Be-Think [Please visit BeThink.org]

Consumer Confidence Rises; Democracy Declines

March 21, 2007: Benjamin Barber explains why consumer culture is bad for humanity copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org Great News!  The good life will soon return to America.  Auspiciously, months before the holiday shopping season began, Americans were told that after more than a year of fiscal recession, or what some have characterized as akin to an economic depression, consumers were optimistic.  The confidence  index and other indicators were much improved.  Manufacturing executives assured the public, the engine that drives the free enterprise system was in a "sustainable recovery mode." In the very near future, products, and people's sense of need, would be fabricated again. Everything will be right with the world, economically.  Few feared the threat that, long ago, Americans had come to accept.   The foundation of a democratic system had eroded in favor of consumption.

Egalitarianism had been so swiftly and subtly replaced by free enterprise, only a small number observed what had occurred.  Mostly, Americans were out in the marketplace, the malls, or in the halls of their homes contemplating what else they might buy.  The Declaration of Independence, the document that calls for equality could not be seen amongst the clutter.  People in this Capitalist country do not necessarily ponder the contradiction.  Satisfied and secure in the belief "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".  The purpose of government is to protect these rights.  No, in the United States there have been and are more important concerns to consider.  

Citizens are certain the central concern is, "How might I retain my right to buy goods and services?"

The oft-heard answer: manufacturing.  American industry and individuals must invent and invest in expansion.  The United States must produce products to sell.  People to serve the needs of purchasers are also indispensable. The need to fabricate an adequate supply, and the staff vital to support it, will increase employment.  Jobs will provide workers with greater purchasing power.  Expenditure will generate profits.  Proceeds provide a gain that can then be invested in manufacturing.  The only missing component in this cycle is perchance the most crucial, promotion.  In America, we, the people, have allowed our selves to be manufactured.  Citizens are no longer the government; they are customers.

Toddlers, teens, twenty, thirty and forty something's are taught just as earlier generations were,  for an industrialized country to thrive consumers must "feel" confident.  An apprehensive public needs to be convinced it is safe and sane to buy.  Thus, patrons are told they can pay later.  No money need be placed down.  Credit can be arranged.  Long-term loans are available, and why not take advantage.  Americans have been given ample confirmation debt will not destroy them or our "democracy."

Besides, banks built empires on binge spending and received billions in bailouts.   The country and Capitalism did not collapse.  The economic crisis was but an ephemeral blip.

Fiscal institutions and  financial advisers assuage Americans; there is bad debt and good debt.  Borrowing has its benefits, a new sofa, a sweet set of wheels, and a sensational home.  Damn democracy, social equality, the homeless persons alongside the road, and those without health care coverage.  Full speed, or better said, a shopping spree is ahead.

As a barrage of information built on the argument, the economy is stable, buyers began to believe.  Indeed, faith in the American free enterprise system was born long ago.

Birth of a Notion 
Adam Smith introduced an idea. "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer." Later Economists expanded on and extrapolated from the original theory.  Then, early in the twentieth century,Edward Bernays, the father of Public Relations maximized the maxim, much to the delight of American manufacturers., such as the architect of the assembly line, Henry Ford, and the originator of the premise, "planned obsolescence," Alfred P. Sloan.

Together, this team of 20th century tycoons converted what had been the crawl from a reluctant consumer to a abundantly content and avid trot.  In America, babies were not born, shoppers were.  These gents understood that if companies were to create a commitment to covet, it would take time, talk, and constant titillation.  Consumers are as children.  Advertisers must hold the hand of potential customer and teach them the lessons and language; what you think is only a want is truly a necessity.  

Radio and television broadcasters must also encourage expenditures.  Periodicals must print the message. Peers will surely support Capitalist principles, as will those Representatives who are well financed by free marketers.  "As consumption goes, so goes the American economy."

Economic Expansion Energized 
By Thanksgiving eve, with Black Friday just round the bend, bargain hunters had become sufficiently encouraged.  There were signs that consumers and the Commerce Department were sanguine.  Buoyed by the numbers the Labor Department released, retailers trusted there was reason for holiday cheer. "Unemployment benefits slidto 466,000 last week"  Initial claims for state unemployment benefits slid to 466,000 last week, the lowest in more than a year, from 501,000 the prior week. It was the fourth straight weekly decline and the first time since January that claims dipped below 500,000."

The evidence was in.  U.S. durable goods orders were up in August.  Granted, the government's "cash-for-clunkers" program spurred consumers to spend more on major purchases. Similarly, the $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time homebuyers helped revitalize housing sales.  Nevertheless, what truly drove the American people was manufactured and purchased long ago.  Citizens are nothing but customers. The American people have come to resign themselves to a manufactured reality.  Government is not of, by, or for the people; it is the rival.  Today, the population professes, Administrations do not protect our rights.  The public protests, imposed rules and regulations deny the common folk the birthright to acquire.

History; Democracy on the Decline 
It all began back in the day, in 1776, to be specific.   Not only did the acclaimed Adam Smith present his political economic essays in The Wealth of Nations the American Declaration of Independence was signed, sealed, and delivered.  Author Adam Smith, the oft-acclaimed engineer of a free market system, or more fully his followers, gave birth to a notion that self-interest is a superior mission.   Hence, whilst our forefathers worked to give birth to a democratic nation, one in which egalitarian principles are prominent, those who espouse entrepreneurial ethics endeavored to ensure that free enterprise ruled.

Indeed, tis true; Adam Smith advocated for independent thought and deed.  He, however, was also a believer in the greater good.  He understood and advanced a need for government.  Yet, free-trade Economists such as David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, as well as tempter Edward Bernays, and tycoons Henry Ford, and Alfred P. Sloan promoted for a further cultural shift. Businesses must manufacturer consumers, and so they did.

Purveyors pursued the public.  People were persuaded to purchase.  The American populace became nothing but pawns.  The common folk are not forced to buy; they are only constantly coaxed to believe wants are needs.  Equal representation and freedom to choose has been converted to Capitalism.  Adult have been infantilized.  Mature Moms, Dads, men, and women say, "Give me.  Give me.  Give me."

Shoppers Succumb. Economic Strength Expands Again 
Buyers trust; they can have all they want.  Prosperity was the dream, the undertaking, and indeed, in American, affluence is the way of life.  We ponder it, produce it, and protect policies that will promote it.

Educated elders, Economists, and elected officials expound; if businesses are bestowed with the freedom to bring in new revenue, bliss will be ours today, tomorrow, and for time in eternity.

Wealth will be shared equally amongst all our citizens, or at least the opportunity to acquire; to aspire, to ascend, towards the American Dream will be possible.  We only need to begin to buy again.  Economic experts, just as everyday commoners trust in the Capitalist system of consumption, and why not.  In this country the constant refrain is "Capitalism is the worst economic system  . . . except for all the others that have been tried."

With this thought in mind, it is easy to ignore history.  We need not reflect upon the seventeen recessions and world crisis' since The Great Depression.  In this North American continent, forever, we have faith; we are constantly "turning a corner?"  Perhaps we are.  Americans have moved back to the future.

Back to a Boom and Bust future ' 
'Without regard for the existing recession, nor the threat of a deeper Depression, citizens brush aside the words of woe and warning.  Mindful of the messages massaged by the powerful few, who control the media, the former Vice President Albert Gore observed television covers trivial excess.  In his latest book, The Assault on Reason, Mister Gore acknowledged American democracy "is in danger of being hollowed out," as are the brains of buyers who know what they want.  Good news?

The summer doldrums gave way to greater news.   Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke affirmed there is raison d'être for bliss; "Even though from a technical perspective the recession is very likely over at this point."  

Finally, Americans can muse once, twice, or thrice more; assembly lines with accolades to Henry Ford, will hum again.  The nation's most powerful tool, mass manufacturing, will ensure near full employment. "Planned obsolescence," a tribute to Alfred P. Sloan, will still serve as the old reliable economic engine.  The "need" for newer, better, or the best will bring mighty manufacturers new business. The time to consume is once again upon us.   Indeed, Edward Bernays ensured that the free enterprise Adam Smith advanced, and David Ricardo with assistance from John Start Mills enhanced would create an American culture of coveters..  

Hence, as US Novelist William Faulkner observed  "The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."  What was is ever-present in our lives.  

The economic downturn has required Americans to adopt what is difficult for those accustomed to endless shopping sprees to accept, self-control, and a sense of being part of a broader society.  While from appearances, in the near term, it would seem the people have been easily able to reduce spending in truth, consumers lie in wait,hopeful that this recession too shall pass.

Economic Past is Ever Present 
For a short while Americans were given an opportunity to ponder the predicament, people began to save., The electorate believed that economic debt and emotional deficits could no longer be endured.  Fiscal frugality had become the favored fashion in America.  "Reluctance to spend had become the legacy of the recession."  Citizens had said, countless decades of spending in excess of earnings must cease. Protests could be heard; government cannot continue to print more paper to cover corporate creditors arrears.  Our countrymen must no longer rely on credit.

During the height of the fiscal crisis, Americans looked to the country's core value. Social equality, as delineated in the Declaration of Independence, was finally thought to be the more attractive commodity.  However, its appeal was short-lived.  Democracy could not compete with more tangible temptations. Ultimately, citizens, consumers, surrendered to their concrete desires.  

News reports serve to reassure restless shoppers.  Advertisers did as well.  Earlier in the year, whilst mechanized factories stood silent and still, merchants remained hard at work, Businesses continued to manufacturer customers.  Commercials sustained America's shared awareness. "Buy. Buy. Buy!"  The people confidently did.

Capitalism; The Credible Crucible 
Indeed, for the first time since the recession began more businesses planned to hire workers rather than fire employees.  There seemed to be ample reason to hope.  

Some Economists stated there will be strong growth in 2010.  Existing Home Sales in the United States Jumped.  Prices fell. Home Depot announced profits were better than analyst estimates. Luxury retailer, Saks Fifth Avenue, whose clientele was once thought immune to severe recessionary slumps, beat the street.  All around, earnings were surprisingly strong.  Principles planted firmly in Americans collective consciousness assure us we will be fine.  

It is as Adam Smith proclaimed. The notion of the free enterprise system, works. Every individual is led by an invisible hand to achieve do the best of his or her abilities. However, poverty is not necessarily reduced.  Prosperity does not consistently or evenly grow,  Innovation is and is not encouraged' and social and moral progress is evident only for the elite and entrepreneurs.  

What is true, Statistics say one thing, citizens say another.

The numbers may make obvious a need to save.  Nonetheless, consumers covet and cling to the idea that what they want is truly what they need .  Accolades to Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mills, and most assuredly to Henry Ford, Alfred P. Sloan, and the maestro Edward Bernays, the mastermind behind a Century of Self

With thanks to these theorists and tycoons, consumers are happy to ignore Unemployment rates of 10.2 percent of Americans in October.  Certain that the economy will rebound, consumers will  just shop until they drop.

Black Friday, the holiday shopping season will be blissful.  Customers will remain confident and content  All will be right with the world. Capitalism will be stable, secure, and the economic system of free enterprise will endure. Only the underlying principles of Democracy will be lost. What a small price to pay.

References for Recession and Reason . . .' 

