Danielmedley.com

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Single With Howling Dispair

My wife is my absolute best friend, period. Somewhere, back in some sequestered section of my brain, I vaguely remember being single and--God forbid--dating. Oy, what a nightmarish thought. For those of you out there in the dating world I pity you.

“Don’t tell me that you and your wife have an arrangement’”; “Don’t hit on my friend(s) first. Yeah, I saw that”; “Don’t ever say to me, ‘Your breasts don’t look like the ones in my magazines’”; “Don’t lick my face - I get flashbacks from Silence of the Lambs”; “Don’t ask me if my friend might be interested in a threesome”; “Don’t try to guilt me into something - you are not my mother, and you don’t have her skills.”

Apparently we men must adhere:

...to impress, men need to be hugely successful, but pretend that they are not. And this is only one aspect of the almost impossible balance that needs to be struck. Men need to convey sexual desire without sexualising the person in front of them, need to be authoritative, opening doors, paying bills, deciding where to go and so on (recent research found that 60 per cent of women would consider it a bad first date if they paid), yet treat women as absolute equals. They need to flatter without seeming overly impressed, they need to care about their appearance (but not too much), and when it comes to chatting up, they need to take the initiative, and absorb any humiliation that comes their way, without seeming at all arrogant or pushy.

I can tell you right now that if I was still single, date night would consist of a six pack, a roll of duct tape, and my right hand. 

The Night Before The First Day Of The Rest Of My Life

Earlier, my wife and I watched a splendid film entitled Les Invasions Barbares--in English it translates to The Barbarian Invasions. If you don’t mind reading subtitles, I highly recommend it. One thing that struck me was the stinging indictment the writer/director delivered concerning Canada’s version of socialized health care. The film isn’t about Canada’s socialized health care system, to be sure. But I can’t decide if the filmmaker was indeed making a statement or if he was simply portraying a fact of life in a Canadian hospital; much of the film takes place in a hospital. You know, if you make a film, say, about a bunch of skiers in a mountain town in the Colorado Rockies, the film isn’t about the Colorado Rockies, but mountains will be present in the film as a simple matter of fact. If the film’s treatment of Canada’s health care is even remotely indicative of reality, I’m telling you right now that I want no part of it. Just saying.

Okay, moving on. Related to my previous post I direct you to this article. It touches on the notion that, basically, most American voters are probably not well enough educated on the political issues of the day to be voting. Well, to be honest, I may be throwing out a bit of hyperbole, but you get the drift.

Studies of this sort make it pretty clear that political ignorance ­matters—­not only for individual votes, but also for election outcomes.

Gee, ya think?

For example, a team of psychologists led by Alex Todorov established that candidates for governor, senator, or representative who are rated as “competent” by people judging them solely on the basis of photographs are considerably more likely to win ­real-­world elections than those who look less competent. Brief exposure to the ­photographs—­as little as one-tenth of a ­second—­is sufficient to produce a significant correlation with actual election outcomes. A ­follow-­up study showed that the electoral advantage of ­competent-­looking candidates is strongest among ­less ­informed voters and those most heavily exposed to political ­advertising.

It makes one wonder how the hell any democracy can work. Again, this all comes back to the above hyperbole. Should there be some kind of test to determine who should be able to vote? Should voting be relegated to those who have a vested interest, such as tax payers? I mean, it’s amazing to me how many people don’t even know who their representatives are, or can’t identify the three branches of Government. Granted, knowing the basics of how our country works does not guarantee political sophistication, but, at least, if someone is interested enough to give a damn, they may have a better chance of being able to cast a reasoned vote, right?

Alas, it all may be a valiant attempt at pissing up a rope:

For one thing, voters’ perceptions may be seriously skewed by partisan biases. For example, in a 1988 survey a majority of respondents who described themselves as strong Democrats said that inflation had “gotten worse” over the eight years of the Reagan administration; in fact, it had fallen from 13.5 percent in 1980 to 4.1 percent in 1988. Conversely, a majority of Republicans in a 1996 survey said that the federal budget deficit had increased under Bill Clinton; in fact, the deficit had shrunk from $255 billion to $22 billion. Surprisingly, misperceptions of this sort are often most prevalent among people who should know ­better—­those who are generally ­well ­informed about politics, at least as evidenced by their answers to factual questions about political figures, issues, and textbook civics. If close attention to elite political discourse mostly teaches people to believe what the partisan elites on “their” side would like to be true, the fundamental premise of books such as Rick ­Shenkman’s—­that a more attentive, politically engaged electorate would make for a healthier ­democracy—­may be ­groundless.

If the above is true--and I’m leaning towards it--than it does not bode well for the future of any democracy.

Let’s see, started out the post discussing a fine film and a question regarding it, then ended on this note.

Probably time for bed.