Web Browsing- Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows: Windows 7: Simple vs. Easy 5 January 2009A review of the upcoming (sometime) Windows 7 offers some interesting observations about the way we use computers. He discusses the difference between "simple" and "easy" technology while debunking the notion of "intuitive" programs. Regardless of what Microsoft does with its OS, this article encourages thought about the way tec […]
- Another side of President Bush 23 December 2008It's sometimes hard to cut through the clutter to see the kind of man President Bush is. Stories like this one from the Wall Street Journal are a helpful reminder that even if we may disagree with some of his decisions, attacking him as a man is uncalled for. Even though his version of "compassionate conservatism" has drawn the ire of some con […]
- Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not - NYTimes.com 3 November 2008Do liberal faculty affect the political leanings of students? These people say no. But let's look a little deeper. One author says "it is really hard to change the mind of anyone over 15." Does this mean that the average American thinks about politics now the same way he did when he was 15? Yikes. It appears to imply that political opinions a […]
- Obama, Shaman by Michael Knox Beran, City Journal Summer 2008 3 November 2008Beran brilliant combines culture, religion, and literature into a powerful commentary on the religious aspects of Barack Obama's candidacy. The article is rich (and lengthy), but certainly worth digesting.
- Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows: Windows 7: Simple vs. Easy 5 January 2009
Oct
30
Did anyone find this insulting?
Filed Under Ideas, News, Random Thoughts
I didn’t watch Senator Obama’s infomercial last night. I get the impression that I didn’t miss much. I also don’t feel like trying to refute all of the absurd things he said. But after seeing the video below, I feel compelled to comment briefly.
I don’t want to bash the family at the beginning, and I wouldn’t wish economic hardship on them. But if their difficulty is limited to fewer snacks (or rationing them out over a week), I confess that I’m less sympathetic. In fact, the suggestion that this is the kind of economic hardship going on is insulting. It insults both the viewers’ intelligence and those who really are getting hurt by the downturn. Sure, things aren’t as smooth-going as they were, but at least the family in the video is frankly a long way from starvation.
I think the average person out there knows full well that this family isn’t getting hurt too badly. Are all these plans Senator Obama suggests intended to help out these kind of people at the expense of those of us who are little closer to subsistence living? I fear so. But the pretense of the video is spectacular. The remainder of the infomercial doesn’t get much better.
Is it just me, or was the live portion of this video kind of odd? He returned to the “hope and change” lines from early in the campaign. If he had clearly discussed policy in the previous 25 minutes, that might have been one thing. But instead we got a list of sob stories that seemed a little contrived and some vague promises to fix their problems. We want to know how he’s going to fix the problems — but once we know, we might not like it. I guess the question is whether the hope and change mantra will survive until Tuesday.
Comments
5 Responses to “Did anyone find this insulting?”
Leave a Reply
What lazy people. Fat and lazy. Period. I worked full time while going to college. My mom worked fulltime raising 12 kids, never on welfare. Saved money, paid in CASH… Not credit. Wear used clothing and worked for a fricken living.. These people in the commerical are not poor. geesh… why doesn’t the mother get rid of her fake nails and walk to the store or sell her car. These people are a bunch of whinners. My parents lived through the depression and NEVER asked for a dime.
What about the part where they put off surgery because they couldn’t afford it?
Again, not knowing the entire situation, I can comment only on the way it was presented…
Inability to afford surgery is relevant, but is also not especially unique. How many people couldn’t afford such surgery — presumably out of pocket — before last year? I suspect that ACL surgery isn’t cheap, and it wasn’t cheaper a few years ago. I don’t think it’s a good economic indicator.
If the infomercial had said that the family was forgoing snacks so that they could save for Dad’s knee surgery, that would be great. It also wouldn’t be useful for Obama’s campaign. The premise of the segment (at least from my point of view) was that the family was having to endure unusual economic stress, and that stress is tracable to Republican economic policies. Health care is expensive, but it’s not completely the Republicans’ fault.
Maybe it would have been more convincing and less insulting if they had found something other than snacks to couple with the surgery.
Obama didn’t say it was “completely the Republicans’ fault” (emphasis added):
If the family’s problem were “limited to fewer snacks,” then I would agree that it would be trivial. But the poor guy—who works on his feet—can’t afford knee surgery, and you still say that’s not evidence enough of having a difficult life. I can’t believe you really think that.
I’m not saying that Obama has the right solution to these problems, but no one can deny that health care has become more costly for most Americans, in many cases prohibitively so. It’s a real problem that isn’t addressed by bloviating about how the injured persons are “fat and lazy” and “a bunch of whinners [sic].”
The sample family according to the video lives in Kansas City, Missouri, where the median income is $46,012, and the average cost of ACL repair is $11,500. I suspect that even those who were to take up Sara’s suggestion to sell their Ford minivans, ride the bus everywhere, and trim their nails would have great difficulty laying out about a quarter of their annual income on any one item.
In my attempt to stay succinct, maybe I’m not being clear.
I’m not denying that the family might be in a difficult situation, and I’m fully aware of the cost of health care. I don’t envy their situation — I just doubt whether it has any probative value.
And I am skeptical (maybe a bit cynical) about the “snacks” thing. It doesn’t seem like an appropriate example to demonstrate economic difficulty. The limited detail about their financial woes leave plenty of room for interpretation, and perhaps mine has been colored by other things. Maybe I compare them to my own situation (in which I do actually lay out over a quarter of my annual income for one thing). My point is that if their difficulties are 1. expensive health care, and 2. fewer snacks, then it sounds too much like a sob story.
Healthcare is expensive for everyone. Suppose the man hurt his knee three years ago. Surgery would still have been expensive, maybe up to 25% of his income. But in the “better” economic times 3 (or 10) years ago, they could afford snacks. So it would appear that the major difference between then and now is the loss of snacks. Or am I misreading it?
Finally, I find it helpful to recall the broader context. Most people in the world would be thrilled to trade places with this family, bum knee and all. The video seems to imply that the family’s loss is profound, but it’s not. Unpleasant, sure. Potentially difficult, absolutely. But compared to what many people live with, it looks pretty nice.