Saturday, September 27, 2008

Palin-drone, violence in media, and more

Just a few random thoughts that whacked me in the noggin today. First, the whiny and now seemingly invisible Sarah Palin. People, and even the press, seem to finally be tiring of the McCain camp's unmitigated ballsy refusal to let her talk to the media or provide anything more substantive than fluffy video and photo ops of her visits with foreign dignitaries. I'm personally flummoxed by her cocky claims of foreign policy experience, citing the fact that she can "see Russia from an island in Alaska." I suppose I'm qualified to be an astronaut, because I can see the moon from my back yard. I also have foreign trade experience - I've bought several imported cars, and all of my electronics are from overseas, too. I've even watched European soccer. Ridiculous, you say? Yeah, that's pretty much my point. If you choose to compete for the 2nd highest job in the United States of America, you had damned well better be ready, willing, and - dare I say it - able to answer questions about your views, experience, and the red-flocked wallpaper you just had to have in your office as part of an alleged $50,000 makeover. Face it, none of us are without flaws, eccentricities, or skeletons in our little closets. It's not that we have those things - it's how we deal with them and explain them to the good people who will be voting for us. (Yes, even those simple sheep-like saps who just had to run out and buy glasses, shoes, and outfits just like Sarah's.) Well, anyone who has witnessed her pathetic attempts at making sense during her recent interviews can understand why the McCain campaign is trying to keep her under lock and key. I don't know at this point whether she's intelligent or just a lucky, determined pit bull, but I do know that she's potentially a heartbeat away from being in control of our nation. This fact leaves me feeling rather uncomfortable - how about you? On an unrelated note, I haven't yet heard anyone talking about how the candidates seem to be abandoning the letter "g" at the end of words, but I know the point will be addressed soon enough. They're bein' extra folksy when they're discussin' those talkin' points, you get my meanin'? You betcha! Okay, enough about politics.

On to another topic near and dear to me: The effects of violence in our mass media on the general population's proclivity toward violent acts. Here's the thing that occurred to me a few moments ago: Ask the studios why they keep producing uber-violent, disgusting scenes of grotesque murder in movies, tv, and video games. They'll unabashedly admit that they do it because people like to buy and watch the stuff. Bully for people, and bully for the studios. So, following that logic, how about prostitution, then? It's been around for oh, about -- forever. Why? Because, quite simply, men like sex, and women like shiny things. On one hand, it's fine selling entertainment that has been proven (though heavily debated) to have a causal relationship with increasing a person's tendency to act violently. On the other hand, we have a business exchange where a woman voluntarily engages in sexual acts in return for money. Yet, only one of these business practices is deemed wrong, dangerous, and illegal. Am I being too black and white, or am I just guilty of making a bit of sense? There's a not-so-famous quote that says, "Why is there no crime in Germany? Because it's illegal." Why is there a problem with all of the gratuitous violence in our television shows, movies, and video games? Because it encourages violent behavior, desensitizes people to violent acts, and glorifies plain old bad behavior. What's the worst that could happen if the studios agreed to try backing off the slaughter-fest for, say, 12 months? Other than a significant drop in profit until the writers figured out a way to replace easy, lazy scriptwriting with intelligent and thought-provoking works, I can't see a downside, can you? And if it failed to effect a reduction in violent crime, then they could just start firing up the cannons once again.

One final thought: I'm constantly noticing people - intelligent ones - using the phrase, "I could care less" to describe their disinterest in something: Think about it!!! If you COULD care less, that means you care at least a little bit, doesn't it? You really want to say, "I could NOT care less," which more accurately indicates one's lack of concern. Did I really need to clarify this? Sadly, yes. And let's not forget the popular "unchartered territory" reference. I actually heard John McCain use that one in the first presidential debate. Wrong-o. It's actually "uncharted" territory, as in territory that no one has documented yet (like, on a chart), therefore it's kind of an unknown. Unchartered territory, on the other hand, might refer to the Siberian front, or some other such place where you'd have difficulty finding a chartered group tour at your local travel agent. And please, can someone explain to me why the leader of the free world for the past eight years, with all of his expert advisors and coaches, cannot seem to pronounce the word "nuclear" to save his life? C'mon, W - say "New," then say "Clear," and then say 'em together real fast-like. Heh-heh-heh. How that man has the key to the big red button machine is just uncular (read: unclear) to me.