Build-a-Bear a is terrific concept where children and adults get the opportunity to conjure up their own ideas and incorporate their feelings in a furry stuffed foot-tall bear. The vibrant colors colors of the store coupled with the animatronic bears the line the outside facade project an aura of clandestine loyalty. The patrons of the store personify their own bear in a way that aligns with their own sentiments. The final step in this process is when the bear is given its final 'hug' which is to symbolize not the completion of the process but rather the journey that was taken to bring this stuffed animal to life, in the eyes of the owner.
Perhaps a new segment of the Build-a-Bear store should be focused on attracting current and prospective GOP candidates. As a GOP politician preaches from the lectern, constituents are fixated on passionate rhetoric that pertains to the numerous problems with our current governmental system. Able volunteers each election night, take pictures, and gaze harmoniously at their boss as he hugs his stuffed animal onstage. Despite the thousands of tweets, instagrams, or status updates this perception is never articulated. Romney hugs his stuffed Thomas Jefferson bear and Newt clenches his Reagan bear. It seems far too often that with each heartfelt applause that a candidate garners is catalyzed by a quote or an idea from one of the GOP candidates.
It is peculiar to think that the rhetoric of the past should be applied so unequivocally to the present political landscape. The illustrious leaders of yesteryear were acclaimed for their ingenuity during their respective period in time. The poised Americana character of Reagan coupled with his anti big-government administration makes him a lovable punit for present-day GOP hopefuls. As candidates prance from primary to caucus across the United States the praise of our beloved presidents is consistently mentioned. With each speech candidates hug their proverbial favorite founding-father bear as if to rationalize their proposed policies with a "seal" of conservative approval.
The Thomas Jefferson Bear is hugged by candidates when they need to feel a sense of loyalty to the constitution.
The George Washington Bear is hugged when candidates desire to project their patriotism and reminisce about the inception of nation in its first years.
The James Madison Bear is hugged when a speaker is making the point that the Bill of Rights are a fundamental ingredient in being an American.
The John Adams Bear is hugged when a speaker is attempting to outline the importance of a democracy for the people and by the people.
Build-a-Bear for GOP is a popular venture that seeks to actualize the metaphoric relationship that we all see, an unbridled allegiance to America's past and neglect of the pressing issues of the present day.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
American Nostalgia and Candidate Commericalization
As a society we have the propensity to outline our ideologies by cross-referencing them to the priorities of our founding fathers. Political candidates leverage terms like "The beacon of hope", "Promote American values", "Get the country back on track, and my personal favorite "I will work hard with my friends from across the isle". What do these mean? If you have an idea the rationale or moral calculus that is employed I would like you to shed light on it.
The utterance of such pithy garbage is a mere marketing and branding stunt. By hitting on such blanket terminology the candidates ensure themselves that they are not pidgin-holing their talking points or creating fertile ground for another candidate to stomp upon. If every one of the political candidates sprinkles some of these magical 'keywords' onto each response then it can be certain that constituent alienation is limited and a firm stance is avoided on an issue. By branding the candidate it is easier to create and sculpt an image that is desired as well as it is easier to set a broad-base set of goals that resonate with a diverse demographic foundation.
Analogy: A candidate desires to please the public by making them seem likable to the greatest number of people across a community while also trying to limit the amount of people that are alienated. This is similar to flattening a pizza dough. A good pizza is thrown, pounded, and flattened in an effort to create both a desired thickness as well as create an appropriate size. These two traits are important because when purchasing a pizza it is vital for the pizza to have sustenance as well as value. Political candidates fail to abide by this perfect-pizza logic instead they spread and dilute their stances to cover the widest swath possible. A direct result of this thinning strategy is the devaluation of the candidates firmness and eagerness for (potentially controversial) change. See a pizza's value is stored in its ability to perfect each facet of the pie, cheese, sause, dough. While some customers may dislike the pizza others may revere it is incredible. Politicians rather would like to create a pizza that is not only thin but diluted too many toppings. The result is that there are very few people who dislike the pizza but there are also scarce amounts of people who actually enjoy it. The purpose of this analogy is to illustrate how the risk of alienation is a greater political factor than targeting a small highly supportive base.
