting raped and buried by grown men, that's what southpark would do right?

 

being the largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor and the largest attack on U.S. civilian populations in the nations history makes it a little bit more than just a little substance

 

 

granted the way it was manipulated by our political process later was rather discusting.

 

The way it was manipulated by our leaders is exactly WHY people like bascule don't want to respect any significance to 9/11. They resent the drama associated with it because they think it's the drama's fault that Bush got us into Iraq. It's not. The drama and sympathy are quite appropriate. The problem, again, was people who are unable to separate the drama from calm, logical reasoning. They "fell" for Iraq, aided by the drama, because we americans invest heavily into emotional logic. The drama itself didn't do it, we let it cloud our judgement - we the people did it.

 

 

 

To the OP. I'm cool with the same attack ads on 9/11. Why not? I'm sure there will be plenty of murder on TV that day and this is "comparatively" less substative.

Edited August 21, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

The way it was manipulated by our leaders is exactly WHY people like bascule don't want to respect any significance to 9/11.

That doesn't appear to be a fair assessment of Bascule's actual position. I believe you are correct that it is the way it's been manipulated and used to play the populace like violins which has caused reactions like his, but I don't believe his reaction is accurately described as not wanting "to respect any significance to 9/11."

 

 

 

To the OP. I'm cool with the same attack ads on 9/11. Why not? I'm sure there will be plenty of murder on TV that day and this is "comparatively" less substative.

 

With me, I find myself wondering why we should pretend to be something we're not. We do attack ads all other days of the year. Wouldn't a better approach be to not do them at all, instead of this ridiculously vacuous sentiment of just "avoiding them on 9/11" out of respect? How about we show ourselves some respect and be mature enough to see what such approaches are doing to us as a nation and a culture.

[ParanoiA]

With me, I find myself wondering why we should pretend to be something we're not. We do attack ads all other days of the year. Wouldn't a better approach be to not do them at all, instead of this ridiculously vacuous sentiment of just "avoiding them on 9/11" out of respect? How about we show ourselves some respect and be mature enough to see what such approaches are doing to us as a nation and a culture.

 

I do appreciate your point here. Someone told me today that negative ads "play to the psychology of what one will lose" whereas positive ads "play to the psychology of what one will gain". So, I can see a place for those. But attack ads? I'm not sure they contribute anything meaningful to the process at all. And you're quite right, why not demand some respect for ourselves and never run them?

 

It's just too bad they work.

 

Someone else made the point that the usual 40% for one guy and 40% for the other guy never change - it's the 20% in the middle - the swing vote. Nothing new there, except I believe that it's that 20% that isn't as educated on the issues and involved in the political process to know better - I think that's why attack ads work, they play to the ignorant.

 

Which is also what bothers me about "Rock the Vote" and other promotions of empowering the ignorant. If you're not going to participate in the republic and be responsible with your judgement and attempt to educate yourself on what's going on, then don't participate at all.

 

To choose willfull ignorance, but show up on voting day is akin to declining to help bake the cake but showing up to eat it. I seem to recall a children's tale of the sort....

[iNow]

Since you brought up "Rock the Vote," I think it's important to note that they are, at least, trying to lift people out of their ignorance and apathy as opposed to manipulating that ignorance and apathy to sway votes toward some specific candidate. They are drumming up interest, fanning the flames of a grassroots level passion and energy, and are bringing new people to the suffrage table. I find that to be vastly better than further pulling the wool over the eyes of the sheep and drumming up archaic and discriminatory fears and anxieties to "trick" them into some predetermined action or selection.

 

Your other points, however, all make quite a lot of sense and are unfortunately very true.

[ParanoiA]

Since you brought up "Rock the Vote," I think it's important to note that they are, at least, trying to lift people out of their ignorance and apathy as opposed to manipulating that ignorance and apathy to sway votes toward some specific candidate. They are drumming up interest, fanning the flames of a grassroots level passion and energy, and are bringing new people to the suffrage table. I find that to be vastly better than further pulling the wool over the eyes of the sheep and drumming up archaic and discriminatory fears and anxieties to "trick" them into some predetermined action or selection.

 

Your other points, however, all make quite a lot of sense and are unfortunately very true.

 

I would prefer everyone participate in the republic, rather than leave the wool over the eyes of the sheep but have to disagree that it's vastly better. Rock the Vote should be year around, everyday. To promote the suffrage part, but ignore the responsibile lead up to that, is entirely wrong and suspicious. Talk about scams. We put all of this energy at cherry picked times of suffrage, and stay quiet the rest of the time. That almost sounds like a promotion of ignorance, let alone enablement.

 

I don't think any of us would stand for a representative that stays disconnected from everything political except when congress is ready to vote on something and then they suddenly show up to cast a vote. This is law and not to be taken lightly - we all have to live with that decision. And since we are a republic, people have a duty to participate and we really can't afford mass ignorance the way other governments can.