• The Great Recession versus the Great Depression, By Paul Krugman.  The New York Times. March 20,2009
• Rapid Declines in Manufacturing Spread Global Anxiety, By Nelson D. Schwartz.  The New York Times. March 19, 2009
• Consumer Confidence Improves in August, Reports The Conference Board.  The Conference Board Incorporated. August 26, 2009
• Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776.  Presented by The Avalon Project.  Yale University.
• As consumption goes, so goes the American economy. ?By L. Josh Bivens.  Economic Policy Institute. March 19, 2008
• Edward Bernays, 'Father of Public Relations' And Leader in Opinion Making, Dies at 103, The New York Times. March 10, 1995
• Consumer, labor data buoy optimism on recovery, By Mark Felsenthal and Richard Leong. Reuters. November 25, 2009
• U.S. Economy: Existing Home Sales Jump as Prices Fall.  Bloomberg. November 23, 2009
• Timeline of 17 Recessions and World Crises Since Great Depression. y Blain Reinkensmeyer.  Stock Trading.
• Saks CEO: Luxury Consumer 'Still a Little Bit Shell-Shocked', By Matt Phillips.  Wall Street Journal. November 17, 2009
• society and the "invisible hand." Encyclopedia Britannica.
• Democracy, Free Enterprise, and Confidence, By William A. Reinsch.  US Department of State.June 11, 2008
• Declaration of Independence.  Archiving Early America.
• Unemployment rate rises to 10.2%,  By Don Lee and Jim Puzzanghera.  The Los Angeles Times. November 7, 2009
• Capitalism's Fault Lines, By Jonathon Rauch.  The New York Times. May 17, 20098
• Home Depot cautious despite profit beat, stock off. Reuters. November 17, 2009
• Saks beats Street with surprise profit.  Reuters. November 17, 2009
• More companies plan to hire rather than cut worker,By Paul Dabvidson.  USA Today.  October 27, 2009
• Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory. By Will Springer.  Heritage and Culture.  January 27, 2005
• David Ricardo and On Liberty. By John Stuart Mill.  P.F. Collier & Son Copyright 1909
• U.S. Economy Began to Grow Again in 3rd Quarter. By Catherine Rampell.  The New York Times.  October 30, 2009
• Turning a Corner?   The New York Times. July 2, 2009
• Whose Recession is Over? Not Obama's.  National Public Radio. October 30, 2009
• The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index ® Bounces Back.  The Conference Board Incorporate. August 25, 2009
• Fed Chief Says Recession Is 'Very Likely Over', By Stephen Labaton.  The New York Times. September 16, 2009
• U.S. durable goods orders seen up in August.  Reuters.  Washington Post. September 25, 2009
• U.S. Economy: Durable Goods Orders Unexpectedly Drop (Update1), By Timothy R. Homan and Bob Willis.  Bloomberg. September 25, 2009
• Americans Cut Back Sharply on Spending, By Michael Barbaro and Louis Uchitelle.  The New York Times. January 14, 2008
• Henry Ford. Builders and Titans.  Time.
• Dynamic Obsolescence.  West of Laramie.
• Edward Bernays; 1915.  The Museum of Public Relations.
• Century of Self.  British Broadcasting Company.  April - May 2002
• The Basics; Good debt versus bad debt. Submitted by BankRate.  MSNBC Money
• Robert Kiyosaki Good Debt Vs Bad Debt

Fear Factor; The Telephone Rings in the White House?

US Democrats - Walter Mondale 1984 Video 10

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

A telephone fills the screen. The deep blood red hue warns us war is eminent. Little light shines on the barely visible instrument. The tone is ominous and foretells the future. The audience is aware there is trouble in the world. Slowly, the table turns. A yellow bulb in the center of this contrivance communicates doom. It glows and pulsates. We concentrate on the orb shaped object squarely in the center. The dominance of this display is foreboding. Our future is in the hands of the person who picks up the receiver. The question reverberates through our mind. Who will we place in this most powerful position?

Americans are familiar with the symbol and the stories attached to this crimson contraption. With a word, the leader of the world's superpower can commit this country to war. Perchance, the voice on the other end of the line will inform the President of the United States, we have been attacked. No matter what is said or done, citizens in this country recognize the dire circumstances.

In cinematography circles, the term is mis-en-scene. An auteur creates the scene, sets the stage, and decides what is essential to communicate. A desired message is maximized. The method and manner in which a communiqué is delivered can manipulate a made-up mind. The choice of lighting is critical. Textures and colors are telling. Space can be used to intensify the sensations a spectator will experience.

If characters are in view, the make-up they wear must be impeccable, believable, and impressive. Costumes must speak with a voice so subtle as to be unnoticeable. Prominent persons in the cast must dress in a manner that draws attention to them. Interiors convey a meaning. The medium is the message.

Advertisers understand this and take advantage of the props. If the product to be sold is luscious to look at, then a director will focus on the appearance. If the façade is less appetizing, alterations are possible. When the exterior is less expressive, the experience can be enhanced. Sex sells. Food is fine. Meals fill our minds. Snacks satiate our stomachs. Sustenance stuffs the pocketbooks of industrialists who manufacture the provisions. Profits are plenty with thanks to the primary ingredient, promotional advertisements.

Product placement, a more discreet statement, can be far more powerful than a blatant cry for attention. Consider the items purchased by patrons as they wait at a counter or in line. A magazine title titillates. A shopper will stop to scan the articles. Sunglasses positioned at the front of an aisle remind a buyer it is bright outside. If the weather looks as though it may take a turn for the worse, and umbrellas are near when a patron enters the store, the collapsible canopies will leap into human hands. Storeowners understand, it is location, location, location. Humans hope to be comfortable and comforted.

Political consultants comprehend the dynamic is true for the candidate. Name recognition is the first priority. Once a person's identity is established, a professional public relations representative will work to solidify a respectable reputation. Slogans echo throughout the airwaves. Experience, judgment, the record, and a personal biography that captures the character and imagination are publicized.

A Presidential aspirant, desirous of greater exposure, and an opportunity to appear average Joe or Jane, will perform on a popular television program. Light hearted comedies and self-deprecating humor certainly will sell a figure considered too formal or firm. A so called "candid" communication will garner more votes, just as a can of Pepsi in the hands of an athlete will stimulate more sales.

Public relations persons, campaign coordinators, and advertising consultants such as Roy Spence, creator of the 1984 Red Phone commercial and the 2008, 3 AM advertisement, know what the public wants. Mister Spence is familiar with what the electorate will buy. This specialist selects the stage, and sets the scene. He has a flare for the dramatic. Just as a knowledgeable film director can gently induce an audience to suspend disbelief, a fine marketeer can persuade the constituency to cast a ballot for the candidate of his or her choice.

In 1984, Mister Spence convinced Democrats that then Democratic Presidential hopeful Walter Mondale was preferable. Mondale would protect them from an unknown enemy. Democratic Presidential challenger Gary Hart was doing well in the polls. It seemed the good-looking well-spoken rival had a chance. Hart might have won the nomination. However, political commercials warned the public Gary Hart might not experienced enough to hold the office or the red telephone receiver.

Human as he is, a public performance brought Hart's judgment into question. His own folly hurt him. However, even without such a slip, history tells us an advertisement can change the public's perception. From television sets nationwide a narrative evolved.

The most awesome, powerful responsibility in the world lies in the hand that picks up this phone. The idea of an unsure, unsteady, untested hand is something to really think about. This is the issue of our times. On March 20, vote as if the future of the world is at stake. Mondale. This president will know what he's doing, and that's the difference between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale.

Voters were intentionally filled with fear. Might a Senator be less senior and not as prepared as a former Vice President was? Could it be that time in the White House better qualifies a person to be President of the United States? Americans cannot be certain of what might have been. We only comprehend what we believe. Whether the world was, or is, in fact dangerous, it matters not. Humans feel great trepidation for the unknown. An imminent threat daunts and taunts us. The unfamiliar is perhaps more ghastly than any reality might be.

When it comes to ruling the brain, fear often is king, scientists say.

"Fear is the most powerful emotion," said University of California Los Angeles psychology professor Michael Fanselow.

People recognize fear in other humans faster than other emotions, according to a new study being published next month. Research appearing in the journal Emotion involved volunteers who were bombarded with pictures of faces showing fear, happiness, and no expression. They quickly recognized and reacted to the faces of fear -- even when it was turned upside down.

"We think we have some built-in shortcuts of the brain that serve the role that helps us detect anything that could be threatening," said study author Vanderbilt University psychology professor David Zald.

Other studies have shown that just by being very afraid, other bodily functions change. One study found that very frightened people can withstand more pain than those not experiencing fear. Another found that experiencing fear or merely perceiving it in others improved people's attention and brain skills.

When people are panicked, they react and remember. Any good advocate [advertiser] understands if the message is to be effective, it must be unforgettable. Public relations is the power of storytelling. Anyone can create a market for merchandise if they recognize they have three to four seconds to grab the attention of an audience. An promoter has moments more to tell a story. If an impression is to made, and the message is to influence, the information and delivery must be memorable.

In recent days, the public has been flooded with extraordinary expositions. The narrator warns in a portentous voice "It’s 3 am and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. the question is asked of voters, 'Would you want Hillary Clinton to answer the call or Barack Obama?' Will experience settle your mind or will judgment quell your angst?

New York University researcher LeDoux says, "We've gone from 'vote for me or you'll end up poor' to 'vote for me or you'll end up dead.'" . . . .

Why do these ads "work?"

"Elementary, my dear Watson": the amygdala. The amygdala overrides the work of the more thoughtful cortex of our brains. It is a vestigial organ that testifies to the superior nature of the brain's fear circuitry. Neurons only carry traffic one way from the cortex to the amygdala, which allows it to override the more logical and thoughtful cortex; it doesn't work the other way around. You might be able to "think" yourself out of an unreasonable or irrational fear, but, usually, the amygdala hobbles logic and reasoning, making fear "far, far more powerful than reason," according to neurobiologist Michael Fanselow of the University of California at Los Angeles, whom Ms. Begley quoted in her article this way, "It (the amygdala) evolved as a mechanism to protect us from life-threatening situations, and, from an evolutionary standpoint, there's nothing more important than that."

Some say talk is cheap. Speeches are not solutions. However, in reality resolve is an afterthought actually well-founded in fear. Try as humans might to silent the beast within, hysteria burgeons. Frenzy follows. Men, women, and children act on fervent beliefs. The telephone will ring in the dark of the night, and an experienced person must be in the Oval Office to answer it. People prefer to place their hope in reason, regardless of the fact that fear, our emotions are not really rational.

By the time the telephone rings in the White House Military officials have already acted. Professionals in the Pentagon are the first to respond and react.

Contrary to popular myth, and Hollywood portrayal, the hot line has never been a pair of red telephones, one in a drawer in the Oval Office, the other in the Kremlin. At first, it was a set of teletypes with messages punched in at a rate of about one page every three minutes. That system was replaced in the late 1970s with two satellite systems, as well as an undersea cable link.

The American end of the hot line is located not in the White House but across the Potomac in the Pentagon -- at the National Military Command Center.

Without knowledge, people presume. Humans fill in the facts. Citizens rely on sources, even if these references appeal only to our innate fears. Indeed, if a informant can touch a nerve, they can cause abundant concern. Consternation is often the catalyst for great change. We see this in political polls and through our purchases. Currently, post September 11, 2001, Americans have bought the idea, we are in a necessary battle.

Even as far back as the 18th century the theorist Edmund Burke said, "No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear." It's no wonder, then, that the electorate since 9/11 has been constantly manipulated with "orange" and "red" alerts and color-coded systems of assessing the threat of terrorist attack. (Duct tape, anyone?) After 9/11, few of us doubt that there are terrorists who threaten our country, but constantly invoking that threat for political purposes has become Plan "A" for this Republican administration. And it seems to be getting a great deal of play on the caucus stump, as well, especially from Republican hopefuls.

Here is one interesting example of fear trumping reason. Flight insurance was offered that would cover "death by any cause" or "death by terrorism." The specificity of the word "terrorism," combined with the responses that it triggered, caused more people to spend money on "terrorism" insurance than they spent for "death by any cause" insurance, even though "terrorism" insurance is merely a small part of the "death by any cause."

Harvard University psychology researcher Daniel Gilbert is quoted in the article: "Negative emotions such as fear, hatred and disgust tend to provoke behavior more than positive emotions, such as hope and happiness do."

Hence, we may speak of peace and prosperity; nonetheless, Americans, as humans throughout the planet act on antipathy. Our aversions drive us further and more frequently than affirmations do. Politics, with all the claims that it is practical is in essence personal. Affairs of State are also psychological. More than a century ago, advertisers realized that the best tool they had was human emotions. Brain researchers may not have plotted the patterns at work within the gray matter, until recently; nevertheless, Applied Psychologist, Walter Dill Scott explains, entrepreneurs knew how to move the masses. Marketeers, then and now, acknowledged art alone, presented on a page or on a silver screen, does not have the appeal that an inferred message might. Science, if applied subliminally, sells as well as sex does.

In an address before the Agate Club of Chicago the speaker said: "As advertisers, all your efforts have been to produce certain effects on the minds of possible customers. Psychology is, broadly speaking, the science of the mind. Art is the doing and science is the understanding how to do, or the explanation of what has been done. If we are able to find and to express the psychological laws upon which the art of advertising is based, we shall have made a distinct advance, for we shall have added the science to the art of advertising."

In a recent address before the Atlas Club of Chicago the speaker said: "In passing to the psychological aspect of our subject, advertising might properly be defined as the art of determining the will of possible customers.... Our acts are the resultants of our motives, and it is your function in commercial life to create the motives that will effect the sale of the producer's wares."

