I’ve ranted about campaign commercials before, and I don’t really have anything new to say about them, but I saw one today that contained a perfect example of a bad argument.
A Meg Whitman commercial begins by comparing Sacramento and Silicon Valley, claiming the former is unorganized and the latter organized. In support of that statement, the narrator goes on to namedrop:
Apple. Intel. Ebay…
What’s wrong with this picture? Meg Whitman is certainly responsible for some success at Ebay, but what does she have to do with Apple? Intel? I know she’s been at the helms of prominent companies like Proctor & Gamble, Hasbro, Disney and others, but – as far as I know – Meg Whitman has nothing to do with Apple or Intel. So why does her commercial subtly imply a link where none apparently exists?
So I was about to hit "post" when I took a break, and found myself randomly staring at a TV that was on. It was that History Channel show called MonsterQuest and now you probably see the significance of the title. The show begins with narration on the nature of different sorts of monsters, you know, Big Foot, the New Jersey Devil, Werewolves, et cetera: "Monsters. Are they real? Or imaginary? Join us as science tries to find out."
That's exactly what's been going on at EvangelicalRealism for the past few weeks now: we've been on a MiracleQuest. Except that MonsterQuest can at least define exactly or near-exactly what it is they're looking for. Despite my stodginess on the issue and the naysayers, I think we'll soon solve these problems of definition and criteria. The more we talk about it, the more ideas get tossed out, the bigger the pile of potentially good ideas grows, and sooner or later we're there.
As I was writing yesterday, I overheard a trailer for this show about kids experiencing paranormal phenomena. Since I've had more than my fair share of interesting phenomena occur throughout my life and have dedicated a substantial amount of time to reading and independent thought about the subject, I anticipated its 10:00pm debut on A&E. The show turned out to be both about as good and also a lot worse than I expected, and I do not mean to eschew or denigrate the families or producers. Contrary, I side with the parents in their estimation that what is happening to their children represents an authentic phenomena, but I think the methods used by the producers to present such a controversial subject to the general public are subjective, confounded and devoid of any substantive scientific value.
Interestingly, this new age of televangelist reminds me of the classic New Age, realize-all-your-dreams-and-desires guru: Impeccably clean and dangerously persuasive, with just a slightly discernible veil of cunning. I wanna spout off about some of the typical American religious chutzpah I'm listening to right now, conveniently on Sunday morning.
Although I’ve been a member of the very adult-like Writer’s Guild of America, West for seven years now, I’m undeniably, unquestioningly and unabashedly a kid at heart. A kid’s main motivation is often enjoyment, and I can’t stand the intensely stolid seriousness and false sense of urgency most adults needlessly assign to their careers, most of which are just meaningless peach fuzz on the buttocks of life’s grander scheme.
Since I’m not an avid television watcher I haven’t been exposed to any candidacy commercials yet this season. However, I am very familiar with their typical format; they are usually along the same unethical lines as commercials from pharmaceutical companies endorsing the latest diet wonder drug, male enhancement product or sleep medication. With no specific piece in mind, I’d like to address a few of what I see as serious problems that are typical of political and pharmaceutical commercials in America today.