I rushed home from my job on the eve of the debates to watch Govenor Sarah Palin(a.k.a Brett Hull) and Joe Biden (a.k.a Skeletor) duke it out. These two fought back and forth, both trying to bolster support for their running mates and pushing their respective agendas. As for me, I finished watching the heavyweight fight and did three things. One, I itched my feet. I did this because I had been standing all day and the base of my heels were very irritated. Two, I made a glass of chocolate milk. This occurred because I happen to think chocolate milk is one of the most refreshing and underrated beverages of all time. Third, I tried to remember if anything that either candidate had said, actually caused me to have a rational thought. Or perhaps one of these two politicians had caused me to re-evaluate my position on an issue that I cared deeply about? I'm sure that if any of the aforementioned possibilities took place I likely would have still itched my feet, but would have thought twice about pouring my self that chocolate milk.
A "Debate" as defined by Webster's dictionary is :
A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. What Webster forgets to mention is that it's imperative to support these opposing viewpoints with researched effort and supporting argument. That, for example, when you contend "Bernie Kosar is the greatest quarterback to play the game of football", You had better have some convincing arguments and facts that at least makes this case plausible. It's not appropriate to just say "just because" or "because he is from Cleveland". Just like it isn't appropriate to use contentions like "Because I'm from Scranton Pennsylvania", therefore I understand the peril of the entire American working class. Nor is it appropriate to boast of selling a private jet on Ebay as evidence of the sort of moral character I may or may not posses.
We as Americans and consumers for too long have accepted this sort of infantile behavior from our public servants. We allow politicians to " Fight Evildoers" or "Put America First" without really demanding of these servants to service us with some concrete information. It seems to me that a frightening amounts of people are satisfied with voting public servants into office without knowing whom or why they vote for them. When asked why? they respond with a slogans like "Because he/she is going to shake up Washington" or "Because he/she it going to bring about change". Are you serious? Maybe the American people as well as our politicians are feeding into a bigger system that we may not be aware of. Our television, media sources, and their content are shaping the way we gather information. It also may be polluting our political and democratic system. (This may be equivalent to throwing trash on a sidewalk in downtown Newark, NJ) Nonetheless it's still dangerous.
Here is what I'm trying to get at. It doesn't matter what your political stance is! (really!) The majority of American's have her interest at heart. Yet, when watching these debates we should all be aware that we are being fed a commodity. We are eating "dis-information". The Humanist writer Neil Postman in his Book
"Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business" elaborates on this phenomenon. He states "Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information-misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information-information that creates the illusion of knowing something but in fact leads one away from knowing." This theory is based on the premise, as Postman explains, that information has been turned into a commodity throughout the new age of telegraphy and television. That information and even understanding of truth is mutated in order to make it entertaining and therefore easy to sell. That in essence we'd rather be entertained voters rather than informed voters.
The Vice-Presidential Debates were over and Postman's ideas seemed to really ring true. Even at the beginning of this story I referred to the debate as a heavyweight match. Somehow our debates have become fodder that competes with The WWE (formerly WWF). I'm not kidding, many people including me, watched this debate like we would watch a pay-per-view match between pro wrestlers Ric Flair and Shawn Michaels. What they actually were saying became secondary. The debates are set up by the television medium to be a platform for candidates to say as little as possible without making a mistake. Actually elaborating or having passion for a topic hurts chances of being understood or liked. As a candidate, if you say as little as possible without any missteps, while looking good doing it. You have most likely won the hearts of the American people.
Seeing how this election process has gone, it seems very clear that Postman was on to something. As we talk about Sarah Palin's new hair-do or her latest interview. Know this, we are all at the troff of the information buffet and the t.v networks are all Burger-king's, Macdonald's, and Taco Bell's giving us cheap unhealthy food that tastes good but in the long run will kill us. Put down the Burger America! Go to the market and cook at home. Think about what you eat and what it does to your health. Let's make an educated choice!. Let's not"run for the border" or "have it our way" this election. If we continue, Postman argues that "we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed. Ignorance is always correctable. But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge? Well Mr. Postman, we wouldn't comprehend certain
truths of this world. Feet itch, chocolate milk is inconceivably good, and Bernie Kosar is the greatest quarterback to play football. Hey! just because he's from Cleveland.