I recently got word of a video production contest hosted by local credit union Mazuma and decided I'd create an entry. It was a good excuse to start playing with video editing, as I've always wanted to do.
Yesterday, finalists for the contest were announced and I was excited to be among them. The winners are determined by a vote of the registered users of the site and from the looks of things, the voting will be fiercely competitive.
In light of that, I would appreciate all of the support I can get. The site is a bit cumbersome but all you have to do to cast a vote is to register as a user, confirm and then go back to the homepage and vote in the poll in the bottom right of the page. My video is called "Community Around Every Corner" and can be viewed here.
The site is www.whatareyouabout.org
I have less than two weeks to get as many votes as possible. Thanks!
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Thursday, March 06, 2008
The Ethics of Campaign Finance
Hillary Clinton's campaign proudly announced today that her successes in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island have led to a windfall of cash, to the tune of $4 million in the two days since the polls closed. Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign announced that it had raised $55 million during February alone, breaking the record for a single month's take previously held by John Kerry.
...and they need it. These campaigns are burning through cash at a blistering pace in an attempt to knock each other out of the race, snatching up ads, paying pollsters and strategists and spamming whole states with direct mail. Mitt Romney burned through almost $100 million before giving up the ship. Obama and Clinton haven't even begun to fight in a general election and the end to the spending isn't in sight.
All told, the 2004 elections for congress and the presidency were estimated to have cost $3.9 billion.
I realize that there is an important role of campaign messages in communicating to the electorate. I'm also very familiar with the tired but valid argument that money is simply too vital and thus has too much influence in politics.
The question I haven't heard asked, however, is whether or not there are ethical implications to the amount of cash that is essentially being thrown away in the effort to garner votes. If a candidate or donor rationalizes the expenditure as a support for the implementation of better policies, how can they not realize the opportunity cost? How many uninsured Americans could we cover with the money we spend on campaigns? How much could be done to fight poverty with the piles of cash that are pouring into political campaigns? In an age where charities are struggling with fundraising, campaigns are breaking records.
With no end in sight to the growth of the costs of campaigns, at what point is this spending viewed as not only questionable but immoral and irresponsible?
Of course these costs pale in comparison to the cost of the war in Iraq. We've got priority issues everywhere you look in this country.
...and they need it. These campaigns are burning through cash at a blistering pace in an attempt to knock each other out of the race, snatching up ads, paying pollsters and strategists and spamming whole states with direct mail. Mitt Romney burned through almost $100 million before giving up the ship. Obama and Clinton haven't even begun to fight in a general election and the end to the spending isn't in sight.
All told, the 2004 elections for congress and the presidency were estimated to have cost $3.9 billion.
I realize that there is an important role of campaign messages in communicating to the electorate. I'm also very familiar with the tired but valid argument that money is simply too vital and thus has too much influence in politics.
The question I haven't heard asked, however, is whether or not there are ethical implications to the amount of cash that is essentially being thrown away in the effort to garner votes. If a candidate or donor rationalizes the expenditure as a support for the implementation of better policies, how can they not realize the opportunity cost? How many uninsured Americans could we cover with the money we spend on campaigns? How much could be done to fight poverty with the piles of cash that are pouring into political campaigns? In an age where charities are struggling with fundraising, campaigns are breaking records.
With no end in sight to the growth of the costs of campaigns, at what point is this spending viewed as not only questionable but immoral and irresponsible?
Of course these costs pale in comparison to the cost of the war in Iraq. We've got priority issues everywhere you look in this country.
Monday, February 04, 2008
On Being That Guy
As I was going about some chores, I flipped on the Super Bowl mostly out of obligation. As the game intensified and began to appeal to my underdog boosterism, I took a time out to pay attention.
Like a great deal of people who claim to "watch it for the commercials," I took great interest in the ads, mostly from an academic perspective. These promotions are always trying to push the envelope, using the big stage of the Super Bowl to attempt to make a splash. Sometimes the result is a big, impressive production. Sometimes, the concept is so bizarre that the agency hopes we'll remember it.
Sometimes, like the ads I've lamented about in the past regarding the commodification of "macho, " they are just plain insulting. The Helzburg Ad I saw upped the ante.
It starts with a dimly lit scene and romantic music. A guy sits at a desk, meticulously preparing a greeting card for his love. Eventually, he presents her the card and tells her that he couldn't find a card to communicate how he really felt, so he made one for her, by hand.
Then, like the needle being pulled from the record, the romantic music stops and gives way to music more akin to a carnival than a romantic scene. A sarcastic voice says "because you're not that guy" and then goes on to say how easy it is to show someone you care: buy a diamond.
I verbally berated the television.
Instead of communicating thoroughly and thoughtfully how you feel, one should simply spend some money on a diamond and lob that her direction instead? The ad is actively derisive to the man many women claim to want, offering a simplified consumer solution to the complicated task of expressing your emotions. Have we really sunk to the point that our outward symbols are more important than our real feelings and the words we use to express them?
Is it any wonder that relationships fail so readily when the most critical part of them, open communication and emotional healthfulness, is ridiculed during the Super Bowl? Are relationships just a symbol for different patterns of massive consumption?
Don't be a pansy, dude, just get a diamond and get back to watching the game! High five!
If this is how relationships are measured in our era, are they really worth anything more than the contribution they have to the economy?
Like a great deal of people who claim to "watch it for the commercials," I took great interest in the ads, mostly from an academic perspective. These promotions are always trying to push the envelope, using the big stage of the Super Bowl to attempt to make a splash. Sometimes the result is a big, impressive production. Sometimes, the concept is so bizarre that the agency hopes we'll remember it.
Sometimes, like the ads I've lamented about in the past regarding the commodification of "macho, " they are just plain insulting. The Helzburg Ad I saw upped the ante.
It starts with a dimly lit scene and romantic music. A guy sits at a desk, meticulously preparing a greeting card for his love. Eventually, he presents her the card and tells her that he couldn't find a card to communicate how he really felt, so he made one for her, by hand.
Then, like the needle being pulled from the record, the romantic music stops and gives way to music more akin to a carnival than a romantic scene. A sarcastic voice says "because you're not that guy" and then goes on to say how easy it is to show someone you care: buy a diamond.
I verbally berated the television.
Instead of communicating thoroughly and thoughtfully how you feel, one should simply spend some money on a diamond and lob that her direction instead? The ad is actively derisive to the man many women claim to want, offering a simplified consumer solution to the complicated task of expressing your emotions. Have we really sunk to the point that our outward symbols are more important than our real feelings and the words we use to express them?
Is it any wonder that relationships fail so readily when the most critical part of them, open communication and emotional healthfulness, is ridiculed during the Super Bowl? Are relationships just a symbol for different patterns of massive consumption?
Don't be a pansy, dude, just get a diamond and get back to watching the game! High five!
If this is how relationships are measured in our era, are they really worth anything more than the contribution they have to the economy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
