On Were politics behind Chrysler’s Eastwood ad?
Posted on February 9 at 8:07 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I share Kiowamohican's political philosophy on bailouts but I believe the intended purpose of this ad is to "sell" a philosophy exactly opposite to ours: "They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together."
When you are paying $12 million to run a two minute TV spot, you won't be careless with your message. Each and every word will be carefully chosen to convey that message. Eastwood's soliloquy contains five (5) occurrences of the word "they" and fourteen (14) occurrences of the word "we". That would be an astounding number of collective pronouns for an advertisement intending to sell machines! If that's what the ad were trying to "sell", that is.
Anyone spending $12 million to publicly broadcast a message containing that many collective pronouns is doing so to influence public opinion. When someone publicly calls for collective action, such statement is inherently political, especially when a distinction is drawn between "we" and "they". How often do you hear people discuss what "we" should be doing about AT&T's dropped calls or what "we" should be doing about the high price of an iPhone, etc? Pretty silly. When anyone asks the rhetorical question as to what "we" could or should be doing, government action is implied. Government action is political.
So, I ask myself, who comprises the collective "we" and who comprises the collective "they"? Eastwood's soliloquy is consistent with regard to "we" but a little vague with regard to "they". His opening sentences frame the topic and set the tone: “It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker rooms discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half. It’s halftime in America, too." No ambiguity there; two football teams are in battle for victory, each team intent on defeating the other. If that is supposed to be a metaphor for America then who is supposed to be America's metaphorical opponent here? It doesn't specify. At $6 million dollars per minute, you can bet that omission was intentional. Who are "they"? People who need "our" help? The important message is that "we" forget our differences and pull together with regard to "them".
Most curious is whether the ad is propaganda to "sell" the righteousness of past bailouts (they) or whether it is propaganda to soften Americans (we) to similar planned government initiatives in the future. Time will tell. The one question I do NOT have is whether or not this ad is "political".
On Were politics behind Chrysler’s Eastwood ad?
Posted on February 9 at 5:59 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/3192.html "DIRTY HARRY IS A LIBERTARIAN"
[The guy in the White House may not be a libertarian, but Clint Eastwood is. In USA Weekend, Ol' Dirty Harry tells us: "I don't see myself as conservative, but I'm not ultra-leftist. ... I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. Even as a kid, I was annoyed by people who wanted to tell everyone how to live."
And also unlike the guy in the White House, Clint adopts a laissez-faire view on same-sex marriages. "From a libertarian point of view," says Clint, "you would say, 'Yeah? So what?' You have to believe in total equality. People should be able to be what they want to be and do what they want -- as long as they're not harming people." ]
(Other references to Clint Eastwood's unique and enigmatic political philosophy available by request. :-)
On Were politics behind Chrysler’s Eastwood ad?
Posted on February 8 at 3:59 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I view Eastwood as a somewhat unpredictable independent who varies from conservative and libertarian. I got the impression he was subliminally channeling the spirit of Ronald Reagan. As for the overall ad itself, it left me with a very clear impression of being "political", whether or not that was Eastwood's intent.
On Obama’s assault on the poor
Posted on February 8 at 1:22 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Ezoner: As someone who's been saying the same things as Ron Paul since 1972, I can attest that preaching to deaf ears for 40 years can turn one into a crusty old curmudgeon. That said, I agree that Rand Paul is more charismatic that his father. The problem is, Rand is still too young and inexperienced to be POTUS. (Yeah, I know... that didn't stop Barack Obama! ;-)
On Disrespecting the president
Posted on February 8 at 6:55 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Motorman: Yes, that was a great episode of Moyers' ongoing series, which is excellent. (Jonathan Haidt has come a long way in the right direction but still has a few more miles left in his journey. That's a topic for a separate discussion...) The problem is, far too many people don't want to learn any truth that does not confirm what they already believe. Even worse is when it places their existing beliefs in jeopardy. So, the people who could most benefit from the Moyers interview are the very same ones who are least likely to watch it. D'OH!
On Analysis: How economy is viewed can differ sharply
Posted on February 5 at 2:37 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
RAF: IMHO, unemployment numbers ARE a farce. (See: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_dat... ) If you want to see the sharp LFPR blip behind Friday's dramatic "drop in unemployment", check out the original zerohedge article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-... (Make sure that "-" at the end is included or you'll end up on an entirely different page!)
I think the LFPF is the best socioeconomic barometer we have. Seeing the entire plot back to 1948 is even more dramatic. (Sorry, I don't have a link.) The last 15-year period has shown a marked change from the decades that preceded it but the trend since 2008 is quite clear and unambiguous. :-(
On Analysis: How economy is viewed can differ sharply
Posted on February 5 at 5:58 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
That's right RAF. That statistic is the Labor Force Participation Rate. It is one of the few official government economic stats that isn't fudged for political purposes. (BLS has data and methodology on its website, bls.gov.)
Yes, the LFPR slope since 2008 is downright scary! However, its decades-long climbing trend, which started in the 1950s, began to flatten in the late 1990s while Clinton was in office. It started its current long-term decline under Bush, not Obama. (IMHO, it is naive and silly to credit or blame any particular president for the LFPR. But I digress...)
The LFPR represents the percentage of our population that materially participates in our economy. (i.e. they work, produce something, contribute, etc.) When studying this graph, remind yourself that the total US population continues to increase across the entire plot.
For the moment, set aside every politically motivated, so-called "expert" claim you've heard about our economy and just ask yourself: How closely does the LFPR reflect the personal economics and sense of opportunity experienced by the average, middle-class American over the past 30 years? For my money, it is dead-on!
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/f...
( http://www.zerohedge.com )
On Disrespecting the president
Posted on February 4 at 6:56 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
"So I see that Fool and whzbng are the same person?"
You are way too smart for that sort of crap, FR4D. You have very a keen eye for observing reality but some of your conclusions are still in the prototype development stage. False statements like that might lead some folks to dismiss ALL of your comments for lack of credibility.
On Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Posted on February 4 at 6:06 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I don't know about the relevance of the 2nd Amendment but this stretches the limits of the 1st Amendment, if it doesn't stomp all over it. No American should be forced at gunpoint to subsidize the healthcare of any other, especially when that violates other Constitutional principles and protections in the process.
Specific beliefs, in this case those of the Catholic Church, are irrelevant to the issue of liberty. Defending individual liberty does not hinge on whether or not the liberty being infringed is yours. Quite the opposite. Defending your own beliefs and freedoms is meaningless. You understand the concept of liberty only when you understand WHY you are personally responsible for defending the liberty of those who disagree with you. If there is one single trend leading this country toward total collapse from within, it is that way too few Americans care about liberty for anyone but themselves.
Page 1 of 235 | Next
On Were politics behind Chrysler’s Eastwood ad?
Posted on February 10 at 6:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
A parody of "Halftime in America" from Reason.TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_8qCbHs...
P.T. Barnum was dead wrong. They're being born a whole lot faster than one every minute.