|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
I Heart NYC Vouchers Don't Fail Me Now Ben Barnes Note to Myself The Liberal Law Gay Hater's Gathering Glug Glug Rain! Miles and Miles Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
8.30.2004
The hardest part about writing a political blog, and one that has become more and more difficult to overcome, is the overwhelming influence of "sound byte" politics. At work, I have customers come in and exclaim that product X is better because of [insert advertising hype here], at which point I have to take the time to separate the marketing hype from the reality of how things really work. In the world of digital cameras it has become all about the "megapixels". If you are getting a five megapixel camera, you are getting a better camera, or so we are told. This streamlining of thought is a result of marketing. It tosses aside all the other factors that are vital to the quality of the camera; metering, lens clarity, focusing, speed and reliability. In this narrow world you would be crazy to spend more money on a camera of the "same quality". I think my most frustrating encounters with people come when someone refuses to reconsider their assumptions in light of new evidence. Instead of admitting their ignorance (which is a noble thing in my opinion) they will stubbornly explain to my why it doesn't matter, that the crappy little $200 digital camera will be just as good as the $500 one. You see, I don't care if you buy the cheapy, I just don't want you to buy it because you think its as good as another option. When a customers says "hey, I don't need the best, this will work" I say "Ok" and we go from there. There is less personal investment in camera buying than in politics. Its not going to shatter a person's worldview to admit they were wrong about a camera. But politics? There's alot of us in there. Being wrong can be devastating. Its better to defend your ignorance than to admit defeat. So when I sit down to write a blog entry, sometimes I am faced with the daunting task of deconstructing an issue BEFORE I can even get around to making my point. Sometimes by the time I've done so I'm exhausted and I'll just hit delete and go to bed. You would not believe the levels of misinformation pitched about political issues. And I'll admit that its done by all sides. It can be just as equally frustrating to see an issue you agree with reduced down to a simple phrase that throws out the complexity that is inherent in all political issues. Addressing the nuance can get you labeled "wishy washy" or a "flip flopper". "But you said that five megapixels was good, but now your saying that this five megapixel camera is not as good as this three megapixel one?" In politics, this reduction in concept is most evident in the debate about taxes. We all seem to agree that taxes are bad and need to be cut. So it would be safe to assume that eliminating taxes would solve our problems? But which taxes, income, payroll, sales, capital gains, estate, etc? How do we pay for the services we want? Do we want poor people with little money to spare pay as much as others who do? Can we really call something a tax cut if we are borrowing money to pay for it? These questions are irrelevant. We KNOW that cutting taxes will put more money into the pockets of the people who earned it.... right? Thus... tax cuts, unequivocally good. Does this marketing style presentation work? Those cheapy cameras are flying off the shelves and people are raving about their tax cuts even while Greenspan is talking about cutting benefits for Social Security and Medicare. Changes to the age for receiving full retirement benefits or initiatives to slow the growth of Medicare spending could affect retirement decisions, the size of the labor force, and saving behavior (translation: Increase the retirement age and renege on the benefits or we go broke) People still seem to think its "fair" that the tax cuts were targeted to income, the most progressive of the taxes, targeted to benefit the wealthy disproportionately over the working class and that the cost, loss or reduction of benefits will overwhelmingly effect the people who will need Social Security and Medicare? Who will that be? Not the people that got the tax cuts. The rich don't need Social Security or Medicare, so what do they care if the age requirements get raised or the benefits get reduced. Not a bit. They already got their money. So let's rephrase the question: Would you still want your two hundred dollar tax cut if it meant working a few extra years to qualify for your Social Security? oooohhh... tax cuts not so great. "Hey this isn't an ice cream sundae, its just whip cream with a spoon in it?" But what can I say. Five megapixels are great, tax cuts are great. Hope you enjoy your new camera and your old President, sucker. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
