Debate Club

The basic sequence of events:

1. Boy, age 15, confesses to mother that he'd had "inappropriate contact" with sister, age 3.
2. Mother calls Father, and tells him, "[...T]this isn't something you sweep under the rug."
3. Father shows up at Mother's home with gun, beats Boy over Mother's protests, then marches him outside, and shoots him dead.

Cue random online debate, where people toss out whatever's on their minds.

But this raises an interesting question. How do you have a public debate over something like this? What does "a public debate" even mean in this circumstance?

Where Blame Is Due

Supermodel (What makes a model "super," anyway?) Kate Moss has come under fire again, this time for saying, during an online interview: "nothing tastes as good as skinny feels."

The gripe is a simple one - Young women with anorexia are latching onto the phrase as encouragement in their quests to waste away to nothing. This, being a bad thing, makes Moss' comment "irresponsible." According to one critic: "She's making unhealthy attitudes and behaviours seem somehow attractive. A lot of young girls see her as some kind of an icon so promoting these kinds of attitudes is really inappropriate. It really made me angry when I heard about it."

It's an understandable complaint, but it seems to miss the mark. First, Moss didn't coin the phrase. Secondly, it overemphasizes Moss' role as a role model. Moss is after all, a model - people pay her to play dress-up while they take her picture. People do this because other people will pay to see the pictures of Kate Moss playing dress-up. All in all, people pay a lot of money for this - after all, this is what has made Moss into a celebrity. The models one sees in your average Victoria's Secret catalog are commonly considered pretty attractive - but very few of them are household names, and you don't hear about their every word. If Moss' super-skinny look wasn't in such high demand, it's likely that she wouldn't be such an influence on young women. It doesn't seem to make sense to harp on Moss promoting herself, when she, at the end of the day, isn't the person who decides what's in, and what's not.

But this seems to be a common trend. Gabourey Sidibe has taken some media heat for being so obese. But there doesn't seem to be much criticism of Lee Daniels for not insisting that they cast a more healthy actress for the role, and zip her into a fat suit.

Moss and Sidibe didn't make themselves famous. Someone else did it for them. Maybe they're the ones that should be taking it on the chin over the allegedly harmful messages that Moss' and Sidibe's apparent lack of remorse for their bodies are sending. In making people with unhealthy bodies into celebrities, aren't they, and the everyday people who support their celebrity status, the ones who are making unhealthy attitudes and behaviors seem somehow attractive?

Blinders

Despite the fact that current statistics have been making the point that there are about six unemployed Americans for every current advertised job opening, there appears to be a Conservative undercurrent of resentment at people who are not working. While it's not a big deal, I do wonder why we don't hear any pushback against that figure, when people trot out the tired old line of "there are jobs out there, if people are willing to work." While there is a tendency among Liberals to push back against Conservatives with charges of willfully ignoring the facts in order to push their cause, I suspect that a better explanation may be a political blind spot.

In the end, one of the primary differences between the political Left and Right is their understanding of the concept of fairness. Put very generally, my understanding is that the Left tends to view the world as an Unfair place, and part of the role of the State is to make things more fair, while the Right views the world a naturally fair place, and sees Government as a threat to that fairness. Both of these worldviews create rather remarkable blind spots. Modern Liberalism has difficulty with the fact that during good economic times, that opportunities can come along even for the otherwise disadvantaged. On the other hand, modern Conservatism tends to shut down when faced with the idea that during bad times, doing everything right isn't a surefire ticket to success.

But sometimes, I will admit to the uncharitable suspicion that the stereotypical conservative blame game directed at the unemployed is due in part to a feeling of deprivation and/or compassion fatigue. One of the common refrains one hears is "if these people aren't doing everything they can to find work, why should the rest of us support them?" The implication being that if people were doing enough to find work, they should be entitled to public aid. And as in other things, people tend to justify the decisions that they make, so it seems reasonable that when people feel that times are tough for them, they'll be less willing to judge others as being worthy of a piece of the shrinking pie.

Tangentially, I have to say that my first response to a news story that proclaimed "State's jobless rate lets employers ask more from potential hires," was: "In other news today, it's been confirmed that water is wet." But something else occurred to me as I read the article. The majority of people don't receive new jobs through answering want ads. Being a preferred candidate for a job when it becomes available is more common. But I suppose one has to compile statistics somehow, and counting up the openings on Monster is as good a means as any other.

Don't Believe It

It's become fashionable among the ranks of anti-Liberal populists to blame President Obama for everything from the perceived loss of American prestige overseas, to increasing crime rates here at home. (This is likely at least in part a response to anti-Conservative populists blaming President Bush for higher oil prices to the collapse of the dot-com bubble, back when he was in office.) Common reasoning seems to understand the President as "secretly" anti-American, to simply incompetent.

But this raises an interesting question: If John McCain had become President, would he have managed to avoid all of these issues? These same people regard Senator McCain (and pretty much any/everyone else who espouses the right politics) as being patriotic and capable - therefore it follows that they are convinced that the United States would be in a stronger position vis-a-vis the Chinese, that the economy would be better and that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be on a clear path to victory.

That seems like too much hype for anyone to live up to.

Money of Love

So I'm watching television and the following spot comes on: A woman is teaching her husband/boyfriend how to ice skate. Anyway, he's a complete newbie, and can barely keep his feet under him. He finally makes his way over to a tree adjacent to the pond, and grabs a hold of it with one hand, while reaching in his pocket with the other. When his significant other gracefully skates over to see after him he pulls out a jewelry box and opens it. It's now HER turn to nearly plant her backside on the ice, as she literally goes weak in the knees after seeing the gift.

At the risk of sounding like a Troll (You know, Trolls are terminally un-romantic - must be that inability to survive contact with sunlight.), I have to say: "Really? Women really go weak in the knees over chain-store jewelry? C'mon, now."

I understand the overall point of the spot. But I don't understand how a bit of comic overacting is supposed to get me to drop hundreds of dollars on what is, after all, simply a nice trinket. And I really don't get how playing up the stereotype that a woman's understanding of being loved is directly proportional to the amount spent on her is at all romantic.