These polished statements effectively say nothing. They do not ever answer a question that is asked. They fail to inform the electorate about their thoughts on pertinent issues. Knowing these three things I seek to elaborate and further and deconstruct the gaff that each candidate makes every time they open their mouth.
They do not ever answer a question that is asked.
With a small army of public relations specialists, fashion specialists, social media experts, and speech writers the risks are too high to say something that may be interpreted as controversial. The controlled homogenous image that is broadcast to the media and supporters has been cultivated since the inception of the campaign. By answering a specific question with poignent examples and interjecting a stable stance a candidate has the risk of corrupting the interdependent staff that he employs.
Even though I am assaulting the very fabric of the American political campaigning system it should be noted that the questions that are asked are indeed often leading. This means that unless a candidate is willing to concede to the desired answer it seems as though the candidate is evading the question.
They fail to inform the electorate about their thoughts on pertinent issues.
One important consequence is that these tautological statements do not articulate what the candidate stands for. If everyone on stage is buttoned-up in their $500 suits and the perfectly groomed hair there should be some distinguishing factors that distances one candidate from another. But this does not occur. One would think in such a dier time for America there would be a field of candidates that are passionate, charismatic, and outstanding. Ironically, there is no such correlation between challenging times and strong leadership. Conversely, the more urgent the era the weaker the talking-points become.
Analogy 2:
America needs a candidate who is a bad salsa dancer. Our nation needs someone with two left feet. When the music starts it would be great if Willard Romney or Newt Gingrich would just step right on their dance partner feet. We need a candidate with no rhythm who stumbles and re-corrects them self. The problem is that once a political candidate's campaign machine is at full speed rhythm is established. This means that a candidate can more daintily across the dance floor without encroaching on the partner space. Fluid motion is critical to the dance and the goal of salsa dancing. But if candidates were poor dancers and stepped on some feet they would be forced to become aquatinted with the partner. When one steps on their partner's foot conversation ensues either proclaiming your clumsiness or apologizing for ineptitude. It is during this moment that candidates would be able to proclaim their sentiment on ideas and moral calculus used in decision making. The poorer the dancer the more apt the candidate is to become conversant and in-touch with the electorate. This entire process does not occur because our politicians are amazing salsa dancers. The public is akin to the dance partner and is continuously spun tip-toed around throughout each election cycle. Message: Loosing your rhythm is the best prescription to get in sync with reality.
The utterance of such pithy garbage is a mere marketing and branding stunt. By hitting on such blanket terminology the candidates ensure themselves that they are not pidgin-holing their talking points or creating fertile ground for another candidate to stomp upon. If every one of the political candidates sprinkles some of these magical 'keywords' onto each response then it can be certain that constituent alienation is limited and a firm stance is avoided on an issue. By branding the candidate it is easier to create and sculpt an image that is desired as well as it is easier to set a broad-base set of goals that resonate with a diverse demographic foundation.
Analogy: A candidate desires to please the public by making them seem likable to the greatest number of people across a community while also trying to limit the amount of people that are alienated. This is similar to flattening a pizza dough. A good pizza is thrown, pounded, and flattened in an effort to create both a desired thickness as well as create an appropriate size. These two traits are important because when purchasing a pizza it is vital for the pizza to have sustenance as well as value. Political candidates fail to abide by this perfect-pizza logic instead they spread and dilute their stances to cover the widest swath possible. A direct result of this thinning strategy is the devaluation of the candidates firmness and eagerness for (potentially controversial) change. See a pizza's value is stored in its ability to perfect each facet of the pie, cheese, sause, dough. While some customers may dislike the pizza others may revere it is incredible. Politicians rather would like to create a pizza that is not only thin but diluted too many toppings. The result is that there are very few people who dislike the pizza but there are also scarce amounts of people who actually enjoy it. The purpose of this analogy is to illustrate how the risk of alienation is a greater political factor than targeting a small highly supportive base.
