Our Viewing Tastes Are “Polls” Apart

“Interestingly, the majority of both parties conclude that movies have a liberal bias…”

I was, for a brief time, receiving, for free, this conservative magazine called Newsmax. The February 2012 issue has “How Grover [Norquist] Conquered Washington,” Norquist being the author of the “taxpayer Protection Pledge.” One of the features in that issue reported polls commissioned by the Hollywood Reporter about movies, and the other by Entertainment Weekly about television.

The reported premise is that Democrats like comedies, “at least today’s version of it,” while Republicans prefer reality TV which is, according to an Iowa professor, “the only genre that regularly includes Christian conservatives and treats them like they’re normal.” But Republicans do like the sitcom The Middle.

Conservatives like reality shows on History such as American Pickers (collectibles), Top Shot (shooting challenge), and Only in America with Larry the Cable Guy, while Democrats like the “raunchy” Jersey Shore. The Democrats also like the scripted HBO drama Treme, which shows “sympathy for the underdog.”

In the graphic box, the favorite TV shows of Republicans are Castle, The Biggest Loser, Hawaii Five-O, and The Mentalist, while Democrats prefer 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, Glee, and Cougar Town.

As for movies, Republicans like Secretariat, Chariots of Fire, My Fair Lady, and The Sound of Music, while Democrats prefer Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Kramer vs. Kramer, American Beauty, and Crash (the 2005 version).

“Interestingly, the majority of both parties conclude that movies have a liberal bias…The movie that [both parties] say reflects that left-wing bias most happens to be the biggest blockbuster in history: Avatar.”

I found Chariots of Fire boring, but The Sound of Music has wonderful music. I know some Castle fans who probably aren’t Republicans. And I find it fascinating that the NBC shows that apparently, Dems like (30 Rock, Parks & Rec) haven’t translated to higher ratings.

WTF? Cavemen in America

It’s baffling that some folks seem to have gone all retrograde in America, with particular men deciding when women should get pregnant.

I try not to write about politics too much, I really do, mostly so that I don’t make myself crazy. But a series of related events, which I would not have imagined would be part of the public discourse in the USA in 2012, ARE front-page news.

First, the Republican-led Congress convened a panel of “experts”, most of whom railed against employer insurance plans covering birth control. Interestingly, they happened to be mostly a bunch of guys. The odd thing is that many of these same insurance plans with contraceptive coverage that the panel was railing against will cover Viagra and similar products that will be a sexual aid, even for (gasp!) unmarried men.

So some Democrats allowed Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke to testify from a different perspective, e.g., a woman’s, regarding women’s reproductive health care; LISTEN to her opening statement. Note that Fluke’s comments were primarily about the use of contraceptives for other purposes, such as to avoid ovarian cysts. A windbag named Rush Limbaugh slandered Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute,” then, in response to the outrage of his remarks, exclaimed that he would “buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want.” (It would be off-topic, I suppose, to note that Limbaugh has been married four times and has no children, suggesting at least the possibility of contraception use.) The talk radio guy eventually offered a limp apology after sponsors left his show.

Limbaugh’s comments echoed those of Foster Friess, Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s billionaire supporter: “And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s [so] inexpensive. Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

Santorum, who apparently has distanced himself from Limbaugh’s “slut” comment in an “oh, but he’s an entertainer” remark, talks about “the dangers of contraception”: “Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘… contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay… because…[things in the sexual realm are] supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.” I think Santorum has the perfect right to express his opinion, but my concern is that these issues would likely dominate his policies if he were elected.

If that weren’t enough, the Girl Scouts of America are under attack by some shady group because the GSA has “liberal progressive troop leaders [who] will indoctrinate the girls in their troop according to the principles of Planned Parenthood.” Oy.

It’s baffling that some folks seem to have gone all retrograde in America, with particular men deciding when women should get pregnant, while railing against the number of children born out of wedlock, and wanting to cut funds to them. Or maybe it’s just that these dudes want women to shut the hell up, particularly about issues that primarily impact women. I have to check my calendar. Nope, it’s not 1952. In fact, I don’t think the country was as backward 60 years ago as these folks are today.

The Pregnant Woman, La Donna Gravida by Raphael, 1507

Not Letting the Truth Get in the Way

You know that old cliche about you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts? I guess that depends on whether it’s politically expedient.

I’m an old political science major. I appreciate differing points of view on the issues. I even solicit varying positions by reading a mix of publications. But what’s been going on in US politics is not that anymore. Reading this article, originally from the Guardian (UK), called The Right’s Stupidity Spreads, Enabled by a Too-Polite Left, I was particularly fascinated by this section:

Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum, and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that “conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics”. The result is a “shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology” which has “ominous real-world consequences for American society”.

Lofgren complains that “the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today”. The Republican party, with its “prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science” is appealing to what he calls the “low-information voter”, or the “misinformation voter”. While most office holders probably don’t believe the “reactionary and paranoid claptrap” they peddle, “they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base”.

And, it’s not that I wasn’t already generally aware of this. But it does confirm that I’m not totally crazy.

I’m watching ABC News This Week a couple of Sundays ago. Someone, I think it was Austin Goolsby, President Obama’s former economic czar, who was talking about the economic recovery. He noted that it might be going even better if we hadn’t lost jobs in the public sector. And some conservative woman rolls her eyes and says, “Yeah, right.”

Well, yeah, right. In a Bureau of Labor Statistics report citing the drop in the unemployment rate from 8.5% to 8.3%, it read: Over the past 12 months, the [public] sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service.

This is also an interesting read: “Among the people who saw this [economic] crisis coming was the conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, the supply-side champion who wrote the manifesto for the Reagan Revolution… Yet for all those credentials, he is today an outcast from the very conservative ranks where he was once so influential. That’s because Bruce Bartlett dared to write a book criticizing the second George Bush as a pretend conservative who slashed taxes but still spent with wild abandon.” Watch and/or read the interview about Where the Right Went Wrong.

Do you know that old cliche about you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts? I guess that depends on whether it’s politically expedient. And it does explain folks such as Donald Trump promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US or tweeting in October 2011 that the freak snowstorm was proof that man-made climate change is, in the words of the article, “an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy,” or that “the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.”

Worse, though, for this librarian is the egregious ignoring of factual evidence, by creating pseudoscience and ignoring facts (Obama DID provide his “long-form” birth certificate) for political gain.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

There will be a Presidential inauguration one year from tomorrow

What about a third party?

I remember reading in someone’s blog late last year, “Please give me someone else to vote for besides Barack Obama.” It was a plea to the US Republican party regarding the November 2012 Presidential election. So far, that wish has not come true. The Republican base’s fear of Mitt Romney, I believe, is well-founded; his positions seem to follow the wind. The flaws of the rest of the field are too numerous, too exhausting to mention, but certainly including their collective racial polarization, Rick Perry’s sheer ignorance of even his own position on issues, and Newt Gingrich’s hubris.

This is not that I’m that enamored by the incumbent. There are all of the campaign promises he made that not only did not fulfill, he went 180. The recently-signed legislation which would deny suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention are among the elements that are terrifying to me. But which of his opponents would have taken a different position?

Andrew Sullivan, of all people, does note some of Obama’s accomplishments. I am happy about some of the President’s positions, notably gay rights, and remain cautiously hopeful about the outcome of SOPA. Also like some fun innovations of his administration such as this one.

What about a third party? There’s this mysterious Americans Elect, which is getting on the ballot in a number of states. Since there is no candidate (yet), it’s really difficult for me to gauge what its impact will be. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the nominee is appealing to me, I would have to still weigh the notion of whether the candidate could win enough electoral votes nationally to win, or at least not give the race to someone worse. Since no third party has EVER won the US Presidency, because of the way the system is rigged, it would make it difficult to select that candidate, no matter how attractive.

Meanwhile, I Wish I Had a Super PAC of my own.

It’ll be an interesting year.
***
Belated happy birthday to the FLOTUS, who turned 48 on Tuesday.

 

Guano crazy candidates QUESTION

Only recently have I realized that Herman Cain is also guano crazy.

For seven years out of eight years (2002-2007, 2009), we had at least one live bat in our house. The problem seems to finally be solved by roof insulation and fixing some gaps between the roof and the main house structure. One of the telltale signs you have a bat, even if you don’t see it: guano, which means bat poop.

I was talking about some of the candidates for President with my wife, and I was divvying them up between those with whom I merely oppose politically and those who I called “guano crazy”. I don’t know if I had made up that phraseology, or stole it from someone unconsciously, but I’ve become rather fond of it.

The question: among those who have announced that they are running, which candidates do you consider guano crazy? Democracy for America is running a poll, asking, among the Republicans: Who do you think would make the worst President? When I took the poll a few days ago, Rick Perry had a clear plurality of the votes cast, with over 40% of the vote, followed by Michelle Bachmann (c. 25%), Mitt Romney, and Herman Cain.

I would consider Perry to be guano crazy. His disastrous debates, when he decides to be too clever, but it backfires, as he mangles his narrative badly.

Michelle Bachmann is quite guano crazy as well, confusing both her American geographic history (Concord, NH is not THE Concord of Lexington and Concord, MA), but her rock and roll history (celebrating Elvis’ birthday on Elvis’ death day).

Only recently have I realized that Herman Cain is also guano crazy if he believes that it’s primarily the unemployed’s fault that they are without jobs. Santorum (don’t Google that word!) is guano, crazily trying to get Google to change its algorithms to keep him from being embarrassed, a situation he largely brought on himself through his bigotry.

Whereas, Huntsman, Romney, Buddy Roemer (who doesn’t even get to appear in the debates), I merely tend to disagree with. Gingrich checks the weather and takes whatever position he believes will be most popular; a snake. Ron Paul, I totally agree with about 10% of the time, but then he keeps talking.

Keep in mind that one of the guanos could be the next Vice-President if he or she doesn’t get the Prez nod. And don’t underestimate the ABR (Anyone But Romney) factor, which might make one of them the standard-bearer for the party in November 2012.

Ramblin' with Roger
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial