Archive for the 'Politics/Society' Category

Forget Red vs. Blue, it’s Smart vs. Dumb

The Princeton Review analyzed the transcripts of the Gore-Bush debates, the Clinton-Bush-Perot debates of 1992, the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. It reviewed these transcripts using a standard vocabulary test that indicates the minimum educational standard needed for a reader to grasp the text. During the 2000 debates George W. Bush spoke at a sixth-grade level (6.7) and Al Gore at a seventh-grade level (7.6). In the 1992 debates Bill Clinton spoke at a seventh-grade level (7.6), while George H.W. Bush spoke at a sixth-grade level (6.8), as did H. Ross Perot (6.3). In the debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon the candidates spoke in language used by 10th-graders. In the debates of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas the scores were respectively 11.2 and 12.0. In short, today’s political rhetoric is designed to be comprehensible to a 10-year-old child or an adult with a sixth-grade reading level. It is fitted to this level of comprehension because most Americans speak, think and are entertained at this level. This is why serious film and theater and other serious artistic expression, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of American society. Voltaire was the most famous man of the 18th century. Today the most famous “person” is Mickey Mouse.

—From Alter.net

Ambien CR (the “CR” Stands for Hypocrite)

I just love these commercials for prescription drugs that we’re forced to sit through nowadays. You can’t watch the morning news (which is the extent of my television experience these days) without being recommended salves, ointments, pills, injections, and inhalers for virtually any malaise on the minds of the modern individual. The flaccid penises, stuffy noses, socially anxious, and now the insomniacs of the world have found solace in drugs through extremely polished advertising campaigns.

I won’t get into the fact that your doctor probably knows better what drug suits your particular medical history and body chemistry than a commercial animated by the same people who do the Super Bowl in-game graphics, but one commercial in particular really got me thinking. It was a commercial for Ambien CR, the new prescription “sleep aid,” which is essentially a sleeping pill. Their disclaimer states:

Until you know how AMBIEN CR will affect you, you shouldn’t drive or operate machinery. Be sure you’re able to devote 7 to 8 hours to sleep before being active again. Sleepwalking, and eating or driving while not fully awake, with amnesia for the event, have been reported.

Let me put this in simpler terms. Number one, you shouldn’t drive while you’re taking Ambien CR. Number two, you may go driving while you’re taking Ambien CR and you won’t remember it. How reassuring! At least I won’t know that I took the car out for a leisurely 4 AM spin until I wake up the following morning, stumble into the kitchen, and see that my car is parked across the front lawn covered in all of my neighbors’ patio furniture.

That’s like a medical disclaimer that says, “If you value your life and the lives of those around you, do not consume milk while taking this product. By the way, this product has been reported to cause insatiable thirst for milk.”

Hooray for big pharma!

Blocking Ads Is Not Unethical

I just love this debate going on about AdBlock Plus, the Firefox add-in that allows a web surfer to block virtually all of the advertisements on the web. Failing to discover which users might have AdBlock Plus installed in their Firefox browsers, some webmasters (decades later, I still love this word) are now blocking Firefox entirely, redirecting users to this cheesy page instead.

Fundamentally, this scuffle reminds me of The Butter Battle Book by Dr. Seuss. In that story, two groups of androgynous furry creatures are at odds because one group butters their bread on the top and the other butters theirs on the bottom. The cause for their animosity doesn’t relate to the AdBlock debate, but the ensuing battle can be seen as a metaphor for every conflict waged in technology since the earliest days of human civilization.

Each of the two groups of furry people create progressively more outrageous devices to attack the other with what seem like small rubber balls. A simple slingshot gives way to a multiple-slingshot, then a device to catch the opponent’s rubber balls and launch them back, and so on, until they finally create a device that is cleverly metaphorical for the atomic bomb and find themselves at a total impasse.

Similarly, websites can only block Firefox if they know you’re using it, so adjusting the UserAgent string and the certain responses or structures returned or available through JavaScript trivially masks that fact. Firefox detection and AdBlock detection schemes will simply get more complex and consequently the masking countermeasures will, too. It’s a futile battle.

The moral of the story is this. As a webmaster, you simply cannot completely control the way your content is manipulated and displayed within your visitors’ browsers. You can follow best practices and accommodate the majority’s needs, but fundamentally the content is malleable. Once the data leaves your server through that pipeline we call the Internet, it is at the whim of the end-user.