Perhaps that is why politicians invest as they do. The expected expense for influence in the 2008 Presidential election could exceed three [3] billion dollars, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, Cable News Network's consultant on political television advertising. Professionals in the public eye have learned from profiteers. 'You must spend money if you hope to "change" public opinion or odious perceptions. We all are familiar with the notion politicians are crooks. Image is everything if you wish to be elected or selected as the best software system, or the most sumptuous soda. Search engines also understand the importance of image and advertising. Coffeehouses are not exempt. As much as customers crave caffeine, without a bit of gentle coercion even the most loyal consumer might consider the cost of the Jamaican bean unnecessary.

• Microsoft - more than 20 percent of their annual revenue or $11.5 billion


• Coca-Cola – more than $2.5 billion


• Yahoo - more than 20 percent of their annual revenue or $1.3 billion


• eBay - 14 percent to 15 percent of its revenue - which was $871 million, much of that to advertise on Google


• Google – In the millions rather than billions of dollars – with $188 million


• Starbucks - $95 million

Fear can convince a constituent to vote as they will. When a presentation is deftly designed, people forget the influence of media. Persuasion is palpable. Human hearts are touched by tone, tint, and tenor. After, the emotional sentinel, the amygdala internalizes information, then people intellectualize. Men, women, and children ponder, and ultimately affirm that they are right to think as they do. The fives senses may not be directly involved in decisions made; still, information [or intuition] is studied through the filter of fear.

Americans think they analyze, what will occur if the red phone rings. Then, just as advertisers hope, they act emotionally. As citizens of the United States listen to the campaign commercials, watch the stump speeches, and seek solutions, we must accept that our choice will not be logical, for we are not reasonable. The two-legged animal called man is but a blip in the natural cycle of neurological events. The difference is, we have the capacity to build, and create machines that kill. Humankind acts more aggressively on apprehensions than other animals are able to do. We, the people are perhaps more vulnerable to descriptions, metaphors, and similes. The psyche is profound as is psychology. So, this election season remember.

This illustration of the way in which one chapter of psychology (Mental Imagery) can be applied to advertising is but one of a score of illustrations which could be given. Psychology has come to be one of the most fascinating of all the sciences, and bids fair to become of as great practical benefit as physics and chemistry. As these latter form the theoretical basis for all forms of industry which have to do with matter, so psychology must form the theoretical basis for all forms of endeavor which deal with mind.

The householder in glancing through his morning paper has his attention caught by the more attractive advertisements. The mechanic in going to and from his place of employment whiles away his time in looking at the display cards in the trolley or the elevated cars. The business man can scarcely pass a day without being forced to look at the advertisements which stare at him from the bill boards. The members of the family turn over the advertising pages in their favorite magazine, not because they are forced to, but because they find the advertisements so interesting and instructive.

These persons are oblivious to the enormous expense which the merchant has incurred in securing these results. They are unconscious of the fact that the results secured are the ones sought for, and that in planning the advertising campaign the merchant has made a study of the minds of these same householders, mechanics, business men, and members of the family. Advertising is an essential factor in modern business methods, and to advertise wisely the business man must understand the workings of the minds of his customers, and must know how to influence them effectively, -- he must know how to apply psychology to advertising.

Roy Spence certainly knows his stuff. The Texas advertising consultant for Senator and Presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton, creator of the first 3 Ante Meridian commercial and the Red Phone infomercial has captured our attention. Mister Spence is truly a master. He is an artiste and a scientist. This amazing man has moved the media and the masses. He has advanced a implication, increased the audience, and altered the focus. Roy Spence, on more than one occasion, has triumphed. He successfully worked to make the most of the fear factor in a manner few can match. Perchance, when the telephone rings in the White House or at the Pentagon, we may want our man Roy to answer the call. Mister Spence grasps what alludes most malleable minds.

Congratulations Roy Spence. You are a marvel. You apply psychology and artistic principles. Mister Spence, you have proven yourself to be the genuine candidate of change. At a crucial moment in your candidate's campaign, you alter reality.

Situations, Sources, Slogans, Speeches, Solutions . . .

Mis-en-Scene.

New Report Shows Food Industry Advertising Overwhelms Government’s “5 A Day” Campaign to Fight Obesity and Promote Healthy Eating. By Consumers Union and The California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN). September 2005

Out of Balance. Marketing of Soda, Candy, Snacks and Fast Foods Drowns Out Healthful Messages. By Consumers Union and The California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN). September 2005

Lasting Impact: Storytelling Makes Messages Memorable By Kevin Dugan. Strategic Public Relations.

What Top Brands Spend on Advertising, By Janet Meiners. Market Pilgrim. October 16, 2007

The Psychology of Advertising. By Walter Dill Scott. University of Virginia Library.

Scientists study the ABCs of fear. Associated Press. Cable News Network.

The Fear Factor: How Does Fear Affect Voters? By Connie Wilson. Associated Content. December 21, 2007

The birth of the hot line, Nuclear fears forced superpowers to set up communications link. By Bruce Kennedy. 
Cable News Network.

Roy Spence. The Idea Man.

Mondale: 'Red Phone.' By Ben Smith. Politcio. February 29, 2008

Clinton on Experience ... By Julie Bosman. The New York Times. March 1, 2008

Political television advertising to reach $3 billion, By Mark Preston. Cable News Network. October 15, 2007

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on March 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Advertising, Elections, Political Campaigns, Politics, Presidential Politics, Propaganda and Politics, Psychology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Yellow Brick Road, The Campaign Trail, and Us

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Americans, mired in debt, desperate for adequate Health Care, fearful of foreclosures, and worried about a protracted war, cry out for change. Compatriots wish for a wizard, one who will work for the common folk, and not solely for self, a Commander-In-Chief who will acknowledge the current crises, and lead us into a Land like Oz. We want America to be the perfect country. We wish to be known as benevolent, caring, compassionate super power. We yearn to say aloud with conviction, "There is no place like home!"

Throughout the nation, citizens are thankful we have an opportunity to transform this country. Americans have the right to vote their conscience. In the land of the free and home of the brave, we can and will advocate for the values that made this country great. Citizens will walk through snow, sleet, ice, and rain to cast a ballot for the man or woman we think right for the homeland.

Democrats and Republicans alike hope to improve this nation and their station. The difference may be in degrees. For now, those most desirous of a Progressive revolution are the downtrodden. Democrats yearn for an event that will take away from the daily grind. Those on the Left hope for a gust of wind that will place them in the Emerald City where life is Green and clean, and where average people are the priority. Thus, Democrats participate in the process; they are intimately informed.

Iowa Caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, and the polls. Do we have a consensus? Is there a crisis on the campaign front? Might the race be too close to call, or is it all merely a manufactured media myth. We are told Hillary is ahead, or she was. Perhaps Edwards has the lead. Barack Obama is closing in, or was with the help of Oprah, maybe. Some skeptics say the throngs of fans want to touch a celebrity. The Obama/Oprah ogling will not necessarily equate to votes. Bill Clinton can do what no other has. Certainly, he will boost the New York Senator's numbers. However, the charismatic Clinton may not be enough; or perchance he is or has too much, too much power, influence, and baggage. No one is ever certain what the other Clinton will say or do when he publicly steps onto the stage. John Edwards might be the come from behind kid. This man and his family have seen and experienced hardships. After the pain of his son's death he, and wife Elizabeth have been on a shared mission.

This synopsis is Democratic politics in America, or is it? There are whispers of Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson in the halls of Iowa and New Hampshire hotels. The media mentions these notables may wish to accept another position. On the hill, the same is said. Each is considered experienced. Any of the three would be an ideal Vice President or Secretary of State, or so we are told. What we do not hear is what Americans would think if they were not told what to believe.

We read the research. A survey can be slanted to produce the desired results. Apparently, the polls are designed to deliver the information that the candidates, the campaigns, the columnist think our countrymen must know. Americans have head the rumors, the rhetoric, and the railed against such surveys. Intellectually, we understand that studies are skewed. Yet, we, the people repeat what we are told. He cannot win; he is too short. She will polarize the electorate. He is too Black, or is not enough of an Afro-American. He understands how divided the country is, and he will work to change the system. He has his place; it is just not in the White House. He would make an excellent Secretary of State, an Ambassador, or perhaps he serves us best in Congress.

Even the most articulate and educated cannot resist reiterations. Knowledgeable learned scholars, just as everyday students of the issues succumb to the standards. Perhaps, since few of us have the opportunity to validate what we trust is likely true, we surrender to the situation as it is reported. Thankfully, there are moments that allow us perspective.

On the eve of the New Year word spread far and wide. In electronic communiqués, reality and reason were evident. New Hampshire voters shared their experience, their distress, and disgust. Citizens in the land of the free, and home of the brave, are afforded only select choices. One candidate is dismissed before the electorate can cast a ballot. Yet, a few spoke out in dissent.

New Hampshire resident, Helen distressed and distraught wrote to her friends after she received a telephone call.

I just received a political phone call asking if I was going to vote in the primary. Then she asked if I was voting for a Democrat would it be Hillary, Biden, Obama, Edwards and a couple of others, and I told her she left the best one out - Dennis Kucinich. And she asked, "Is he a Democrat?" It turned out that she is working for the Clinton campaign. If she's representing the Clinton campaign, that's another reason not to vote for Hillary. The young lady did thank me for the information!

Imagine, within the Clinton Camp an campaigner, a spokesperson for the presumed future President knows nothing of another Presidential hopeful. A vibrant voice of the people is muffled so succinctly. The sounds Dennis Kucinich makes are silenced before those that live in the cloudy skies of politics-as-is can hear them. Fortunately, among the electorate and the friends of Helen there are those who like to label themselves '"enlightened" and proud of it.'

A few more-than-typically-well-informed voters care enough to look behind the golden curtain. Some in Iowa and New Hampshire understand they do not live in the Land of Oz. These compatriots comprehend, even if they themselves are prosperous, others are not. As good citizens these individual believe to their core they must act in accordance with the Constitution and consider all people are created equal. Helen cares for the common folk. See recognizes that Dennis Kucinich lived in dreadful poverty. He will do more than express false or fragile piety; Kucinich will relate and react to a circumstance that is real for him. This voter longs for a President who does more than posture and profess. For this compassionate soul, it is time for true change.

Like Helen, other people in New Hampshire [and Iowa] do not wish to follow the yellow brick road just because they are told that is the way to the Emerald City. A few know to trust that promises of fortune, or a solid foundation do not come when, for the most part, the status quo is sustained. Universal Health Care with Insurers in charge will not cover those who cannot afford the cost at any price. War will not end if one soldier remains in Iraq to "secure the peace" within a sovereign nation.

In the Granite State, the constituency can be hard to sway. A body of voters can challenge the conventions, and they do. When Aprille received two similar survey calls, she responded with glee, then revulsion.

I have had 2 phone calls just like that one and I did the same thing. The most recent one asked if I was voting for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I said...."There are a heck of a lot more candidates running, why aren't you mentioning them?" She said, "Who are you voting for?" I said..."I'm planning on voting for Kucinich." She said, "Kucinich?" I said....."Yes, Kucinich. And if you refuse to include the other candidates, then this is a bogus survey!" As I was hanging up, I heard her say that this survey was paid for by the Hillary campaign! What the bleep!?

Indeed. Might Americans consider what is true. Contrived, campaign rhetoric, and more importantly push polls [political telemarketing masquerading as a poll], do not give the constituency a choice. It is all good and well that the people are promised they can take their country back. However, in truth, as long as the public is told who will win, who is electable, and who is not worth a mere mention, then this election will be just as those we witnessed in 2000 and 2004. Cast your ballot. Then, let the courts decide.

America, as long as you vote as the wizards of Wall Street tell you to, if you cast your ballot for the person you believe will win, because that is what the broadcaster say is "spot on," then this country will not belong to the people on Main Street. Each time we choose the person defined as a victor, we give up our freedom. We are but munchkins, ruled by the glorified little man who stands behind the curtain and pulls the switch.

In fantasylands, citizens may never suffer. It seems people do not need to settle. Wizards work wonders. The people only follow their lead. In America, if we are all to prosper, life must be different. People in pursuit of happiness cannot take jobs just to survive, as they do now. They must not marry solely for money, food, or shelter. We can no longer vote for the candidate of "hope and change" while aware of the fact that this person is solidly part of the system that ensures our life is miserable.

