In practice it works something like this… somewhere known falsehoods sprout up as if out of nowhere (perhaps it is said, Barack Obama is a radical Muslim or, the Earth is flat, as examples). It necessarily follows that once one meticulously researches these claims, such bold given statements are demonstrably shown to be largely, if not entirely untrue. Yet, irrefutable proof will still be rejected by the gullible, when exposed to this type of deceitfulness. Misrepresentation can and will be embraced rather than rejected. When a false assertion fits a preconceived conviction, belief may trump hard evidence to the contrary. Hateful feelings may overpower thoughtful reflections. How can this be so?
There emerge two distinct methods for hi-jacking truth, which together race toward the same fading vanishing point. If both means can be put swiftly into play, the outcome is often most effective. Where initial evidence might be declared inconclusive, even a cool mind might insist a point debatable. Where next, fear and loathing — basic emotional tools of the trade, often plied by the rabid right — trigger key temperamental gates for both bias and prejudice; the trap has sprung. The primitive animal portion of the brain — that which favors action before reason, with fight or flight reactions preferred to any negotiated agreement — immediately smothers any compelling rational effort to force an impartial test for truthfulness by a measured and settled means. Elevating arguable points to a survival status, forces a quick, all-or-nothing decision, perhaps emotionally releasing in its immediacy, but often poorly vetted for measured honesty and vulnerable to the test of time.
Most importantly, people holding snap, inaccurate positions, are seldom easily persuaded after the fact. Once a version of reality has been set and imprinted in this manner, tainted by emotional outburst; once a choice has been reduced to an issue of life or death, good or evil — there remains little room for shades of gray beneath the blinding light of heated angst. Apprehension leads to a “with us or against us” mindset, hard and fast, nonnegotiable.
Since the process of voting, by its nature, is a “yes-or-no”, “one-or-the-other” outcome, it stands to reason, that a sufficient argument requires only the subtlety of a sledge hammer. Where choice becomes a matter of willful ignorance, the nuance of persuasive discussion is a seldom picked tool for political trade.
Tags: cultural anxiety, good and evil, willful ignorance, wing-nut conspiracy
“Support the troops”, well duh, it should be a no-brainer. Then why would people affix a magnetic ribbon to their vehicle proclaiming the need — as if there is some question whether this is a good or a bad thing? What is the basis of these constant reminders or rather, what is the underlying message? And more pointedly, what is the root cause of the small pang I feel when noticing a “support” ribbon festooned upon a vehicle? Should I not rather puff with pride instead? I display a flag emblem on my car and patriotically pledge allegiance while at attention during appropriate occasions, but yellow ribbons trip something desultory to my sensibilities and even though that should not be the case.
Are there layered implications to this simple slogan: “support the troops”? Well, for me the answer is assuredly yes.
In like manner, a sticker that reads: “I love my wife” aggravates similarly. At once, so unquestionable a phrase, overtly stated, seeds doubt as to some hidden agenda. When an obvious expression requires utterance, might this signify a covert meaning and/or a desire to extinguish any reasonable thought about whatever the subject. Blind obedience is… well, blind.
And then something extraordinary is noticed and an explanation is discovered. Ken Ham speaks at the Pentagon , reads the headline to a news article. A driving force of ignorance, as exemplified by the Creation Museum, was invited to speak at the headquarters for the United States Department of Defense. Granted, the Pentagon is 23,000 members strong and one of the largest office buildings in the world — while, creationist Ham spoke to only 150 souls — but the mix of military and God always leaves me feeling just a bit creeped out. Then came the eureka moment, when the association between yellow troop ribbons and car bumpers correlated closely with the display of religious stickers.
As a religious expression, “Support the Troops” fuels a morbid fascination with death and destruction, sin and retribution, good and evil — no moral relativism, no gray areas, RIP.
Tags: blind obedience, fear mongering, military-industrial complex, nonsense slogan
There’s something insidious about email from an anonymous source which cajoles a course of action, uninvited — that is bad enough, but when the pitch is passed innocuously by family or friend, the treachery carves even deeper. Specifically, over the Thanksgiving break the following message arrived from a friendly source:
What a simple way to honor our troops with recognition and a greeting!
Something cool that Xerox is doing.If you go to this website; http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1024.html you can pick out a thank you card and Xerox will print it and it will be sent to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq.
You can’t pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the armed services.
How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one!!! This is a great site.
Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second.
