I got an email from Rosetta Stone last night, informing me kindly that it was my last chance to take advantage of a special $209 deal for a discount on a year’s worth of their automated foreign language instruction software. The deal would end last night, Rosetta Stone said, and so I had better act fast.
The thing is, I have been getting similar emails from Rosetta Stone’s email marketing program for months.
On June 29, I was told by a Rosetta Stone marketing email that the $209 email would expire that evening. Other special discounts were ending soon back in May, April, March, and beforehand. Some of the discount deals were for $199. Some were for $219.
What’s amazing to me is that the Rosetta Stone email marketing team expects me not to notice that their supposedly expiring offers keep on coming back. They’re offering to train me to learn foreign languages, but expecting that I can’t read the pattern of repeated emails in plain English, clogging up my inbox.
The discount price changes every now and then, but the supposedly special offers have been coming like clockwork.
The clock is not ticking toward an end of deals. The clock is just ticking on and on and on and on and on.
The email marketers hired by Rosetta Stone are trying to use a cheap trick, developed by hucksters at places like the boardwalk of Atlantic City, called the false sense of urgency. They try to stop potential customers from thinking critically by manufacturing the perception that a special deal is on for only a limited time, and so, to grab the savings, it’s important to act fast. There’s no time to think!
The reality is that there’s always time to think, and deals are almost never really available for only a limited time. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is just trying to get you to buy a product that they know is substandard in quality.
It’s not just slimy software companies that use this approach of false urgency, of course. Politicians do it too. They tell us, over and over again, of the urgency of certain situations. If they aren’t resolved right away, they say, disaster will befall us… and then, when those situations aren’t resolved, and disaster doesn’t befall us, they wait a few months and then start the warnings up all over again.
The nuclear negotiations with Iran are subject to this huckster’s tactic. Over and over again, Republicans tell us that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and unless we act now to attack, we will all be sorry. We’ve been hearing this message for the better part of a decade. Yet, the Republicans expect us not to remember the way their warnings proved to be hollow so many times in the past.
The more politicians use this tactic, the less likely we are to pay attention when an urgent threat really does emerge. Like the boy who cried “wolf”, the politicians who cry “Nuclear Iran” have hurt their own cause, using cheap tactics to grab attention instead of holding serious language in reserve for when it is genuinely necessary.
This weekend, Greek voters rejected an deal of economic austerity from the European Union. The deal would have provided some money for Greece in exchange for the transformation of the nation’s economy into a right wing model in which cuts in basic government services would enable repayment of debts.
Here in the United States, Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders spoke in support of the decision made by the Greek voters.
“Instead of trying to force the Greek government and its people into even more economic pain and suffering, international leaders throughout the world, including the United States, should enable Greece to enact pro-growth policies that improve the lives of all of its people, not just the wealthy few. If Greece’s economy is going to succeed, these austerity policies must end. The IMF must give the Greek government the flexibility and time that it needs to grow its economy in a fair way,” Sanders said.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has had nothing to say about the Greek austerity referendum. Her campaign news has mostly been occupied with listings of endorsements.
Hillary Clinton has found time to comment on a soccer game, but doesn’t have anything to say about the Greek referendum.
In order to find a statement from Hillary Clinton on the imposition of austerity upon Greece by the EU, the Christian Science Monitor had to look back four years, when Clinton was Secretary of State. At that time, Clinton praised the austerity measures, comparing them to necessary chemotherapy.
Yesterday, I came upon this sign in Seneca County, New York. It was placed there by a member of the Seneca County Republican Party, who wanted to let everyone traveling down that road know that he had been “Born Free” but had been “Taxed To Death”. The sign urged his neighbors to remember him by revolting and voting.
What a sweet memorial to an untimely death. Damn those taxes, for killing another human being!
But wait a minute. If the person who made the sign and put it by the side of the road was truly taxed to death, how did he make that sign in the first place, and then tow it out to the roadside?
Furthermore, if people are taxed to death, how can they revolt and vote? Dead people aren’t allowed to vote in the United States, and they are powerless to engage in acts of revolution.
The person who made the sign was, of course, not taxed to death. He was taxed to irritation. He was taxed to grumpiness.
He was taxed to exaggeration. This exaggeration makes for an initial burst of sympathy, but then, for those who care to think about it, provokes an eyeroll, at a peevish guy who isn’t capable of keeping his complaints in perspective.
It’s worth noting, too, that the Republican Party is firmly in control of the government of Seneca County. So, if Republicans there are going to revolt, they’re going to have to revolt against themselves.