These polished statements effectively say nothing. They do not ever answer a question that is asked. They fail to inform the electorate about their thoughts on pertinent issues. Knowing these three things I seek to elaborate and further and deconstruct the gaff that each candidate makes every time they open their mouth.
They do not ever answer a question that is asked.
With a small army of public relations specialists, fashion specialists, social media experts, and speech writers the risks are too high to say something that may be interpreted as controversial. The controlled homogenous image that is broadcast to the media and supporters has been cultivated since the inception of the campaign. By answering a specific question with poignent examples and interjecting a stable stance a candidate has the risk of corrupting the interdependent staff that he employs.
Even though I am assaulting the very fabric of the American political campaigning system it should be noted that the questions that are asked are indeed often leading. This means that unless a candidate is willing to concede to the desired answer it seems as though the candidate is evading the question.
They fail to inform the electorate about their thoughts on pertinent issues.
One important consequence is that these tautological statements do not articulate what the candidate stands for. If everyone on stage is buttoned-up in their $500 suits and the perfectly groomed hair there should be some distinguishing factors that distances one candidate from another. But this does not occur. One would think in such a dier time for America there would be a field of candidates that are passionate, charismatic, and outstanding. Ironically, there is no such correlation between challenging times and strong leadership. Conversely, the more urgent the era the weaker the talking-points become.
Analogy 2:
America needs a candidate who is a bad salsa dancer. Our nation needs someone with two left feet. When the music starts it would be great if Willard Romney or Newt Gingrich would just step right on their dance partner feet. We need a candidate with no rhythm who stumbles and re-corrects them self. The problem is that once a political candidate's campaign machine is at full speed rhythm is established. This means that a candidate can more daintily across the dance floor without encroaching on the partner space. Fluid motion is critical to the dance and the goal of salsa dancing. But if candidates were poor dancers and stepped on some feet they would be forced to become aquatinted with the partner. When one steps on their partner's foot conversation ensues either proclaiming your clumsiness or apologizing for ineptitude. It is during this moment that candidates would be able to proclaim their sentiment on ideas and moral calculus used in decision making. The poorer the dancer the more apt the candidate is to become conversant and in-touch with the electorate. This entire process does not occur because our politicians are amazing salsa dancers. The public is akin to the dance partner and is continuously spun tip-toed around throughout each election cycle. Message: Loosing your rhythm is the best prescription to get in sync with reality.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Just a Case.
The Casey Anthony trial was finally brought to closure on July 5, 2011. The verdict surprised 'most' people according the media. The media conveyed a tone that seemed to portray that Casey was guilty before proven innocent. Many news anchors seem to look at Anthony as a failed mother whom had done the unthinkable in killing her daughter. Unfortunately regardless of the political bias of CNN or FOX the question that seemed to most frequently debated was whether justice was served. Our legal system is not designed to test the morality of an individual's actions or if the person is 'right'. As eloquently stated on Fox primetime show Huckabee, Alan Dershowitz exclaimed that our legal system is only set up to test the legality of a case, and not constituted to align with 'the court of public opinion'.
Dershowitz defending American Court System
Victimizing a jury is akin slapping the police officer who found and returned your tricycle. The officer has done his job by finding a lost item. If that tricycle that he returned now has marks and scratches on it that is not the officer's jurisdiction. But if the theft victim procedes to slap the officer then that person is inferring that it is the cop whom is responsible for the damage to the bike.
My point is here that if you are having trouble swallowing the Buick sized pill that is the Casey Anthony Trial try this... find fault with defendant. The defendant is the one who was put in this trial for the alleged actions she took against her daughter. Do not pin the tail on Joe the baker or Mary the hairstylist. The jury came to what they felt as an acceptable and rational conclusion to the case.