In truth, in America, there are no glittery gold pavements, or yellow brick roads, that lead to Emerald Cities. We, together, the common man, woman, and child, with a leader who fully relates to our plight, must build these communities. Wizards who can offer us a heart, a brain, or courage do not dwell in the White House or on the campaign trail. We the people can make magic if we choose to think and act for ourselves.

If life is to be grand, we need to accept that Presidential hopefuls are humans. If a leader is to lead well, he or she must be able to relate to what we go through, for they have lived, and continue to live among us. If a candidate speaks of our carbon footprint, we might ask, what is yours. When asked of trade agreements, might we muse, Mister or Madame Presidential hopeful, how has such a pact transformed your life. Talk of deep pockets could prompt a look into the purse that strings an aspirant along.

Americans must be more realistic and less enamored with emeralds that they do not own, if they are to chose someone who will truly represent them. Just as a small paycheck alone will not secure our future, a political aspirant who speaks for the elite will not help bring us to the bargaining table. The cash of a spouse who lost his or her job will not bring endless smiles. Nor will our contributions to a campaign that is beholding to corporate influences help cure our ills.

If we wish to live in the Land of Oz, Americans must create it. We, the people, and a President, who is, as we are, must take our country back.

In our everyday existence, we accept that good looks and charm will not keep us warm at night. Nor, will the pretty one provide adequate Health Care. When on the streets, in the office, or at home we acknowledge that a sweet-talker does not have our best interests at heart. We recognize a colleague who wants only to climb. A snake-oil salesman smells of no good. A song and dance does deliver more than a tune.

Common folks flee when they encounter scams during their daily deeds. Yet, come election season, when Presidential candidates whisper words of all-I-want-to-hear . . . unless we are Helen, Aprille, or perhaps you, and I, citizens will follow the yellow brick road and forget who paints that pavement.

In 2008, and in all the years hence, let us remember that unless and until we recognize the wizard is in each of us, and in a nation united for a just cause, there will be no change.

Words for Wizards, and We, the People . . .

Unpaid Credit Cards Bedevil Americans, By Rachel Konrad and Bob Porterfield. The Associated Press. Washington Post. Sunday, December 23, 2007; 11:21 PM

pdf Unpaid Credit Cards Bedevil Americans, By Rachel Konrad and Bob Porterfield. The Associated Press. Washington Post. Sunday, December 23, 2007; 11:21 PM

Mismanaged Care, By Sally Satel. The New York Times. April 8, 2007

pdf Mismanaged Care, By Sally Satel. The New York Times. April 8, 2007

Defaults on Insured Mortgages At Record High. Reuters. The New York Times. December 31, 2007

pdf Defaults on Insured Mortgages At Record High. Reuters. The New York Times. December 31, 2007

Iraq. The New York Times.

Iowa Caucuses

New Hampshire primaries

Democratic race on hold after hostage crisis. AFP November 30, 2007

Poll Finds Dems Neck and Neck in Iowa, By Gary Langer. ABC News. August 3, 2007

New Iowa Polls: One Finds Hillary Ahead; Edwards Leads The Other. By Greg Sargent. TPM Media. December 30, 2007, 8:52AM

Poll: Edwards Leads in Iowa. By Domenico Montanaro. MSNBC News. December 18, 2007

Obama closing in on Clinton, By Clarence Page. Chicago Tribune. November 25, 2007

Oprah Can't Help Obama Nail Hillary, By Earl Ofari Hutchinson. Huffington Post. Posted December 7, 2007

Will Bill's dough make trouble for Hillary? By Mark Benjamin. Salon. October 11, 2007

In ’08 Race, the Other Clinton Steps Up Publicly, By Patrick Healy. The New York Times. December 17, 2007

pdf In ’08 Race, the Other Clinton Steps Up Publicly, By Patrick Healy. The New York Times. December 17, 2007

Candidates Battle Expectations In Iowa. The New York Times. December 31, 2007

The Truth About Push Polls, Just What Is A Push Poll? By Kathy Frankovic. CBS News.

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 1, 2008 at 12:00 PM in Advertising, Elections, Emotional Decisions, Hillary Clinton, Manipulated Media, Political Campaigns, Politics, Presidential Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Americans Have No Choice; A Diet of Fats, Salts, Sugars

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

'Tis the season to be jolly. From Thanksgiving Day to the dawn of the New Year, Americans are encouraged to eat. He, she, you, and I are expected to fritter our fears away. We will worry not of weight gain, heart attacks, coronary artery disease, strokes, or diabetes. Citizens in celebration will gorge on and gulp down millions of morsels. Americans will eat, drink, and be merry with reckless abandon. There are some expressed concerns for food safety, especially after a year of scares; however, for the most part we will dine with delight.

Then, come the First of January we will do as we did last year and the year before, we work to munch more wisely. Most of us will make a conscious effort to decrease the fats, salts, and sugars in our daily diet. Individuals throughout the country will convince themselves it is only a matter of self-control. We can eat well if we decide to. Citizens in the USA believe what they ingest, how, and when is a choice. In the land of the free, and home of the brave, we boldly do, as we desire. Here, in America, there are food choices galore, or so we are led to believe.

However, since the late twentieth century Americans have actually had a very limited selection. They, we, are not free to dine as we might. Our menu is extremely restricted. We can chew on Acidulants, enriched Baking Aids and Mixes, luscious Cocoa and Chocolate, chemical Emulsifiers, Texturants, and Stabilizers, refined Flours, "organic" Nutrition Ingredients, [meager when available], processed Oils and Fats, palatable Protein Products, and "naturally" Sweeteners. If we wish to ingest more wisely, we can; that is, if we are up to the challenge. In the States, the Recommended Daily Allowance is wrought with ruse.

The public professes they want no government in their lives, or more importantly, on our dinner plates. Yet, Americans accept that administrative authorities must regulate to ensure that what we eat is truly safe. Federal Officials are necessary and tolerated in moderation. Indeed, Americans actually appreciate the Food and Drug Administration.

According to a survey of 30 federal agencies being released today, consumers asked about the FDA's performance believe that food labeling is useful, clear and understandable, that consumer alerts of food safety issues are useful, and that customers trust FDA to ensure food safety in the future . . .

The survey asked about the usefulness and clarity of food labeling; customer awareness and the effectiveness of inspecting, testing, and labeling efforts; and the usefulness of consumer alerts; meats and poultry are regulated by USDA.

In addition to consumers' positive views of the food label and FDA's ability to ensure that food is safe, the survey also indicated that the FDA should increase public awareness of actions to ensure food safety and focus on awareness efforts during consumer alerts.

Despite the claims of contentment, for the most part Americans resent government influence in their daily lives. Americans are independent minded mavericks. Granted, we are grateful for the small favors the Food and Drug Administration affords us; however, we want no more assistance than we deem suitable. Citizens in this country are selectively scrupulous.

Americans prize and advocate a free enterprise system. We want the freedom to decide for ourselves what is best. Where food is concerned, citizens of this civilized nation want to preserve their right to choose. We welcome the rise of an innovative industrialist who might introduce an ingredient into the mix. A crunchier cookie, a sweeter soda, tastier tenderloins, a savory sauce, and a flavorful fondue, all are appreciated in abundance.

Cakes, cookies, crackers, pies, bread, potato chips, corn chips, popcorn, salad dressing, breakfast cereal, margarine, and animal products all taste good to the average American.. Regardless of the warnings, that each of these manufactured or mechanically prepared foods contain trans-fatty acids, are high in sodium, and are filled with high fructose corn syrup, those in the Western World continue to consume these tidbits with fervor.

Intellectually, we may know trans-fatty acids, salts, and sugars are hazardous to our health. We sacrifice some. Nonetheless, we do so slightly or on occasion. Mostly we gorge, gulp, guzzle and stuff our gullet with these gems and then die.

Clogged arteries might cause our demise. A heart attack could end our life. Obesity may do us in. Still we say, we rather eat fats and be happy.

Scientific evidence shows that consumption of saturated fat, trans fat, and dietary cholesterol raises low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or "bad cholesterol," levels, which increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, more than 12.5 million Americans have CHD, and more than 500,000 die each year. That makes CHD one of the leading causes of death in the United States.

People say they might as well enjoy now. After all, we will all pass eventually. An additional year or two will not make a difference. The quality of our life is what matters. Besides, any true danger is moderated by the system.

In this agri-industrialist nation, we trust that if a corporation wishes to make a profit, they must and will keep the consumer in mind. That construct alone will guarantee quality. When it does not, then, the government will step in to preserve safety . . . well sort of.

Years ago, Josh joyfully ingested his early morning Egg McMuffin ™ in a Fifth Avenue McDonalds. As he ate, he read the news. An article in The New York Times, screamed for his attention. Hold That Fat, New York Asks Its Restaurants. He thought of how much he loves his partially hydrogenated oil filled foods. Joshua would not wish to be deprived of the greasy flavors that warm his belly. The young gent contemplated what might this announcement mean to him. Then, Joshua concluded, he need not worry. At least Gotham City officials give restaurateurs a choice. Proprietors will cater to what the their customers crave; thus, the world will continue to turn as it has.

Months later, a content Joshua sat in his overstuffed chair and snacked on a bag of Doritios®. He could not imagine a life more complete. Suddenly, that tranquil sense of calm disappeared. A radio announcer declared our democratic right to choose would be constrained. The broadcaster bellowed, New York City Plans Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats. The earlier "request" had done nothing to reduce usage of the hazardous oils.

The Board of Health vote comes a year after it conducted an unsuccessful campaign to persuade restaurants to eliminate trans fats from their recipes voluntarily. It said yesterday that despite mass mailings about the hazards of trans fats and training programs for 7,800 restaurant operators, about half the city’s restaurants continued to serve trans fats, about the same as before the campaign.

Trans fats, derived from partially hydrogenated oils, became popular in the 1950’s as an alternative to the saturated fats in butter. They allow fast-food restaurants to use frying oil for longer periods and make crunchier cookies and flakier piecrust. They also have a longer shelf life than butter, olive oil, corn oil or other alternatives.

Joshua became extremely concerned. He exclaimed aloud, "What is this a Police State?" Eatery entrepreneurs have a right to serve what they believe is best. Customers can digest what they think delicious, or at least they could in some municipalities. In time, concern for the health of a crowded community increased. Last year, during the holiday season, a peaceful Josh took in the decorations in his favorite restaurant. He dined with delight. After he ate, Joshua released his belt buckle. A friend seated across from a full and sleepy Josh inquired, had he heard, New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants.

The usually quiet chap was aghast. Now officials in this cosmopolitan metropolis had gone too far. How and why would a municipality choose to restrict what the people consume? Josh began to ponder how all this change might affect him personally. He thought of the mashed potatoes and gravy, he consumed only moments ago. Would he be deprived of such tasty fare in the future?

Certainly, the potatoes would not taste as sumptuous if they were prepared differently. Joshua reveled in the delicacy just as he had been for decades. The recipe as is, is wonderful, this fit fellow thought. Joshua belched. Then he pondered; the dozen or so doughy delights he digested moments earlier. These goodies would never be the same. Joshua dreamt of the cookies, cakes, and creams he just ordered for desert. The word "Ridiculous!" rolled trippingly off his tongue,

"No one has the right to tell me what I can consume. It is my life, my body, and I will take care of it as I see fit." In a huff he continued, "I eat a little bit of everything; it is called a well-balanced diet." "No matter what we gulp down or scarf up, it all turns into sugar once in our blood stream." "All food is natural." This news is preposterous." "Who has the authority to tell us what to eat or drink?" The government is already too involved in our lives. "Let them eat what they like and I will munch on what brings me pleasure." Does the Constitution not grant us liberty and the pursuit of happiness? "I want to be left alone, to be free to be me."

Joshua grappled with what seemed inevitable change in his diet. He wondered, "What is all the fuss about trans-fatty acids? Are there not more important issues of concern?" Almost immediately, he received an answer. Another blow brought Joshua to his knees. A condiment that he was certain could cause no harm was listed as injurious to his health.

It was not an e coli spinach scare that altered his awareness. Salt shocked his sensibilities. What could be more safe than salt? For goodness sake, this savory substance sits on his dinner table.

A hulk of a man, Josh knew, to spill salt is an ominous sign. He understood, since the beginning of time, people believed if they were to waste the commodity considered as valuable as gold, certain misfortune would follow them into the future. Still, this gent never thought there was anything to fear from the sodium substance. Such mythical legends have lived long. As Joshua mulled over the latest revelation, he laughed, he acted as though he believed if he were to carry salt, or throw the small white crystals over his shoulder, he would be assured the best of luck.