So what are the implications for online advertising? Chris Soghoian over at C-NET tries desperately to wrap his infantile brain around the discussion in an article entitled Who blocks the (ad) blockers? (on C-NET Blogs). His conclusion is that blocking advertising on a website is essentially theft because you are using their resources and consuming their offerings without “paying” by being exposed to their ads. No matter how valid that point may be from a sterile, legal perspective (e.g. by viewing this site you agree to be bound by the terms of the viewing contract which stipulates that you must be continuously bombarded by our advertising, yadda yadda), it’s not a very friendly way to do business.

When ReplayTV was “sued … out of existence” as Soghoian said, it represented the first step toward the obsolescence of the “block ad.” TiVo and the cable companies’ homebrew DVR boxes allow viewers to effortlessly skip over advertising, and they do.

Advertising is a symbiotic relationship. Advertisers expose their consumer base to information and hype about their products or services, and those consumers who find the products or services interesting or valuable may purchase them. Exposing people to products they are interested in is a public service. Consumers want to buy things and companies want to sell things, so it’s just a matter of connecting the two. Effective advertising is that which efficiently exposes potential consumers to the products or services being sold without becoming such a burden that they want to block them.

Again, ReplayTV was the harbinger of the fall of block advertising. Soon, mark my words, all advertising on TV will be replaced by product placement. Technology exists to make block advertising obsolete because nobody actually wants to watch it. It is the job of the advertiser to find a delivery method that is effective, and part of the effectiveness formula is whether users will find a way to avoid, block, or skip over it because they are too annoyed or too disinterested.

Ignoring the fact that all Firefox traffic on the face of our planet amounts to about 15% on a really, really good day, and that the number of Firefox users who are actively using AdBlock Plus or a variation on it is much smaller than that, I truly believe that advertisers should see this as a wake-up call.

Great Quote

From a fellow in the so-called “blogosphere” named GeorgeH:

We need a Men’s Studies Department where I can get tenure for writing tedious papers about the history of logo placement on NASCAR vehicles.

You said it, GeorgeH. Not to discredit women’s studies departments, courses, or professors (many of which—and whom—are fascinating, talented, and relevant), but I always have the lingering suspicion that the very institution of studying one gender specifically is bound to produce more bias and inequality than not. Nevertheless, you can spend years studying women and women’s issues in highly regarded universities across our great land, but if you want to study men you’ll have to look elsewhere.

I suppose men can be fully understood by watching Home Improvement and NASCAR.

Unreality

Tonight on NBC, the first episode of their new “reality” show, Age of Love, will air. The concept? Get a few girls in their ’20s and a few girls in their ’40s and pit them against one another to win the favor of a 30-something tennis star.

It’s the same “reality” show formula we’ve seen before: impose surreal emotional constraints on a group of people and air seemingly candid footage of them all clashing with one another. I guess this holds a great deal of interest for the regular viewers of the Jerry Springer show, who comprise fully 99% of the American population (I fear). Why would anyone want to watch this? How is this realistic or dramatic?

What sucks the entertainment value out of these shows for me is exactly how premeditated the clashes between people seem. You know they’re coached into having disagreements and then filmed “candidly” while they fight it out. For some reason, the mainstream television-watching population derives a great deal of pleasure from watching other people who are angry.

What is it about anger, strife, disagreement, and fighting that is so attractive? Why do people tune in the Jerry Springer show to watch a whole new group of people fight over who their child’s real father is every day? Don’t we have enough anger and strife in the real world? Must we vent our irritations vicariously through these staged clashes?

The truth is, more people will probably watch Age of Love than vote in the presidential elections. It’s no wonder people are so angry.

Farm Subsidies: Enemy of the Free Market

New data released by the federal government reveals that a tremendous number of people have received farm subsidies. People who are not farmers. People who don’t even own farm land. They own land, sure, but they don’t farm on it.

An article on examiner.com boils down some of this new information for you.

It is my staunch belief that the majority of social issues can be resolved by the free market. Time and time again we have found that the free market is an effective arbiter of disputes, but the definition of subsidy is to override the free market, and therefore sabotage its capacity to do so.

Not only does this new farm subsidy data demonstrate rather clearly that the entire system is corrupt (paying out subsidies to completely undeserving parties), but it reminds me just how distasteful I find the federal government’s meddling in the affairs of the marketplace. Toss David Letterman $8,000 because he owns a ranch somewhere? I think not.