[iNow]

Rock the Vote should be year around, everyday...

<snip>

 

We put all of this energy at cherry picked times of suffrage, and stay quiet the rest of the time.

I'm curious what leads you to believe that this is the case, and that it's not a year round effort.

[ParanoiA]

I'm curious what leads you to believe that this is the case, and that it's not a year round effort.

 

Because I'm interfaced with pop culture as much as anyone else and I don't hear "rock the vote" until it's time to vote. The places I hear "rock the vote" crap, don't talk about politics at all except when there's an election. And it seems reasonable they wouldn't talk about politics on a rock station - and unreasonable that they suddenly do, come election time.

 

Either participate in the process or don't - but half assed is the worst contribution of all. And that goes for just about anything in life.

[iNow]

That's cool. I appreciate your point. I was more thinking that they ARE involved year round doing different things, but you tend to only HEAR about it as a non-involved person separate from their community around election time since that's when they ramp up their efforts the most.

 

It's not like they sit around for 3 and a half years doing other things and then go, "Oh crap! It's time for another election. We need to get up off the couch." It's just that those are the times they are most heavily marketing and when volunteers get more involved. Just like a company... you don't run full manufacturing when demand is low... you keep doing the necessary things and try new approaches, and then when demand goes up you ramp up staff levels and output...

 

Again, though... I totally agree with your point about people being more aware, more attuned to the process, and the need for real engagement with the populace instead of some sugar coated "I pull a lever once every four years and don't care one ioata about it at other times" approach.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't hear "rock the vote" until it's time to vote. The places I hear "rock the vote" crap, don't talk about politics at all except when there's an election.

 

 

Well, they ARE, in fact, called "Rock the Vote," so of course one should presume that elections are sort of their thing, don'tcha think? I mean, they're not called "Rock the Wake up and Go to Work" or "Rock the it's time to feed myself again."

 

 

<sorry, couldn't resist>

[ParanoiA]

Much of my attitude on this comes from the belief that we americans are more responsible for our government then we like to believe. The power comes from us, and we are a representative democratic system so the power of the individual is as overt and fully vested as can be. Because of that, I see our individual responsibility as equally accountable. So, I tend to be somewhat militant about it.

 

All of your points are well founded and pluralized here, I'm sure. But, given my grounding here, it should be obvious that I'm naturally going to resist anything that seems to undermine that responsibility and accountability. Rock the Vote, and similar campaigns are just ugly to me because they only promote one dynamic, one piece of the process - and it seems to be the "lazy man's" piece - just show up and vote with your gut, kinda thing.

 

So, while it's understandable that Rock the Vote would be appropriate over "Rock the Wake up and go to work" since elections are likely their thing, it's ultimately indefensible, to me anyway, since elections should not be their only thing - their very mission statement is out of whack with my philosophy.

 

And with that, let me say that I need to "Rock the it's time to feed myself again" as it's lunch time and I'm starving.

 

 

 

Edit: I'm such an idiot. I could have summarized all that by saying that I'd rather see "Rock the Republic", all the damn time.

Edited August 22, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Much of my attitude on this comes from the belief that we americans are more responsible for our government then we like to believe. The power comes from us, and we are a representative democratic system so the power of the individual is as overt and fully vested as can be. Because of that, I see our individual responsibility as equally accountable.

Again, I couldn't agree more, I just felt your target was somewhat misplaced.

 

 

Edit: I'm such an idiot. I could have summarized all that by saying that I'd rather see "Rock the Republic", all the damn time.

 

I was thinking of "Rock our Governance" before I posted the silly examples above, futher evidence that you and I are really on the same page with the exception of the example in use to portray the absence of true engagement in the populace.

 

 

 

To everyone... I'm not sure the below is an "attack." It's a matter of fact. Please watch and let me know what you think.

 

[bascule]

Yeah, why pursue crime? Why get all worked up about substance free ridiculously overblown crap like rape, assault, theft, home invasion, child molestation? As long as something is comparatively worse, then anything less has "comparatively little substance".

 

It's not a boolean decision. We can work on several problems at the same time. But we really need to keep things in perspective.

 

Over 3,000 Americans die of drowning every year. That's worse than 9/11 every single year. But where's the constant media coverage on drowning? Why isn't it a part of the national dialogue?

 

Over 450,000 Americans die of heart disease every year. How much does heart disease enter into the national dialogue? Shouldn't it receive two orders of magnitude more coverage than 9/11?

 

Our priorities are severely misplaced. Hundreds of thousands of people die each year from preventable causes, and we're still babbling some 7 years later about how 2,700 Americans died in 9/11. Preventing terrorism should be a lower national priority than preventing heart disease.

[Pangloss]

Not that this is exactly the same subject as what you two were talking about above, but I'm actually okay with partisan efforts (ostensibly partisan) to get out the vote. Two reasons: First, because partisanship is not a transferable property -- it's a developed interest (meaning new voters could easily change their minds, and besides, hell hath no fury like a voter scorned). And second, nobody lacks for a communication channel with the national candidates, so if your message is correct it should make no difference if you're facing a slightly larger number of voters to persuade.

 

Our priorities are severely misplaced. Hundreds of thousands of people die each year from preventable causes, and we're still babbling some 7 years later about how 2,700 Americans died in 9/11. Preventing terrorism should be a lower national priority than preventing heart disease.

 

Well, paying attention to 9/11 hasn't stopped hundreds of new drugs from being released, or plenty of other improvements in society. And it's pretty obvious that we wouldn't have solved most of those problems even if we hadn't had 9/11 to deal with.

[bascule]

Well, paying attention to 9/11 hasn't stopped hundreds of new drugs from being released, or plenty of other improvements in society. And it's pretty obvious that we wouldn't have solved most of those problems even if we hadn't had 9/11 to deal with.

 

Huh? What drugs have we developed and what problems have we solved thanks to 9/11?

[ParanoiA]

Over 3,000 Americans die of drowning every year. That's worse than 9/11 every single year. But where's the constant media coverage on drowning? Why isn't it a part of the national dialogue?

 

Because it's not all at once and it's not (usually) done at the hands of another malicious human.

 

Over 450,000 Americans die of heart disease every year. How much does heart disease enter into the national dialogue? Shouldn't it receive two orders of magnitude more coverage than 9/11?

 

It does. And it was in my face long before 9/11.

 

Our priorities are severely misplaced. Hundreds of thousands of people die each year from preventable causes, and we're still babbling some 7 years later about how 2,700 Americans died in 9/11. Preventing terrorism should be a lower national priority than preventing heart disease.

 

I agree here. I think it's because we differentiate wicked acts by humans from wicked acts by natural forces. Maybe it's because we think human malevolence is more preventable and senseless than biological fatalities - of course it's not, the opposite would appear true most of the time. But it's a statement about our demands on morality, more than a statement about our stupidity.

 

Doesn't change the fact though that we should be far more focused and tenacious about cancer, heart disease, etc. If those deaths were caused by terrorism, we'd have trillions going to destroy them.

[Pangloss]

Huh? What drugs have we developed and what problems have we solved thanks to 9/11?

 

I neither said nor suggested anything of the kind.

 

I don't think you're entirely wrong about our priorities being misplaced, but I think you're throwing out a straw man in saying that other inquiries have been harmed. As you say, we can do both, but my point is that we have.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

You know, I actually had a similar response to Bascule, but just re-read your quote and realized that you were saying it was not 9/11 which prevented those things from being resolved.

 

That is, however, a rather difficult position to support (as is the other side of the issue).

[Pangloss]

You know, I actually had a similar response to Bascule, but just re-read your quote and realized that you were saying it was not 9/11 which prevented those things from being resolved.

 

That is, however, a rather difficult position to support (as is the other side of the issue).

 

I agree there's been an impact -- we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars that should never have been printed in the first place (much less spent elsewhere). I'm sure some items that were priorities in 2001 became less so.

 

But what has the NSF budget done since 2001? Grown or shrank? I don't know, do you?

 

How many new drugs have come out? Other medical breakthroughs? How many new car designs, new computer technology, new engineering feats?

 

We do both. I suggest that what has suffered is the national debt, not science or "problem solving" or what have you.

 

Edit: Come to think on it, I think Ashcroft was about to embark on a new "War on Pornography" on the day 9/11 happened. I guess that could be seen as an example of what Bascule is talking about.

[bascule]

I think you're throwing out a straw man in saying that other inquiries have been harmed.

 

I'm not saying they're being harmed, I'm saying they're not receiving the attention they deserve, and 9/11 and terrorism have received considerably more attention than they deserve.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not saying they're being harmed, I'm saying they're not receiving the attention they deserve, and 9/11 and terrorism have received considerably more attention than they deserve.

 

To split hairs...you could actually make a case about the value of attention to fatalities by biological versus human causes. If I put X amount of resources into biologically caused death and I get a resultant gain of human lives saved = Y, but putting X amount of resources into human caused death gives me an even greater gain of Y, then it might make sense to invest more heavily into human caused death.

 

Obviously, I have no idea if that's the case, but if you're going to be purely logically driven here, with no appeal to emotion or moral obligation having any value, then follow the logic to its logical ends.

 

Do I get more human life, per pound of attention, from combating biological killers or anthropic killers?

 

I could see someone making a case that doubling a police force in a given area could cause violent death to drop, whereas that same investment in cancer research yields nothing.