A jovial Josh has long assumed the want of good will was the reason we poured the crystalline element on every entrée. Good flavor or good fortune; both together might be wondrous. This healthy man was aware the traditional use of this prized substance is in question. However, he never imagined, the Food and Drug Administration would contemplate a serious and severe crackdown on the zesty zinger of a spice. Yet, as Joshua perused the paper and listened to radio and television reports he learned . . .

Putting the Pinch on Salt, Medical Groups at Odds Over Proper Solution to Sodium Problems
By Carla Williams

ABC News Medical Unit
Nov. 29, 2007

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is holding a public hearing today to determine whether to place federal limits on the salt content of processed foods, such as canned soups and breakfast cereals.

The hearing comes at a time when medical experts are becoming increasingly concerned over the amount of salt contained in many foods on grocery store shelves, including products not normally associated with salt.

For example, said Dr. Randall Zusman, associate professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, a bowl of one popular cereal brand may pack more of a sodium punch than many consumers realize.

"One cup of Cheerios -- frequently advertised as heart healthy -- has 300 milligrams of salt," he explained.

"No one eats only one cup, so two to three cups each morning would be nearly 50 percent of your daily allotment. Yet, the FDA allows Cheerios to be advertised as a healthy alternative."

But while most agree that the excess salt in the diets of many Americans poses significant health risks, experts in the medical community remain divided over what should actually be done to address the problem.

Some agree with advocacy groups and believe that the FDA should require stricter labeling for manufactured foods. Such labeling could take the form of warnings placed prominently on the packaging of high-sodium foods.

But others think the focus on salt regulation is misdirected and say that the FDA should address more harmful elements of the American diet and lifestyle, such as obesity.

The American Dietetic Association, for one, has spoken out in favor of stricter product labeling to tackle the problem.

My goodness; Cheerios, a food that Americans such as Josh ate to protect themselves from a coronary crisis may actually place them at risk for a heart attack. What, and whom, can we trust. Do we do as we are told or as the specialists do?

Physicians often gobble just as regular folk do. We have seen stout surgeons, rotund nurses, hefty dieticians, and even a lean doctor dine on junk. Our spouse may insist we eat healthy; yet, he or she does not. Acquaintances swig and swallow whatever they wish. No one seems to suffer serious repercussions at less not while in our range of vision. Thus, we conclude there is little reason to change. People are just overly cautious. Certainly, federal, state, and city officials are wary without cause.

A mild mannered Joshua was familiar with the cautionary tone of doctors. He heard his wife whisper her concerns. For years, medical professionals and his Mom expressed their angst when they discussed his fervent application of this sour, yet sharp, condiment. Josh reduced his use; although admittedly he wondered whether there was reason to do so. Oh, sure, Joshua saw the advice columns. Caveats called him, or at least those who love him suggested he read the literature.

University of Maryland Medical Center, expert on hypertension, Dr. Stephen Havas, states, high-salt diets cause 150,000 premature deaths in the United States each year. Heart attacks, coronary artery disease, and strokes are the frequently result from obesity, high blood pressure, and the perilous pre-hypertension. Each of these afflictions can be traced to the intake of salt. Havas declared there is an imperative need for the Federal Health authorities to reduce sodium consumption.

However, contrary to what this and other physicians think wise, most persons in this civilized country retain the attitudes of their ancestors. Americans are as the rugged individualists, or at least, Joshua was and is. Our countrymen can take whatever is dished out. Salty, sweet, or saturated in oils, citizens of this wild and western nation have the stomach for it.

Americans are independent and we like it that way. No government agency, guy, or gal in a white lab coat will tell US what to eat. They certainly will not dictate to Joshua what he eats. In truth, the Food and Drug Administration does not tell us what is best to consume. Nor do they closely monitor corporate claims; although they would wish us to believe they do. Joshua trusted that his food was safe with thanks to this industry watchdog.

Fake Food Fight
by Paula Kurtzweil

"It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
--Abraham Lincoln

When it comes to fraudulent food in the marketplace, Lincoln's sage observation has certainly rung true. In the Food and Drug Administration's experience, when hucksters try to cheat Americans out of millions of dollars of genuine foods, their schemes are ultimately exposed by a sharp-eyed consumer, a competitive industry, or FDA itself.

Known as economic adulteration of food, this practice involves using inferior, cheaper ingredients to cheat consumers and undercut the competition. And even though the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act specifically bans it, economic adulteration persists, challenging FDA's resourcefulness to remain vigilant against it.

In recent years, FDA has sought and won convictions against companies and individuals engaged in making and selling bogus orange juice, apple juice, maple syrup, honey, cream, olive oil, and seafood.

According to Martin Stutsman, a consumer safety officer in FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA relies heavily on industry and consumers to help identify instances of economic fraud.

What businesses will not do for money. Artificial adulterants put much dough in many a breadbox. The Food and Drug Administration discovered some producers sold, what they said was pure orange juice; however, the beverage was loaded with corn syrup or beet sugar. Dairy cream was, in fact, corn oil. Corn syrup passed for honey. Bottles of horseradish were actually containers of potato starch. Salt mixed into water was advertised as milk. Scallops, an expensive delicacy on occasion was found to be water worked into sodium tripolyphosphate (STP).

The fake foods, [mixtures of trans fatty acids, salts, and sugars] may yield temporary financial benefits. However, what qualifies for natural, and approved, fodder feeds fills more pockets than the illegal imitations ever did. Corn syrup found in a product labeled pure orange juice is considered an adulterant. However, when the same sweetener is listed on a can of orange flavored juice the Food and Drug administration thinks that fine.

There is a delicate balance between healthy and harmful sustenance. Equilibrium is difficult to maintain when the scales are tipped in favor of corporate influences. For many in the Food and Drug Administration dough is more flavorful than moral fiber might be.

Former FDA Investigator Exposes Aspartame As Deadly Neurotoxin That Never Should Have Been Approved
Can Republish, Namaste, Vol 6, Issue 1,UK

Many policies, I found out, were not made to protect the public health, but rather, to provide leverage at appropriation time before Congress, and to protect the industry and their political government. This is especially true when they were paid for their 'services' by the pharmaceutical or chemical industries. This is what I call 'social cancer'.

Many systems for protecting the public health are (were) less than effective . . . making very little difference on public health issues. Much of it was for 'show' and for funding. It was the folks in Rockville and Washington who made the final decisions on how to play most of these issues out. Unfortunately for us, it was not to favor the public health processes. The entire process reeks of political and corporate influence.

If Americans had the time or energy to do more than eat what is easily available they might notice how ubiquitous industry is in our diets. Advertisers have captured our attention.

"Shouldn't your baby be a Gerber baby?" "Trix are for kids." "Keebler. Uncommonly Made, Uncommonly Good." "Mmm Mmm good. That’s what Campbell’s Soup is; Mmm good." "Subway. Eat fresh." "Taco Bell. Think Outside the Bun." "McDonalds. I'm lovin' it," and you do, we do. We are trained to eat prepared foods from birth. At Burger King, we can have it our way. At Kentucky Fried Chicken, we can trust it is finger lickin’ good. At Subway, we can "Eat fresh." If only we knew what that was.

Manufacturers and marketers choose what we consume. High fructose corn syrup is an ingredient is most American food. Many Americans, sadly, a vast majority, do not even know what unprocessed fruits and vegetables truly taste like. Apples? That is the crisp, wet fare under the caramel. Tomatoes top pizza. Strawberries and cherries await your bite when you sink your teeth into that piece of bittersweet chocolate. Squash and pumpkins grace the doorstep during the Fall holidays. Spinach is for cartoon characters. Potatoes, yum-yum. This starchy crop, when deep-fried is absolutely ambrosia.

Even when we think we are ingesting only wholesome fare, surprise, we discover, there is more to the meal than meets the eye. The local bakery still creates healthy doughy fare. The smell of fresh baked flour and yeast reminds us that quality food does exist. Have you read the ingredients on baked goods? Let us consider the plainest of plain preparations, a bagel. The elements that go into this not so enticing ring of dough are numerous. Unbleached flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour), water, dough conditioner (sugar, salt, malted barley flour, molasses, mono & diglycerides, ascorbic acid, L-cysteine, azodicarbonamide, enzyme, ammonium chloride, DATEM, potassium iodate, brown sugar, yeast.

As we study the marketplace we realize, what satisfies our senses is not so sensible.

In the 1980s, manufacturing methods improved, prompting a boost in production of high-fructose corn syrup and a drop in price to just pennies below that of refined sugar. "While that may not sound like much to the average consumer, when you consider how many pounds [the soft drink industry buys], it was millions of dollars if not hundreds of millions of dollars in savings," says Drew Davis, NSDA's vice president for federal affairs.

The switch made economic sense and, as Davis notes, "back then, there was no suggestion that high-fructose corn syrup was metabolized differently" than other sugars. More recent research suggests, however, that there may be some unexpected nutritional consequences of using the syrup. "Fructose is absorbed differently" than other sugars, says Bray. "It doesn't register in the body metabolically the same way that glucose does."

For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of biochemical reactions. It increases production of insulin by the pancreas, which enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells, where it can be used for energy. It increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses production of another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin, that helps regulate food intake. It has been theorized that when ghrelin levels drop, as they do after eating carbohydrates composed of glucose, hunger declines.

Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain." Whether it actually does do this is not known "because the studies have not been conducted," said Havel.

Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where it is converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein -- the most damaging form of cholesterol -- elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. A University of Minnesota study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found that in men, but not in women, fructose "produced significantly higher [blood] levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P Bantle, concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be undesirable, particularly for men."

Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate bone loss, according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

We can thank the Food and Drug Administration for our fodder, and we can express our gratitude to Archers Daniel Midland, the mother or father of invention. A financial crisis in the parent company led the this corporation to merge and grow beyond their wildest dreams and ours.

In 1971 [Archer Daniels Midland] purchased Corn Sweeteners, Inc., producer of high-fructose syrups, glutens, oil, and caramel color. Corn Sweeteners brought good returns for Archer Daniels Midland and increased the company's finished-food capabilities.

Currently we can find Archer Daniels in most every "finished-food" option. Bread and brews are loaded with high fructose corn syrup. Cereals, before the flakes are frosted, are filled with the fluid. Spaghetti sauce is supplemented. The sugary additive makes up a substantial portion of this tomato-based product. Sodas are essentially high fructose corn syrup, as is . . . [name your food of choice.] While high fructose corn syrup is good for earnings, it endangers human health.

Loading high fructose corn syrup into increasingly larger portions of soda and processed food has packed more calories into us and more money into food processing companies, say nutritionists and food activists. But some health experts argue that the issue is bigger than mere calories. The theory goes like this: The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream.

The end result is that our bodies are essentially tricked into wanting to eat more and at the same time, we are storing more fat.

Sheer will power must be our guide, for certainly the Food and Drug Administration does not point us in the direction of good health. Nor do the conglomerates have our best interests at heart. Most Americans believe given a choice, people buy what they sense their body craves. Unfortunately, few acknowledge that certain foods create a chemical reaction that fools the physiology and the psyche.

No mysterious ingredient. The Cadbury's secret is out. Chocolate is drug-like in its effect. Artificial taste explodes in the mouth with crunchy, smooth, sweet flavors, supplying intense pleasure. Every texture and nuance of taste contrived to stimulate your 9,000 taste buds into sending pleasure signals to the brain. The intensified pleasure effect is addictive. We don't care about the additives or empty calories. Chocolate junkies crave a fix, driven by the desire for that chocolate pleasure. Pleasure for which we will pay any price, even our health.

Chocolate bars are loaded with salt, sugar, caffeine and fat, up to 300 calories per bar. Like a body demanding heroin for its balance, the body will crave sugar, salt and fat. Take candy from a sugar junkie, and look out! Quitting causes withdrawals. Remove sugar, processed fat or salt from your diet, and you will crave them. You will go through the discomfort of facing withdrawal similar to the withdrawal from drugs.

Humans hunger for sweets. We are extremely fond of fats. Salt is savory. Eons ago, our bodies learned to love what would help us survive in the wild. We needed the weight and the energy. The habits of our ancient ancestors now seem innate. Food and chemical industry leaders know this. They exploit our obsession for the flavors that excites the palette and satisfy the electrical impulses within our gray matter; thus, expanding their profits.