Number of distinct stories in American newspapers speculating about a July 4 terrorist attack on American soil, June 1 – July 4, 2015: 136
Number of actual terrorist attacks on American soil, July 4 2015: 0
Source: Proquest Newsstand
Today is Independence Day in the United States, and while many people treat Independence Day as a historical commemoration of the Revolutionary War, it is not. Independence Day marks the signing of a piece of paper on July 4, 1776 and invites us to consider the ideas animating that paper. Some of those ideas are good ones, some elicit giggles (“manly firmness”), and some are enough to make a person wince (“merciless Indian Savages”). We should not accept the words of the Declaration of Independence simply because they were uttered by men who are now venerated. After all, at the time those who signed this document were reviled in some quarters as traitors. A person can read a great deal of what they already believe into the words of the Declaration of Independence, but also recognize in the document a fair amount that they may themselves not believe. The Declaration of Independence is a good object for meditation on Independence Day, focusing thoughts not just for consideration and acceptance but for discernment and judgment.
On breakfast tables across the nation this morning, Americans are unfolding their newspapers to find a full-page advertisement paid for by the company that runs Hobby Lobby, Hemispheres, and Mardel stores. This ad promotes the notions that the United States is a Christian nation and that the powers of the United States government should be used to promote Christianity. I won’t spend any time trying to refute the advertisement’s argument, simply because it doesn’t have any argument. Instead, readers are simply bombarded by a list of quotes by famous people who lived in the 1700s and 1800s. The implicit idea of this “appeal to authority” is that if famous dead Americans agree with Hobby Lobby, then you should too. You recall what your mother thought of this sort of justification; her line had something to do with jumping and cliffs, didn’t it?
Since there’s no actual argument to dispute here, I’ll just note the most centrally-placed quote on the page. John Jay, a Supreme Court justice from long, long ago, is quoted as saying the following:
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
This is not the text of a Supreme Court ruling; it’s not a Supreme Court dissent, either, or the transcript of testimony or a speech or a pamphlet or a letter to the editor of a newspaper. These words of John Jay’s come from a private letter sent to John Murray in October of 1816. Jay’s words promote religious bigotry — the refusal to accept members of religions other than one’s own. The idea stands opposed to Article VI of the United States Constitution (no mere private letter but the supreme law of the land), which declares that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
If you shop at Hobby Lobby or Hemispheres or Mardel, you help to disseminate such calls for religious bigotry. If you find the idea of Christian-only standards for political leadership to be odious, perhaps you should declare your own Independence and consider shopping elsewhere.
It is said, traditionally, that crickets, though they are omens of good luck when they appear in a house, will exercise vengeance when violence is done against them. Specifically, the relatives of a cricket that is killed by a human being will, according to folklore, come to chew holes in the clothing of the killer, giving special vindictive attention to socks.
To hear a cricket singing is supposed to be a sign of good luck. However, for a cricket to suddenly stop singing and leave a house is an omen of coming illness.
What, if these folk beliefs have any validity, will happen to the people of Wadsworth, Ohio, who have taken to drinking milkshakes thickened with cricket powder as part of “a growing trend in cricket consumption”? Will the entire town become sick and naked?
Yesterday, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled that a bakery in Gresham, Oregon must pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake. You can read the ruling for yourself right here. Some salient facts:
- Gresham, Oregon is a city of more than 100,000 people (a fifth of the population of Wyoming), and is also a part of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area with 2.4 million people. The couple looking for a wedding cake had many options, and indeed when their case was publicized they had many offers.
- The owners of the privately owned cake shop that refused to make a cake with both brides’ names on it explicitly referred to their religious beliefs when making their refusal.
- The body of the ruling focuses on Oregon state law 659A.409, which declares that “it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.”
- The body of the ruling also focuses on the emotional upset experienced by members of the couple as they considered their religious, family and relationship history in light of this interaction and their subsequent decision to file a complaint.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not going to try to evaluate whether the Gresham bakery violated Oregon law. But the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a higher law supporting freedom of speech. As the Supreme Court has affirmed, it is the right of same-sex couples to enter into a marriage regardless of whether it upsets anyone else. There is, after all, no right for Americans to not experience emotional upset. When the shoe is on the other foot, why must a private bake shop be forced to make a cake celebrating same-sex marriage, in direct contravention of the owners’ beliefs?
So long as Americans in same-sex couples were discriminated against in law, forbidden from marrying, such discrimination remained the primary point. Now that same-sex couples have a universal right to marry across the United States, it is important to protect the right of dissenters to refrain from participation in the nationwide group cheer. I support same-sex marriage freedom. I support freedom of speech, too, and I hope that the Gresham wedding cake decision is decisively overturned.
P.S. The decision by government clerks in Kentucky to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is a very different case. Instead of private actors, these are government employees acting on behalf of the government who swore when hired to uphold the law and who, through their inaction, prevent same-sex couples from exercising their full legal rights. A lemon-custard legal tort should be launched firmly and at high speed toward the faces of these recalcitrant clerks who use their positions of power in government to enforce illegal bigotry.
P.P.S. Who said law has to be boring? Never before in the history of the universe, and possibly never again, will we be treated to this particular sentence: “Just prior to the ceremony, Duff Goldman’s free cake was delivered by an incognito motorcyclist.”
“Once you get the border secure, then you can have a conversation about immigration.” This insight came from a Fox News appearance last night by Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, who was so proud of the idea that he reposted the comment on his campaign Twitter feed after the show was done, and then retweeted his own tweet about it on his individual Twitter feed.
If Rick Perry is so fond of this act first, talk later approach to immigration, maybe he could expand the idea to other policy areas. I suggest:
– Once you lower taxes, then you can have a conversation about how to keep the government from falling apart.
– Once you install offshore drilling rigs all along the coasts of the United States, then you can have a conversation about pollution.
– Once you create a travel ban from West Africa, then you can have a conversation about whether there is any significant threat to the United States from Ebola.
– Once you send people to Mars, then you can have a conversation about how to operate a colony on another planet.
– Once you invade Iraq, then you can have a conversation about coming up with a plan for the war.
Oh, wait. Rick Perry already did that last one, back in 2003. Word is that he’s trying to bring that idea back for his new campaign.
Out in Southern California, Anthony Ciotti has begun his independent campaign for President of the United States.
End the Fed.
End Citizens United.
End the Corporatocracy
End Planned Obsolescence.
End the For Profit model.
End the Revolving Door of Politicians to High Level Exec’s and visa versa.
Start Fixing what we have broken.
Start spreading Truth.
Start using Tech for the good of Life.
Now, let me get into that a bit more. Yes, Nationalize the Banking Industry. No more of this Too Big to Fail Too Big to Jail crap. Game over, they get nationalized. Period. Yes, the Fed Reserve too.
Taking a lesson from ancient cultures who knew that these debt bubbles get too outrageous, a Time of Jubilee, Debt Forgiveness. Slate is getting wiped clean. Restart!
Those families that were part of predatory loans and such, let’s get them back in their homes. Deed and all.
People in homes are a bit more stables, and can get trained up to help work on all the infrastructure we need to build. That’s right, JOBS.
So what do you guys think of that, Debt Forgiveness, Jobs, Homes, and Infrastructure? Things the People really need after all these games these Fat Cats have been playing.
Ciotti writes that “To get to become an official candidate, I need to raise at least $2500 and then spend it on campaign costs to aggregate $5000.” So far, he has raised $30.
Benjamin Powell uses his position as head of the “Free Market Institute” to argue that sweatshops are good for sweatshop workers. “I never understand, if you’re not making a living wage, how come you’re alive?,” jokes Powell in a standard stump speech line.
With his funding and position as head of the “Free Market Institute,” Benjamin Powell travels around and casts aspersions over and over again on the worth of the anti-sweatshop movement because he says it gets its money from unions and is therefore ethically tainted.
If it’s acceptable to cast doubt on the stance of anti-sweatshop organizations with the observation that they’re funded with union money, as Powell has done all over the country, it must be acceptable to evaluate Powell’s stance on sweatshops with reference to his funding.
The Free Market Institute is supported by a $1.7 Million grant from the John Templeton Foundation. Benjamin Powell defends sweatshop wages of $2 a day, but apparently he feels he needs more than $2 a day to do his work. Grants from the like of the John Templeton Foundation (including additional anonymous multimillion-dollar grants) allow the Free Market Institute to pay undergraduate students $1,000 a semester to read free-market books and follow discussion prompts of a FMI faculty member; apparently, Benjamin Powell feels the students are worth more than $2 a day to do their work. The John Templeton Foundation providing $1.7 Million to support Benjamin Powell’s activities can engage in such funding because it holds the wealth of the late Sir John Templeton, who made his fortune in no small part through the Templeton World Fund, an investment fund that has long generated income for wealth holders by investing in companies operating in third world countries (“emerging markets”) some of which invest in further companies with further subcontractors that find advantage by paying low, low wages. You and I know some of these as “sweatshops.”
If the arguments of anti-sweatshop organizations are less worthy for receiving union money, what is the worthiness of pro-sweatshop arguments funded by sweatshop money?