Let me entertain you...

It seems that a lot of the election news (and politics/Govt news in general) has been packaged as entertainment. Instead of the issues being the most important, a middle name, a flag pin, lipstick on a pig, or the dollar amount of a campaign wardrobe are the latest buzz, comparable to Brittney Spears latest DUI or Lindsay Lohan's latest stint in rehab. The campaigns themselves are discussed as horse races (sporting entertainment events), and politicians (with the help of the mainstream media of course) have even used their family members to create more limelight for themselves.

I feel that the reason for this is cyclical and the politicians, media and viewers are all to blame. The campaign is to blame for perpetuating the negative campaign ads and counter attacks on their running mates that the media picked up and ran with, the media is to blame for choosing to highlight the mindless drivel more so than the real news and we, the citizens, are to blame for being more interested in that sort of information than the important stuff like education reform and foreign policy.

I feel we are very much deprived of a coherent contextual understanding of the world. When we aren't provided with all the information, the media has failed and we have lost. Our right to make educated and informed decisions has all but been ripped from our hands because those responsible for providing said information are not fulfilling the responsibilities of their jobs.

Is that a bum rap? ie)

Did the wisdom of crowds work in this election?

To blog or not to blog...that is the question

Globalization is an integral part to the new millennium and the availability of information a dominant trait in global media. The Internet not only gives us an endless supply of information right at our fingertips, but also gives us the availability to create our own blogs and respond to print journalists opinion pieces in real time. As much as I believe in free speech and the idea that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, more often than not, find these blogs to be very immature, uneducated and negatively charged. Journalists are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard, research information and verify facts before their news ever makes it to print. They have a Code of Ethics and they are responsible for whatever they attach their name to. This is not the case with bloggers and those that respond to opinion pieces in the open forums allowed on the Web. The Average Joe can make claims that are unfounded and say slanderous and libelous things without any consequence whatsoever. These blogs lack the integrity and moral standards that journalism is supposed to stand for.

What is postmodernism?

Postmodernism is the belief that direction, evolution and progression have ended in social history, and society is based instead upon the decline of absolute truths, and the rise of relativity. To me this means that for every positive action there is inevitablly a negative or adverse reaction and therefore postive progress in it's purest form has ceased. For example, progress can be considered curing illness and disease, but a drawback to this progress is overpopulation and all of the negative ramifications that come along with it.

The myth of the maverick

As much as a person may appreciate the idea of the rugged frontiersman, or maverick that they see in Senator McCain, my question is why? Why do we as a nation think we feel safer in the hands of a rancher or war veteran than we do in the hands of a community activist? My opinion may mean nothing, but just because a man can herd cattle, doesn't mean he can run a county...I believe this point has been more than proven in the last eight years. Similarly, just because a man fought in a war, doesn't automatically make him a shoe in for the presidency. I hate to be the one to burst the idealistic bubble of society, but the Old West is dead. We don't need a president to run the county in the prototype of centuries past, we need a president who is rooted in the now and willing to move toward the future. Spurs, saddles and stirrups aren't going to fix the economy or our problems on foriegn soil.

The wisdom of crowds

The wisdom of crowds is considered the average opinion of the group. It cannot be considered a consensus because the end result should not be a compromise of the group. The final opinion will inevitably not be one that everyone agrees with, but a decision made based on all of the independent opinions of the group. The interesting thing about the wisdom of crowds is that it almost always turns out to be correct. This works when guessing how many beans are in a jar but does it work when things aren't so cut and dry? In regards to the current presidential campaigns, for instance, how can we as a "crowd" determine the best candidate and how do we quantify our decision? The election itself is, in a way, a good example of the wisdom of crowds. Crowds must be diverse, independent, decentralized and aggregate and citizens voting in an election are very much these things. The biggest difference is that voting in an election is a private matter and although there is usually much discussion amongst voters leading up to Election Day, they vote for themselves as individuals and not for the group as a whole.

So when it comes to major decisions...those decisions far more important than the number of beans in a jar...is it possible for the wisdom of crowds to work? We see the wisdom of crowds at work every day in the legal system when a jury is picked at random to decide the fate of a defendant and they must all agree on a verdict for it to be legitimate. But how many times are persons wrongfully accused and imprisoned for crimes they did not commit? I feel that there are far too many variables in people's lives that help form who they are and what they believe for the wisdom of crowds to be effective in most real life settings when the desired result is not of a quantitative nature. People are human and to err is human. Big decisions should be made by those best equipped to make them and not by the masses who aren't.

Carl Haissen

Carl Haissen seems to be a very dry sort of fellow. He reminds me a lot of Jimmy Breslin in his quest for getting the truth to the people and trying to promote what he feels is the greater good, but he goes about it very differently than Breslin. Haissen does not play on the heartstrings of the masses in the same way that Mr. Breslin did. While Jimmy took an emotional approach to journalism, Carl takes a very sarcastic, humorous approach to his writing. Haissen feels that"sarcasm and satire are incredibly effective weapons. Politicians don't mind if you get up on a soap box and scream and yell at them. They can take that - but if you're making fun of them that drives them nuts. And that's what I like to do... I love to ruin their day. The more I can humiliate them in print the happier I am. I mean I'm proud of it." I believe he is fueled by political and societal problems, especially those close to home. He seems to be extremely against the development of the Florida Everglades and the destruction of the natural habitats therein. I also believe that his sarcasm and satiristic writing is less effective than Breslin's emotional approach because that style of writing is more difficult to take seriously.

Buying happiness

I feel that Maslow and Aristotle's idea are very similar. "The central issue for Aristotle is the question of character or personality — what does it take for an individual human being to be a good person?" and similarly, Maslow's self-actualization need (which is the highest level a person can reach) is "the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can. Working toward fulfilling our potential, toward becoming all that we are capable of becoming." To be a good person and strive to be the best one can are one in the same.
I don't believe that a person can become their best self simply by buying a certain product. If this were so, we would all be wonderful people and we'd be sitting around the classroom in our Nike's, singing Kume-by-ya and attaining spiritual enlightenment. It just doesn't work that way. The clothes do not make the man!!! It's what's inside that counts and that is where spiritual enlightenment or self-actualization must take place.
I don't think that it's necessarily wrong/unethical to try to sell a product by appealing to a persons deep desire for actual happiness. I think most advertising does this on some level. whether it be a Zale's diamond commercial or Nivea body lotion, most commercials tap into the consumers need for happiness and try to associate their product with finding such happiness.