Physiologically we cannot resist. Psychologically, we are easily swayed. Financially, we turn our fate over, and fortunes are made. Most of us forget what we once knew before our brains and bellies were filled with trans-fats, salts, and sugars.

The story of how the most basic questions about what to eat ever got so complicated reveals a great deal about the institutional imperatives of the food industry, nutritional science and — ahem — journalism, three parties that stand to gain much from widespread confusion surrounding what is, after all, the most elemental question an omnivore confronts.

Humans deciding what to eat without expert help — something they have been doing with notable success since coming down out of the trees — is seriously unprofitable if you’re a food company, distinctly risky if you’re a nutritionist and just plain boring if you’re a newspaper editor or journalist. (Or, for that matter, an eater. Who wants to hear, yet again, "Eat more fruits and vegetables"?) And so, like a large gray fog, a great Conspiracy of Confusion has gathered around the simplest questions of nutrition — much to the advantage of everybody involved. Except perhaps the ostensible beneficiary of all this nutritional expertise and advice: us, and our health and happiness as eaters.

Hence, dear Josh, if you do not wish to be controlled by the government or the corporate kings and queens, if you wish to eat well, remember, to look beyond what seems to be your freedom to choose. Do not travel to the eateries that serve only what they know will leave you yearning for more. Do not frequent food pantries that prefer you be fat. Venture not into the aisles of processed ambrosia. If you wish to be free from the thought police and those that place temptation on the plate, carefully consider foods that are not fake. You can enjoy real foods, unprocessed provisions, and your health if you truly peruse the labels, make meals from scratch, and ask for more than just the menu when you dine out.

Bon appetite Josh. A happy and healthy holiday, every day to all, and to all a good night.

Satiated, Satisfied, and Sources . . .

• 2007: Let’s Eat, Not Fuss. By Frank Bruni. The New York Times. December 26, 2007


• The Price of Food Safety. The New York Times. December 22, 2007


• Next Year's Diet Books, By Andrea Sachs. Time Magazine. December 10, 2006


• Doritios ®


• Customer Satisfaction Results For The Food And Drug Administration Announced. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services December 13, 1999


• Fake Food Fight. By Paula Kurtzweil. Food and Drug Administration. March April 1999


• McDonald's USA Ingredients Listing for Popular Menu Items. Corporate McDonald's.


• Sugar coated, We're drowning in high fructose corn syrup. Do the risks go beyond our waistline? By Kim Severson. San Francisco Chronicle. Wednesday, February 18, 2004


• pdf Sugar coated, We're drowning in high fructose corn syrup. Do the risks go beyond our waistline? By Kim Severson. San Francisco Chronicle. Wednesday, February 18, 2004


• Former FDA Investigator Exposes Aspartame As Deadly Neurotoxin That Never Should Have Been Approved, Can Republish, Namaste, Vol 6, Issue 1,UK


• Unhappy Meals, By Michael Pollan. The New York Times. January 28, 2007


• pdf Unhappy Meals, By Michael Pollan. The New York Times. January 28, 2007


• Sweet but Not So Innocent? High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body, By Sally Squires. Washington Post. 
 Tuesday, March 11, 2003; Page HE01


• pdf Sweet but Not So Innocent? High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body, By Sally Squires. Washington Post. 
 Tuesday, March 11, 2003; Page HE01


• New York City Plans Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats, By Thomas J. Lueck. New York Times. September 27, 2006


• pdf New York City Plans Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats, By Thomas J. Lueck. New York Times. September 27, 2006


• Hold That Fat, New York Asks Its Restaurants, By Marc Santora. New York Times. August 11, 2005


• pdf Hold That Fat, New York Asks Its Restaurants, By Marc Santora. New York Times. August 11, 2005


• New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants, By Thomas J. Lueck and Kim Severson. New York Times. December 6, 2006


• pdf New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants, By Thomas J. Lueck and Kim Severson. New York Times. December 6, 2006


• Spinach and E. Coli Outbreak. US Food and Drug Administration.


• pdf Superstitions about Salt. The New York Times. December 31, 1883


• FDA contemplating crackdown on salt, The AMA, which says Americans should consume 50% less sodium, has joined consumer groups asking for government intervention. By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. Los Angeles Times. November 29, 2007


• pdf FDA contemplating crackdown on salt, The AMA, which says Americans should consume 50% less sodium, has joined consumer groups asking for government intervention. By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. Los Angeles Times. November 29, 2007


• Salt: The Forgotten Killer. Interview by Michelle W. Murray. University of Maryland Medical Center.


• Corporations Control Your Dinner, AlterNet.


• DATEM, Wikipedia.


• Food Ingredients. Archer Daniel Midland


• Vegan Nummies Panera Bread.


• Are We Really Force Fed? By Gard Goldsmith of the Ludwig von Mises Institue. July 30, 2004


• Your Food Addiction is Great for Business. Healthy Recipes.

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 26, 2007 at 09:00 AM in Addiction, Advertising, Calories. Cells., Diet, Economics, Ethics and Profits, Food Drug Administration, Food Folly, Health, Soda, Soft Drinks, Sugar, TransFatty Acids, Weight | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Congress; "Support our troops. Bring them home!"

VideoVets TV Ad

© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert

Tell Congress to "Support our troops. Bring them home!"

MoveOn.org and soldiers far from American shores are asking for your assistance. Families here in the States hope that you will help. We, the public understand the hurts these persons experience. We feel them too. Americans long for a return to calm. Iraqis do as well. There is much evidence that this battle did not need to be. I invite you to speak your mind, talk from the heart, and do whatever you can to help our troops and to free the citizens of Iraq.

Most Iraqis Want US to Leave Now. Iraqis do not wish to live in an occupied nation. They never requested regime change. Replacing one autocrat with another did not and does not make sense to them. The common folk, those that do not profit from an American presence in the Middle East want United States troops to leave. Might we help them accomplish their mission.

Help get John Bruhns' story out there

George Bush keeps saying that he's the one who supports the troops and those of us who want to end the war don't. Someone has to take him on for that. And former Sergeant John Bruhns--who served in Iraq--is the man to do it. He's the subject of a new ad by Oliver Stone. Your contribution will help us spread his story--and those of the other VideoVets participants--far and wide through a big TV and online advertising campaign. Can you contribute? Complete the form below to contribute.

Bequeath what you wish. Your cash will help many. If we are able to maintain the message change could come. Perchance Congress will act if the images and words are cemented in their minds.

Your calls are welcome. Representatives and Senators need to know how serious you [we] are. We, the people want our children back from Iraq. Letters urging Congress to cut the funds are helpful.

Conversations within your community benefit American boys and girls. Afghani and Iraqi children will gain too. None of the young wish to die needlessly or in battle. Might we give our youth worldwide the life they were born to live.

On behalf of the troops, their brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, I thank you. If I could speak more profoundly for those whose lives are torn asunder by the ravages of war, I would. I feel certain they to want to feel safe on their soil. Soldiers do not secure a town, a city, a country, a life, or a heart. Please help. Do whatever you might to ensure a global peace. I offer my gratitude and best wishes to you, to us all.

Military Families Speak Out

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Most Iraqis Want US to Leave Now. By Amit R. Paley.
 Washington Post. Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22

pdf Most Iraqis Want US to Leave Now. By Amit R. Paley.
 Washington Post. Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? By John Dean. Cable News Network. Find Law. Friday, June 6, 2003

A War The Public Will End, By David S. Broder. Washington Post. Sunday, May 6, 2007; Page B07

pdf A War The Public Will End, By David S. Broder. Washington Post. Sunday, May 6, 2007; Page B07

The Infinite War: How Middle Eastern Instability is in the Best Interests of Corporate America, By Marc Train. Iraq Veterans Against the War April 26, 2007

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM in Advertising, American Patriotism, Citizens For Global Solutions, Communities and Communication , Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Iraq War, Middle Class, Middle East Resolution, Military Missions, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

War of Words. Bloggers, Broadcasters, Rappers Code of Ethics

Oprah on Imus (Public forum with Russell and others) 2

© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
In this tome, I am not advocating autocratic censorship. I ask each of us to look within and consciously choose an empathetic ethical code.

"There is a problem." However, Americans do not agree what the problem is. Sexism, racism, homophobia, violence, or the words we use to promote such social ills. For weeks, language has been in the news, on the blogs, in the airwaves, and in music-industry executives meeting rooms. Free speech is the topic in question, as is the power of words. As children, we learned that "Sticks and stones may break our bones; but names will never hurt me." In fact, the opposite is true. Words and the inferences can cause greater, and more last injuries than twigs or rocks might. The body heals far better than the heart does.

After receiving numerous death threats, blogger Kathy Sierra called on the blogosphere to confront the culture of cruelty in cyberspace. This active author and public speaker, fears for her life. Missus Sierra recently canceled public speaking engagements and suspended her site. On her weblog, Kathy Sierra writes . . .

If you want to do something about it, do not tolerate the kind of abuse that includes threats or even suggestions of violence (especially sexual violence). Do not put these people on a pedestal. Do not let them get away with calling this "social commentary," "protected speech," or simply "criticism."

For weeks, Missus Sierra has been immobilized. After becoming the focus of ample threats, inclusive of a post that featured a picture of her next to a noose, she stated . . .

"I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same."

The police are investigating the harassment and the blogosphere is blazing. Discussions of how women are treated online are fueling a fire. While, on her own site, Creating Passionate Users, Kathy Sierra receives much support, there are those that think her call for civility and courtesy is ridiculous.

In Death threats and blogging, by the famous Kos condemnation of a proposed code was evident.

[T]he rantings of a lunatic. For my part, I've gotten my fair share of such vile emails. Some of them have threatened my children. One or two actually crossed the line into "death threat" territory. But so what? It's not as if those cowards will actually act on their threats. For better or for worse, this isn't a country in which media figures -- even hugely controversial ones -- are routinely attacked by anything more dangerous than a cream pie.

Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work. Because no "blogger code of conduct" will scare away psycho losers with access to email.

This dictum on Daily Kos was posted on April 12, days before an angry aggressor, Cho Seung-Hui avenged those he loathed at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The shooter's rants were his truth. His threats proved to be powerful. Cho Seung-Hui may not have sent his last package in a timely manner. Nevertheless, he did warn and alarm many years before he carried out this horrific and planned deed.

Words can be wicked. They are often used as weapons. Expressions wound a heart and soul; they hurt. Yet, we excuse these repeatedly. Mel Gibson declared, "I am not anti Semitic" after a tirade that was terribly intolerant. This was not the Directors first show of fury against Jews. Nevertheless, it was excused. It did promote momentary concerns.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Gibson's apology "unremorseful and insufficient." Prominent Hollywood talent agent Ari Emanuel called for an industry boycott of Gibson in a blog posted Monday.

"At a time of escalating tensions in the world, the entertainment industry cannot idly stand by and allow Mel Gibson to get away with such tragically inflammatory statements," he wrote. "People in the entertainment community, whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him, even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line.

"There are times in history when standing up against bigotry and racism is more important than money."

Nonetheless, money ruled. His next movie "Apocalypto," distributed by The Walt Disney Company received rave reviews, even from periodicals that some consider Progressive. The almighty buck may not reduce bigotry. Actually, it may help to create it.

In recent years, [Mel Gibson] has turned his attention to producing films and TV shows through his Icon Productions. The hundreds of millions of dollars he made producing the 2004 film "The Passion of the Christ" has given the star the ability to finance his own films, giving him a measure of independence from the major studios.

Some "artists" using racial slurs make millions. They defend their right to do so. Many or most apologize. However, there is skepticism. Why are they contrite. Can a heart change in a moment or is cash their concern.

When Michael Richards railed against Blacks in his audience, he was quite impassioned. His "hate speak" seemed infinitely sincere. Smears spewed; slights slammed, all said with sincerity. These affronts fell trippingly off his tongue. The comedian apologized while explaining, "I am not a racist." The response was "Really?" It is difficult to know whether Michael Richards has or will recover from such a blunder or the unbelievable statement, "I'm not a racist, that's what's so insane about this."

Will Don Imus be deeply effected by his debacle? The debate continues. Again, cash was cut off, at least temporarily. Imus was apologetic and ashamed, perchance more so after advertisers raised the volume on this discussion. Ultimately Don Imus lost his battle. The major television and radio networks that carried the Don Imus Show felt they could no longer support him. The load was too great; the rewards realized too little. Don Imus had become a distraction.

