«

»

Jun 04

13th Issue New Voice For Politics

13th Issue New Voice For Politics

In this Issue

A Spoonful of Sugar Helps the Politics Go Down If you want people to listen to you, do not be a jerk

If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Buy It: Little Girls’ T-Shirts Don’t Fit Everyone  T-Shirts will not turn your children into monsters

Making the Internet Taste Like New Coke How the government will ruin the internet

A Spoonful of Sugar Helps the Politics Go Down
by J. A. Gedra

Do you remember the time when you disagreed with someone about politics until they started yelling at you and calling you names, so you changed your mind to their position? Of course you do not, because that has never happened. Despite its failure as a debate tactic on cable news, chat rooms, and Facebook, people continue to yell like a banshee and hurl slurs, like monkeys hurl feces at the zoo, towards those that oppose them. When will people learn that acting like a jerk is not an effective means to persuade others? When a person hates Kenny G music, turning up the volume of one of the G man’s songs will not convince a hater to buy tickets to his next concert. It will simply cause them to hate even more.

No one likes to be yelled at or demeaned. The minute a debater turns spiteful, the audience immediately tunes them out. It is as if the Get Smart Cone of Silence has descended upon the listeners, and they are now deaf to all arguments. The only thing the audience observes is how ridiculous the irate speaker appears as they become further turned off by the messenger and message they are failing to communicate.

When people are debating, they need to be less like Attila the Hun, invading out of the East and slaughtering all that come across their path, and more like Mary Poppins. Politics is much like medicine; it can be a tough pill to swallow, but once it is consumed, a person is better for it. The key to medication compliance is convincing people to take it, and the key to political debate is to persuade people to listen. Mary Poppins rightfully pointed out that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. Similarly, political discourse needs a little sugar to help people get down with politics.

In politics, the sugar is added to the message via humor. If the reader doubts this assertion, they should look at their friends social media habits. Are they more likely to share an article that is hated or one that makes them laugh? Whether it is the Daily Show, political cartoons, or other forms of political satire, people like to laugh. When humor is woven into politics, people are more likely to listen and hence learn about political issues. This is why New Voice For Politics was created to a year ago to specifically educate 18 – 40 year-olds about economics and politics through the use of humor. This has led to readers learning about marginal utility by proposing to someone with a cup of water, the “greater good” via Valentine’s Day ideas gone amiss, the effects of raising the minimum wage on fast food workers, how military spending is related to what people pay in taxes, and the futility of drug testing welfare recipients.  The point was not to make people Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, but to help educate the next generation to make informed decisions.

After the first year of New Voice For Politics, the political world has not completely changed, but some humor has been added. In the coming year, more people will be encouraged to submit original work as well as share this entertaining online newsletter with friends. Hopefully in the end, people will experience some joy and learn a little about economics and politics.

If you wish to spread the joy and knowledge of New Voice For Politics, please share this article, encourage your friends to like the Facebook page, or add their email to the subscriber list for this free newsletter.

 

If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Buy It:
Little Girl T-Shirts
Don’t Fit Everyone

by Denise Moe

Oh the horror of it all!

Girls’ graphic t-shirts are now sporting phrases like “I’m too pretty to do my homework so my brother did it” and checking off favorite subjects as shopping and dancing but leaving math unchecked.  There is also a popular “Allergic to Algebra” t-shirt.

This is causing feminists to go apoplectic and jump all over retailers like children on an inflatable bouncy castle. But is all this hysteria warranted? What is the big deal?  Personally, I would leave math unchecked, too. Does this make me a traitor to my gender?

According to the feminist PC Police, it is very very naughty for girls to be thought of as pretty instead of smart, but is it?  What is wrong with being beautiful?  What is wrong with a girl boasting about her cuteness?  Since when is it bad to be beautiful? Would it be preferable for young ladies to be obese and at risk for diabetes? Let us be honest, beautiful people always have it easier.  Trying to initiate some sort of boycott over celebrating beauty seems driven more by jealousy than by a legitimate discussion of girls’ experiences and attitudes towards math and science.

Additionally, who says a girl cannot be pretty and smart? Just because a person does not enjoy calculating the height of the hypotenuse, it does not mean they cannot. Smart people are capable of doing all sorts of things that they do not enjoy; although, if they are really smart, they find other people to do these things for them. It’s called outsourcing. Hmm . . . that probably explains the first t-shirt.