There is one more aspect that I would like to tackle... The CSI factor. Yes it is true that Law in Order and CSI along with the three dozen other crime shows on basic cable do draw in ratings and are quite popular among the general public. But to say that the Jury refrained from dishing out the guilty verdicts because of allegiance to hard-core evidence and DNA justification is just ludicrous. As Glenn Beck my favorite crazy man with a chalkboard says, [The American People are not Homer Simpson]. When I watched Transformers I didn't suddenly believe that my toaster will eventually take on a new life. Regardless of 'collaring', blue or white or their education Harvard or Community College it only takes focused thought to draw the necessary connections in order to reach a verdict. Law and Order is a great show and I am always satisfied that the entire case can be fit in between dinner and homework. When a jury is sequestered in a hotel for over six weeks and faced with choice of slapping a human being the the death penalty Jack McCoy, Olivia Benson, and D.A. Branch are a mere afterthought.
Anthony could very well become a millionaire with book deals, interviews, and talk show appearances. This is another trait that has outraged the public, but ironically the members of the infamous court of public perceptions will help propel her to CNN and the New York Times Best Seller List. Hey Public! if you are distraught over justice not having been served in this case do yourself a favor and continue playing cards you originally dealt, if you think that a murdering is walking free dont ferociously flock to Barns and Noble.
Maybe it is the Supreme Court that has it right, no cameras in the court room period. Chief Justice Clarence Thomas has never been a proponent for introducing cameras into the court room because it prohibits the media and press from creating a mockery of the supreme judicial system. Justice Thomas may be right, protecting the American Public from consuming predigested clammer form national news outlets is a sure advantage.
If the Casey Anthony trial was not televised and all we got were those creepy watercolor court paintings, well we would all still be watching Law and Order.
"It is better for ten guilty people to walk free than for one innocent person to be convicted"
Dershowitz defending American Court System
Victimizing a jury is akin slapping the police officer who found and returned your tricycle. The officer has done his job by finding a lost item. If that tricycle that he returned now has marks and scratches on it that is not the officer's jurisdiction. But if the theft victim procedes to slap the officer then that person is inferring that it is the cop whom is responsible for the damage to the bike.
My point is here that if you are having trouble swallowing the Buick sized pill that is the Casey Anthony Trial try this... find fault with defendant. The defendant is the one who was put in this trial for the alleged actions she took against her daughter. Do not pin the tail on Joe the baker or Mary the hairstylist. The jury came to what they felt as an acceptable and rational conclusion to the case.
There is one more aspect that I would like to tackle... The CSI factor. Yes it is true that Law in Order and CSI along with the three dozen other crime shows on basic cable do draw in ratings and are quite popular among the general public. But to say that the Jury refrained from dishing out the guilty verdicts because of allegiance to hard-core evidence and DNA justification is just ludicrous. As Glenn Beck my favorite crazy man with a chalkboard says, [The American People are not Homer Simpson]. When I watched Transformers I didn't suddenly believe that my toaster will eventually take on a new life. Regardless of 'collaring', blue or white or their education Harvard or Community College it only takes focused thought to draw the necessary connections in order to reach a verdict. Law and Order is a great show and I am always satisfied that the entire case can be fit in between dinner and homework. When a jury is sequestered in a hotel for over six weeks and faced with choice of slapping a human being the the death penalty Jack McCoy, Olivia Benson, and D.A. Branch are a mere afterthought.
Anthony could very well become a millionaire with book deals, interviews, and talk show appearances. This is another trait that has outraged the public, but ironically the members of the infamous court of public perceptions will help propel her to CNN and the New York Times Best Seller List. Hey Public! if you are distraught over justice not having been served in this case do yourself a favor and continue playing cards you originally dealt, if you think that a murdering is walking free dont ferociously flock to Barns and Noble.
Maybe it is the Supreme Court that has it right, no cameras in the court room period. Chief Justice Clarence Thomas has never been a proponent for introducing cameras into the court room because it prohibits the media and press from creating a mockery of the supreme judicial system. Justice Thomas may be right, protecting the American Public from consuming predigested clammer form national news outlets is a sure advantage.
If the Casey Anthony trial was not televised and all we got were those creepy watercolor court paintings, well we would all still be watching Law and Order.
"It is better for ten guilty people to walk free than for one innocent person to be convicted"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)