Several stealthy ploys are at work here. One is the base appeal to mindless patriotism, (see the first line above). Next, couple this personal appeal in a positive way to an impersonal corporate entity — that’s Marketing 101. Then, remove the fear of inter-personal contact — click a button on a website only registering your name and home town, to initiate an action to an unnamed person — nearly anxiety-free. And finally, the real cost associated with this activity — a piece of raw emotional response to war has just been therapeutically removed. Any feelings for war’s victims and/or the trauma afflicted upon participants at all levels and both sides — is fleetingly transferred through this anonymous action. How tidy is that? “And it only takes a second.” Very creepy, no? Also worth noting, the card designers are young children, so absolution by innocents also comes into play.
So with all these notions racing through my mind, I responded as follows to my well-meaning but totally uninformed acquaintance.
When things are “too easy & simple” I object to the simulation of “doing something” when the activity is more likely to impact the virtual participant (the button-clicking web visitor) — as a balm for the conscience, than to impact the supposed recipient of the effort — foot soldiers in a dubious war. Guilt: that one cannot do more meaningful work, and/or guilt that what one might be tacitly supporting may cause more harm than the merit it aims to produce.
Hence, we oblige as consumers to legitimize anonymous “recognition” (an oxymoron if there ever was…), at no cost! Or we paste magnetic ribbons on our gas-guzzlers (…won’t even harm the paint!), in “support of the troops”, while we meld in subconscious agreement with an administration that would not stand a more critical examination of current war methods and ends.
It’s time to end this bloody war and honor our fellow citizen-soldiers by bringing them home, not by continuing things as usual.
Hopefully, the message is taken to heart.
Tags: corporate sponsorship, cultural anxiety, military-industrial complex, public opinion
I stumbled upon (my favorite method of locating all sorts of stuff) the fictional works of one Mervyn Peake the other day. Back in 1946, he had published the first volume of a Gothic fantasy work known as “the Gormenghast series” — entitled: Titus Groan.
Peake was more than a novelist. A poet, a playwright, a set designer, a costume creator, a draftsman and an illustrator were among his many titles and talents. I remember first discovering Peake’s talents faintly, in his last listed capacity, as the illustrator of such classics tales as: “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “The hunting of the Snark” by Lewis Carroll, “Treasure Island”, the R.L. Stevenson novel and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Coleridge.
I’m halfway through this intriguing 400 plus page medieval tale of power and position, much enjoying the change of pace from the usual fare of non-fiction I steadily consume. Considering the season — Gothic fantasy, read in the cool outdoor evening air with a glass of red and such, is a pastime highly recommended.
Tags: gothic, Literature
An email chain letter circulated recently, fomenting anger toward some of the poorest, least politically represented in our midst — brown-skinned immigrants. The expressed outrage berated “illegal immigrants” — to use a Republican wedge-issue talking point. Real statistics were cited, based on ambiguous demographic descriptions — something like: “uninsured Hispanic immigrants with uncertain immigration status”, (is it not lovely how Republicans take indeterminate metrics, and distill the criteria down to coarse invective.) By quoting salient points in this diatribe against Latino immigrants, the following assertion was made.
Claim: A recent patient survey indicated that 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital (PMH) in Dallas, Texas, in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. True with reservations.
A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.’ Crikey, that’s 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.
The average patient in Parkland’s maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn’t mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do.
The author also adds spice to the accusation by contrasting personal experience involving lesser care administered to military personnel and their families. Then follows with standard fare condemnation of Spanish language studies at a local education facility — a nod to English-only advocates.
The origins of this castigation of Latin immigrants are founded in several articles by the Dallas Morning News. See “Parkland will treat all moms-to-be” for example. Administrators of Parkland Health and Hospital System, when interviewed, affirmed that they asked no questions about immigration status from those seeking emergency medical attention.
“I don’t want my doctors and nurses to be immigration agents,” said Dr. Ron J. Anderson, the president of Parkland. “We decided that these are folks living in our community and we needed to render the care.”
JPS Health Network in neighboring Fort Worth, Texas, which has a more decidedly conservative approach to granting medical attention, requires foreign-born patients to produce documentation of legal entry status before performing non-emergency service. Spokes-people from both PMH and JPS attested that…
…some of the common assumptions made about immigrants who seek medical care at those facilities (and at other Texas hospitals) are misconceptions:
While Texas border hospitals often get “anchor babies” — children of Mexican women who dart across the border to give birth to an American citizen — most illegal immigrants who go to major hospitals in Texas can show that they have been living here for years, said Ernie Schmid, policy director at the Texas Hospital Association. Many immigrant families have mixed status; often a patient with no documents has a spouse or children who are legal.
Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.
The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens.
It should be noted that under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA], hospitals are obligated to provide care to pregnant women in need of emergency help, and those that fail to do so are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.
Tags: character attacks, health care reform, illegal imigrants