Furthermore, if people take a look at some of the graphic t-shirts made for boys, one might conclude that feminists are simply manufacturing a controversy.  While girls’ t-shirts show math unchecked, boys’ t-shirts are no better with recess checked as a boy’s favorite subject.  Other boys’ t-shirts feature skulls and praise video gaming skills.  Is that the image we want boys to model?  Slackers?  Gamers? Possible serial killers?

I think not.

But are all these shirts going to turn our little angels into whores and mass murderers? No, because they are cotton t-shirts, they do not have magical powers. However, if parents do not wish to risk their children turning into monsters from such attire, they can do something, refuse to purchase the t-shirt. A tween cannot don one of these t-shirts unless their parents buy it for them. Parents are able to veto what their children wear. If parents are offended by these shirts, do not purchase them. There is no reason to demonize retailers; they simply provide items people want to buy. If shoppers break into hives when they see “allergic to algebra” t-shirts, retailers will stop selling them.

To be clear, I am absolutely fine with t-shirts promoting love of academics and the arts, but someone must want to buy such a product. If parents do not buy pro-academic t-shirts or kids refuse to wear them, these shirts will not be available for very long.  Since many kids believe wearing an “I live for long division” t-shirt is uncool, it might be a while before such shirts are displayed at Forever 21. This is not because all retailers are sexist. This is about supply and demand. If customers do not want it, stores will not stock it.

Bottom line; if you do not like a t-shirt, do not buy it.  If you want your child to dress plain and simple, go ahead.  Just do not deprive cuties who embrace their inner Venus.

Plus, try to keep things in perspective, we are talking about t-shirts. Garments cannot control a wearer’s mind. If parents want their children to like math, they need to make it fun for their children. Do not rely on t-shirts to raise children.

 

Making the Internet Taste Like New Coke

by Donald Brook

In 1985, the Coca Cola Company decided to completely overhaul the formula that has been working with only minor changes since 1886. After 100 years of success, they introduced “New Coke,” and it sucked. The new recipe was so hated that after it was finally discontinued, Time magazine put a New Coke can on its cover with a giant red X over it. Time has reserved this public shaming to mark the passing of only the most despised of objects: such as, Adolph Hitler, Osama bin Laden, and disco.

Coke was not the only soft drink to make such a mistake. Pepsi made a similar blunder with Clear Pepsi. In addition to tasting bad, Pepsi made the situation worse by using Van Halen with replacement singer Sammy Hagar to advertise their new product. Van Halen with David Lee Roth and Pepsi with color are both awesome, but they had to change the formula and begin to suck.

There seems to be something about large organizations having uncontrollable urges to ruin something that is extremely popular and working just fine. On May 15, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided to join the New Coke, Clear Pepsi Club by altering something that was working just fine, the internet. After ruining the medical industry with the Affordable Care Act (see Ice Cream Death Spiral), the federal government has decided to “improve” the internet by ending Net Neutrality.

Right now thanks to Net Neutrality all websites can be accessed at the same speed. Whether a web surfer is viewing a movie on Netflix or reading a funny New Voice For Politics’ article, content from both websites are streamed to your device at the same speed. This provides an equal playing field for both extremely successful organizations, like Netflix, and smaller operations that are just starting off.

What the FCC would like to do is discriminate against the little guy by allowing internet providers to charge more for websites that use more bandwidth. This means that the larger bandwidth utilizing companies will have to pay more money to ensure that their product loads quickly. While this sounds not so bad, it is actually the quickest way to ruin the internet.

There are several unintended consequences to charging websites based on how much bandwidth they use. The only companies that will be able to pay the higher rates will be the larger corporations (i.e. NBC, CNN, YouTube). This will result in startup companies not being able to compete with the larger companies. Less competition on the internet is like fire for Frankenstein, both bad! Less competition is horrific, because it deprives the public of new and improved products, leads to monopolies, and increases cost. The average web surfer will have to pay more for the products they like, because the major companies will pass on the increase in cost to the web surfer.

If the FCC goes through with ending Net Neutrality, internet providers (i.e. Comcast & Direct TV) will charge websites more money and grow rich, the websites of large corporations will pass on the cost to web surfers and stay rich, new websites will be more likely to fail because they can only afford cheap second rate access speeds, and the web surfer will pay more to access the services of major companies and wait longer for new websites to load on their devices. The internet will suck if the FCC ends net neutrality. Thanks a lot FCC for making the internet taste like New Coke.
Coke can

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>