Executives at CBS and MSNBC saw where the numbers were heading. They may well have been genuinely disgusted by Imus' reference to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos," but their decision to dump him had little to do with moral outrage. They simply did the math. They'll miss the millions they would have earned from Imus' show, but they stood to lose even more if they let him stay on the air, and so he was toast.

Free speech, meet free enterprise.

However, unlike Don Imus who justifies his antics as comedy, and whose money is or was tied to corporate sponsors, there are the rappers. They too are coming under attack.

For political prominents, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Bruce Gordon enough is enough. These gentlemen want the smears to end. These Black leaders think even Black on Black rubs need to be eliminated from our common language. Two wrongs do not make a right. Racism, bigotry, and misogyny cannot be defined differently depending on who exhibits such behavior. Reverend Al Sharpton is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to punish artists and announcers alike for advocating violence in word and deed.

In 2005, this issue was fresh and addressed. Then, a member of rap group, The Game was wounded during a shooting outside a New York hip-hop radio station. The cause was clear; another hip-hopper, 50 Cent was on the air criticizing The Game. Tempers flared. The effect of word weaponry was realized. The rest is rap or American history. After this volatile event, civil rights leader Al Sharpton . . .

The founder of the National Action Network emphasized in the letter: "We cannot sit silently by while young Americans feel that shootings and bloodshed is now synonymous with success and celebrity. We understand you're in the business of making money, but it cannot be at the expense of polluting the cultural outlook of young Americans."

However, two years later, rappers again speak to their creativity, just cause, and the need to communicate their concerns.

Rappers reason they are poets; they please the people. Although admittedly, not all the people. The recent allegations of racial and misogynistic rhetoric against Don Imus amplified a too often delayed or dissuaded discussion. Is it proper to demean women or people of other ethnicities. Might a poet use his or her artistic licenses? Is it just when an performer uses racial slurs, or vile vernacular against one of their own? Today, USA Today reported . . .

Imus fallout: Music execs discuss rap lyrics

NEW YORK (AP) — In the wake of Don Imus' firing for his on-air slur about the Rutgers women's basketball team, a high-powered group of music-industry executives met privately Wednesday to discuss sexist and misogynistic rap lyrics.

During the furor that led to Imus' fall last week from his talk-radio perch, many of his critics carped as well about offensive language in rap music.

The meeting, called by hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, was held at the New York home of Lyor Cohen, chairman, and chief executive of U.S. music at Warner Music Group. The summit, which lasted several hours, did not result in any specific initiative.

Organizers billed the gathering as a forum to "discuss issues challenging the industry in the wake of controversy surrounding hip-hop and the First Amendment." Afterward, they planned to hold a news conference at a Manhattan hotel to discuss "initiatives agreed upon at the meeting." But by early afternoon, the news conference was postponed, because the meeting was still going on.

After the meeting ended, it was unclear whether there would be another one. Simmons' publicist released a short statement that described the topic as a "complex issue that involves gender, race, culture and artistic expression. Everyone assembled today takes this issue very seriously."

Although no recommendations emerged, the gathering was significant for its who's-who list of powerful music executives.

Again, we stand still. Money moves mountains; yet, capital does not necessarily change minds. We think, and act on our beliefs. When people profess their deepest, darkest chauvinistic values, spirits are often broken. Lives can be lost.

Rappers know this as do bloggers. Suffering students are realizing that words, written or spoken cannot be ignored. The common folk and tycoons agree; yet, they disagree. This is evident when we listen to recent Oprah Winfrey town-hall meeting. Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons of Hip-Hop Summit Action Network stated his beliefs . . .

"We're talking about a lot of these artists who come from the most extreme cases of poverty and ignorance ... And when they write a song, and they write it from their heart, and they're not educated, and they don't believe there's opportunity, they have a right, they have a right to say what's on their mind," he said.

"Whether it's our sexism, our racism, our homophobia or our violence, the hip-hop community sometimes can be a good mirror of our dirt and sometimes the dirt that we try to cover up," Simmons said. "Pointing at the conditions that create these words from the rappers ... should be our No. 1 concern."

I wonder; might our number one concern be the hearts and minds of all humans, men, women, Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red, and Jew, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians too. Whether we are born in poverty or into wealth, we are human. We hurt; we bleed. We can love; however, as long as our language degrades another, love will not survive. Perhaps, neither will we. I am reminded of the phrase, "race riots," or "the war against women." I fear the folly of expressing emotions in a manner that kills heart, mind, body, or soul. I prefer the words, "May peace be with you my brother and my sister."

For me, a code of ethics need not be written or etched in stone; it must be lived because we believe in love, peace, and tranquility.

The Rap and Resources . . .

Blog death threats spark debate. BBC News. March 27, 2007

Death threats and blogging, By Kos. Daily Kos. April 12, 2007

Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks cited in official police report, By Jeremiah Marquez. Associated Press. SFGate. July 31, 2006

Daily Kos

Imus fallout: Music execs discuss rap lyrics USA Today. April 18, 2007

Officials Knew Troubled State of Killer in ’05, By Shaila Dewan and Marc Santora. The New York Times. April 18, 2007

pdf Officials Knew Troubled State of Killer in ’05, By Shaila Dewan and Marc Santora. The New York Times. April 18, 2007

Apocalypto, By Peter Travers. Rolling Stone. November 21, 2006

Jews, Mel Gibson, War. Rehabilitating Hatred, By Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Sharpton Asks FCC to Regulate Rap By Tracy L. Scott. Free Press. March 25, 2007

Rev. Al Sharpton asks FCC to punish violent rappers. Jet. April 11, 2005

Oprah on Imus (Public forum with Russell and others) 2 YouTube.

'Kramer' Apologizes, Says He's Not Racist. CBS News. November 21, 2006

32 killed in gun rampage at Virginia university, By John M. Broder. International Herald Tribune. April 16, 2007

Imus vs. free enterprise, By Kevin Nance. Chicago Sun-Times. April 17, 2007

pdf Imus vs. free enterprise, By Kevin Nance. Chicago Sun-Times. April 17, 2007

Sharpton complains to FCC about rap music. USA Today. March 25, 2005

National Action Network (NAN).

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 19, 2007 at 12:00 AM in "Take me as I am!", Abuse, Advertising, Aggression, Americana, Black Men, Bloggers Unite, Business, Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Communities, Communities and Communication , Consumption and Content, Corporate Profits, Current Affairs, Daily Kos, Discussion, Economics, Emotional Intelligence, Ethics, Ethics and Profits, Manipulated Media, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga , Philosophy, Racial Discrimination, Social Order Teaches , Standards in Society, Violence, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Single Women. The First Time. ©

The idea first entered my consciousness at the age of five. I overheard my parents having a passionate conversation. I had never seen them so animated. I wanted to feel as they did in that moment. By the time I was a teen I had read much. I knew; I was ready. How long would it be before I too felt the excitement and the energy I witnessed? I wondered.

When the time came, I was anxious, expectant, and so eager. I did not know that I could do it in my own home. I was young and naïve. I walked outside the house in a driving rain. I hitchhiked to meet my destiny. Once I completed the act, I was elated. I could hardly wait for the next time, then the next, and the next. All these years later, I still love doing it.

"You want me to tell you about my first time . . . I like doing it in the morning . . . When was it? What year was it? Well, it’s kind of personal . . . I felt grown up. I wasn’t a kid anymore . . . Once I did it in an old woman's garage. You have all of that energy flowing inside. You go in. You commit. It is a beautiful thing!"

These women, Felicity Huffman, Marg Helgenberger, Angie Harmon, Rosario Dawson, Tyne Daly, and Daphne Zuniga are speaking of voting, as was I. They are reflecting on their first vote; their virginal experience as an electorate. A recent television advertisement campaign, sponsored by the Women's Voices, Women Vote, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, District of Columbia, is attempting to appeal to single women voters. Apparently, according to a recent study, there are approximately twenty million of these.

In this election year 2006, single women are considered the group to get. They are the voters that candidates wish to attract. These lovelies are the silent, sweet minority.

In recent years, each election has been marked with a group of swing voters -- 1992 was the year of the woman, 1994 -- the year of "angry white males," 1996 -- the soccer mom, and 2000 -- waitress moms.

According to [Daron Shaw, PhD., an associate professor at the University of Texas,] Shaw, the swing voter becomes more legitimate when you can picture them as a group. The waitress moms, branded as blue-collared women who were typically single mothers, were an easy group for people to visualize -- Helen Hunt in "As Good as it Gets," a movie that came out only a year before the election.

Heading into this election year [2004], a media buzz has surrounded one group in particular -- NASCAR dads -- a term used by Democratic consultant Celinda Lake in 2002 to describe white, conservative NASCAR fans.

Though the legitimacy of NASCAR dads as a swing vote is debated, in February President Bush, decked out in a racing jacket, flew on Air Force One to the Daytona 500, NASCAR's biggest annual event.
"Our message to them (NASCAR dads) is Democrats are not going to take away your guns, but Republicans are taking away your jobs," said Lake, the Democratic pollster, who worked as a consultant for the Clinton/Gore campaign.

Some pundits, however, have argued that NASCAR dads as a swing group is nothing more than hype.

Today the group to capture are single women.

I am among them. Yet, I have done it for decades. I am a dedicated voter. Unlike the twenty-two percent of eligible single female citizens that forfeited their right to vote in the 2004 Presidential election year, I cast my ballot. Contrary to the expected 24 percent of single, adult women that are not expected to vote this year, I will again select my representatives.

Single women are now being defined as slackers.

By contrast, [Joe Goode, Executive Director of Women's Voices, Women Vote] Goode said, "married women comprise 28 percent of the voting population, but their participation was 31 percent in the last presidential.”

Who are these fair ladies? Are you among them? if so, please share your sentiments; what are you thinking, feeling, and why. I want to understand.

Seriously, for me, at the age of five I felt passionate about politics. My natural father was a right-winged, radical Republican. My Mom is a Democratic Socialist. One day the two were engaged in a heated exchange as they discussed the candidates. I witnessed this and thought, “Wow, I can hardly wait to care so much and have the power to bring about change.”

I grew up in a quiet home. This discussion for me was unusual, electrifying, exhilarating, and lively. I listened intently. The dialogue, and the moment, was unforgettable. Since that conversation, which was my introduction to issues, the parties, and political campaigns, my interest has never wavered.

My Mom later divorced my biological father. She married a Liberal Progressive. Political demonstrations became a part of my life early on. I participated in the process long before I could vote. In Wisconsin, at the age of seventeen I was able to cast a ballot in the primary. In the Badger state, if you were going to be eighteen at the time of the general election, you were eligible to vote in the preliminaries.

At the time, I was a college student. I moved after registering. In order to vote, I needed to drive, in my case hitchhike to my former precinct. It was far. The weather was awful. Not only did I drudge out during a thunderstorm, I repeated the process in November in the midst of a blizzard. Nothing deterred me.

Yet, according to experts single women in America have many reasons for not voting. Time and money seem to be major concerns for this population. Somehow, this effects their partaking in the process.

According to Joe Goode, “Fifty percent of these single women live in households that make less than $30,000 a year. They are very economically depressed.”

I relate. I would think that this state of affairs would stimulate a desire to vote, to take action. These women, more than most need a good government to assist them. With representatives such as our current compassionate Commander, they are certain to falter. Statistically speaking, I am in this group. I know how hard life can be when the money in your pocket cannot fill a molehill, let alone a mountain.

Thus, I trust that life for these women must be a challenge, it is for me! I acknowledge that day-to-day doings are made more challenging by a non-responsive administration. I know that; this is my experience!

Many single women "may be struggling just to get ahead. They may be single moms. So their support network just isn't the same as married women who tend to be upper-income and a little more established in terms of where they live.”

Oh, this is so true. For me, there is one income and it is shaky. My support system is quite limited. My network is likely smaller than those that meander in and out of meaningful exchanges with their spouse and “his” associates.

One reason for this disparity, Goode suggests, is that "single women tend to be more mobile. A third of them move every two years or less. They might not even know where to go to vote. A lot of them are under 30 and a lot of them are over 60."

Whatever their age, these are women with concerns about affordable health care, the cost of education and pay equity.

So true Mr. Goode. Health care concerns have haunted me as long as I can remember. Though I loathe moving, I seem to be more mobile than my married counterparts. On the topic of pay equity, I can only say, please. If I begin to share stories on this subject, I will go on endlessly. I often wonder do married women and single women receive equal pay. I will leave that research for another time.

Once again, with all that effects single women directly, why do so many of these magnificent beings choose not to vote.

Sara Grove, a professor and Chair of the Elsie Hillman Politics at Chatham College in Pittsburgh, is sympathetic; she understands the large burdens many students shoulder today, single women among these.

Ms. Grove states, "If you are attending college ... this is one of the last things you are paying attention to.” The Professor cogitates, ‘many students carry 12 college credits so they can obtain health-care benefits while also working a full-time job. They wind up struggling to stay afloat academically and financially.’

Grove continues, "That is increasingly becoming the dilemma more and more students face.” Yet, I wonder; does this justify not voting, not turning to those that might better the system. I too attended college, often working full-time while carrying a full load. I did struggle and every aspect of my life suffered. Thus, I saw a need for being active. For me, voting was meaningful. It gave me a voice. When I cast my ballot, then and now, I felt and feel empowered. I was making a choice and attempting to improve life in America.

Barbara DiTullio, program manager for Women Vote PA, said Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation where women are less likely than men to be registered to vote. One way to draw more women to the polls, she said, is to hold elections on weekends.

"Why does it have to be on a Tuesday between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. when people are working and children are in school? If we really want to engage people, we have to make it easier for them to vote.”

Wow! Originally, I am from Pennsylvania. However, as you might surmise, as a single woman, I have moved many times in my life. I no longer reside in what once was my home state.

Nevertheless, the scheduled Tuesday vote is to me almost a non-issue. Years ago I learned of the power of an absentee vote. I was working as the Democratic Party Representative on election eve. Members of the Grand Jury and people from each political party were at the Registrars to monitor the vote count. I befriended the Sergeant of Arms, the Republican representative. He informed me, to ensure that the ballots would be cast, the Republican Party encouraged people to vote from home, well in advance of the election.

I thought what a great idea. After assessing this dynamic, I began to do as he advised. On many occasion, this has helped me immensely. Voting can be a leisurely well-researched project when you mark your ballot from home. The days and times for an “election” are ones a voter can choose.

What for me is more fascinating and more real is the lack of awareness among people entitled to vote, and those that volunteer during campaigns. Only days ago, my telephone rang. The caller represented the Democratic Party. She sounded young; she seemed to have a script. she read from it and asked if I had received a white card, an application, allowing me to vote from home. I mentioned the “absentee ballot option.” She said “No, not that.”

At the time, I was rushed and did not have time to retrieve the document. The staff person and I parted ways. Later, I did go and look at the brochure the woman spoke of. There it was, printed right at the top, “Absentee Ballot Application.” I am new to this state and thought perhaps there were processes and pamphlets that differed from those that I am familiar with. Perchance there are.

Here, in Florida, Early Voting polling places are available. People, citizens have been casting their ballots for weeks on days other than Tuesday. Thus, again I ask, if you are a single woman and are not voting, if you have not voted in the past, please help me to understand.

As a single woman whose income is low, who struggles to make ends meet, as a female that finds it difficult to survive, that fears the need for medical assistance, as one that knows a minor or major health concern could change my life drastically, I ask why would unmarried women not vote. Why would those that need to live in a society that cares for its weaker wonders not wish to ensure that all is well? I am so confused.

Single women of America, please scream out. Participate in the process. I plead; I beseech you. I am willing to say, “I need your help!” Please support the candidates of your choosing.

Your Sample Ballot . . .
• Single Woman Vote. YouTube
• My First Time. Issues. Dreams. Women's Voices. Women Vote.
• Women's Voices. Women Vote.
• New Survey Finds. Women's Voices. Women Vote. February 21, 2006
• WVWV Leadership Team. Women's Voices. Women Vote.
• Women Talk About the 'First Time' ABC News
• 12 Days and Counting: Will Women Show up at the Polls on November 7? By Romi Lassally, Yahoo News October 26, 2006
• Organization trying to get more single women to vote,By Marylynne Pitz. Knoxville News Sentinel. 
October 22, 2006
• Politics 101: Swing Voters. The Online NewsHour's Vote 2004. Public Broadcasting Services
• Women Really on Their Own, By Ruth Rosen. The Nation October 28, 2004
• Cable News Network Election Results
• Healthy, Wealthy, & Wed,
By Amy M. Braverman. University of Chicago Magazine.
• Women’s Earnings, Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings. United States General Accounting Office
• Sacramento Women: Women Vs. Women, By Dayna Dunteman. Sacramento Magazine October 2006
• Democrats Push to Counter G.O.P. in Turnout Race, By Adam Nagourney. New York Times. October 29, 2006

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 28, 2006 at 03:00 PM in Advertising, American Patriotism, Civics, Current Affairs, Elections, Politics, Voter Apathy, Voters Speak, Women | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

“Be Afraid; Be Very, Very Afraid.” I Am. ©

It was early in the 1960s that I first learned of fear. There was much apprehension. The Cold War was on; it was with us each and every day. It had been for decades. In Capitalist countries such as the United States, children practiced rushing into Air-raid shelters. Adults feared the possible threat of a bomb. They taught their offspring to fear as well. Underground safe houses were built. In backyards throughout America, steel and concrete sanctuaries were established. “The stakes were high.” Yet, these circumstances and societal beliefs did not alarm me.

Lyndon Baines Johnson in his 1964 Democratic campaign spoke of the impending threat in a political advertisement. This singular commercial came to be known as the “Daisy Ad.” One transmission of that commercial was more than enough for the general public. The broadcast was considered too controversial. This public notice was not shown again. All previously scheduled airings were canceled. There was enough alarm within our society at-large. Americans did not wish to be reminded of it in their living rooms. However, beginning this weekend citizens of this country will again acquainted with fear as they watch their cable networks.

Please view each of these commercials.  The “Daisy Ad” is offered below.  The Grand Old Party presents “The Stakes are High!”  2006 at their website.

If I saw the one and only official screening of the Johnson commercial, I have no memory of it.  Whether I did or did not see the ad, I do think it would have affected me as deeply as a personal experience did.  I did learn of “fear” in the 1960s.

My Mom and her encounter with an unnamed man that burglarized my family home taught me of terror.  I did not come to understand it as President Johnson may have wished me to do in 1964.  Nor will I accept the supposed lesson President Bush and his Republican cronies are now intending to teach me.  I have seen and heard “The stakes are high” in the newest Republican political campaign.  I have heard our “fair” leader declare, “Be afraid; be very, very afraid,” and I am, though not of Osama Bin Laden.

Ticking clocks and bombs that might possibly explode do not frighten me as much as man himself does.  Images of Osama Bin Laden might scare me.  A young frightened face can paralyze me.  Bush bellowing his belief, we must “rid the world of the evil-doers” causes me great grief and anxiety.  However, none of these negates the lesson I learned at a very young age.  “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”  Actually, each of the images in 1964 and 2006 campaign commercials solidify my understanding.  No matter what we do to protect ourselves from imagined fears, we cannot change the will of others.

Each of these public notices proclaim, “The stakes are high.”  Yes, “The stakes are high,” particularly in this election year.  Sadly, they are getting higher.  I could rejoice as some Democrats do and begin to declare victory.  I might imagine the Republicans are running scared.  However, I believe the Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, and Independents are as well.  Fear is flourishing all around us.  Thus, campaigns such as this newer advertisement can be successfully introduced.  They may fail.  I know not.  I only observe the climate is right for such a cynical campaign.

I understand as many do.  As Americans reflect on the fall of Saddam Hussein, they assess the once declared victory, and they ponder the effects of the Iraqi War.  As they do so they realize “spreading democracy” is not the “bed of roses” they were told it would be.  Currently, many of our countrymen and women think they have more to fear than fear itself.  American citizens are apprehensive about the future.

In pondering what will be, constituents are concluding they must rid themselves of what we have now.  Today we have a Republican controlled House, Senate, and White House.  This is scary, at least for some, myself included. 

However, I ask as many do, will the Democrats truly do better?  I sigh and trust they cannot do worse.  Nevertheless, most of those on the Left initially supported the war.  A war I did not and do not support.  I never have advocated violence of any sort.

I acknowledge that the Left, the “Right,” and the Middle are each mired in a belief that I do not hold.  They think we can eliminate terrorism by aggressing against the aggressor.  We can secure our borders and protect ourselves from invaders.  Americans seem to believe that we can control the will of others through punitive or mechanical protective measures.  I think these beliefs are such foolishness.

I share this true story to illustrate my conviction.  In the 1960s, my family was living in a very affluent neighborhood in the North East suburbs of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  My Mom was home alone.  A man broke into our home.  He jimmied an unlocked window to gain entrance.

This intruder stumbled upon my Mom.  He panicked and threatened to rape her.  She did not resist; she craved no confrontations.  The thief feared her openness and proceeded to place her in the living room closet.  In his terror, he neglected to lock the wardrobe door.  The robber stole a car, money, and material goods, then left.  When my Mom felt certain the man was gone, she exited her cubbyhole and telephoned the police.

After this experience my Mom concluded, if a person wishes to commit a crime, they will.  If this burglar chose to use a crow bar to pry open an unlocked window, why secure the portals at all.  People, with intent are powerful.

I propose we must understand the motivation of a man or woman if we are to prevent future outrages.  The mind is our master.  Where there is a will, there is a way.

Thus, I ask, in the future will we address human will as a means of prevention, or will we continue to charge ahead telling others they must change.  I inquire; if we do what was done, will we ever be effective.  Will peace ever come?

I believe a superpower with bombs will do little to maintain national security.  A President making broad pronouncements will not deliver us from “evil.”  Our shores will not be safe when we see enemies everywhere.  When we as a community look suspiciously at certain ethnic origins then we create what we fear, discordance.

I surmise as long as we, the people, accept a world where bombs are built, people will build bombs.  I trust that when our countrymen proudly promote war, or any form of combat, as an option, then people will die in such conflicts.  I offer, we can lock our doors; close our borders, troll our telephones, remove our shoes at airports, or argue the effectiveness of advertisements that promote fear.  As long as we focus on such follies, nothing will change.

Thieves will pry open unlocked windows, because that is what they do or believe they need to.  Terrorists will capture airplanes, and fly these into buildings.  That is what they think is reasonable.  Television campaigns and political parties will tell us to fear.  This strategy has often proven to be a “winning way” in the past.  You might recall numerous electors were thankful that Ronny saw the bear in the woods.

“Right,” Left, or wrong, 2006 is reminiscent of 1964.  We see evidence; life goes on just as it has.  We can debate this commercial or that.  Nevertheless, change will come only when we ourselves choose to change.

Please recall, Democrats and Republicans alike have used “scare tactics” to promote their agendas.  Perchance, we need not question the strategy.  I think we must query ourselves.  How often do we work to protect ourselves from self-perceived foes?  Could we not challenge our perceptions and succeed in creating alliances?  I sigh and say, let the commercial come; it will not influence my perception.  As I assess society, then or now, I know that I experience deep sadness.  Oh, how I crave peace and perceptions of unity.

• May I offer a paradoxical and poignant phrase uttered by former President Lyndon Baines Johnson at the close of his now infamous commercial.  Poet, Wystan Hugh Auden wrote the beautiful acknowledgement;

"We must either love each other.  Or we must die."

• Please review the “Daisy Advertisement.”  Listen intently and ponder the prospect of love or death.

Please Peruse The Reasons For Fear . . .
• Classic Political Ad: Daisy Girl (1964)
• Republican edge on security wanes as elections near, By Liz Sidoti. Associated Press. USA Today. October 21, 2006
• “The Stakes are High!” Republican National Committee
• “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”: FDR’s First Inaugural Address History Matters.
• Low Blows and High Rhetoric: Political Ads on Television, By Maggie Riechers. Humanities. July - August Edition. 1999, Volume 20. Number 4
• Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate,  By Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar. Quill Magazine. Stanford University. May 1996
• Scary Ads Take Campaign to a Grim New Level, By Jim Rutenburg. The New York Times. October 17, 2004
• The Man Behind The Movement, By Jack Beatty. Atlantic Unbound. August 8, 2001
• Bush vows to rid the world of 'evil-doers.' By Manuel Perez-Rivas. Cable News Network. September 16, 2001
• Bear (Reagan) The Museum of the Moving Image
• W. H. Auden. Poets.org
• A politics of love, By James Carroll. Boston Globe. October 19, 2004

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 20, 2006 at 04:00 PM in Advertising, Aggression, Current Affairs, Fear, Paradox of Peace, Political Campaigns, Politics, Propaganda and Politics, War and Peace, War, The Last Option | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack