...So, Get Off Your Ass and DO SOMETHING

For a moment I find it necessary to go against everything I have ever mentioned about absorbing our factual information and learning from the media. It seems America’s Most Wanted host, John Walsh is on to something. After years of hosting this popular television show it finally became personal for Walsh. A close family friend, 21 year old Lindsey Harris went missing in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2005. Three weeks after reported missing her remains were found, however her friends and family at Lindsey’s home in Illinois were left to wonder about her until 2008. Three years they spent not knowing where their daughter, sisters, friend was. There was no way to make the connection between the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) in the remains found in Illinois and the missing person’s case in Nevada. Unfortunately the Harris’s are not alone. Thousands upon thousands of cases like this one arise every year in the United States.  The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that around forty thousand cases arise every year where remains cannot be connected to a missing person.

            “Imagine it! Forty thousand families, aching for answers. Even if DNA samples from those cases has been submitted to the national DNA data bank, known as CODIS [Combined DNA Index System], those families don’t have much reason for hope. The Justice Department says that the FBI, which oversees CODIS, has a backlog of some 200,000 DNA samples waiting to be entered. And that backlog is growing every day. This country can put a robot on Mars, yet loved ones of missing persons have to wait years to get answers, or get remains back. It’s just wrong.” (Walsh)

An up to date DNA database would help solve this problem. Along with missing persons cases, any serious crimes could be handled in a more efficient and timely manner. Not to mention falsely accused criminals and the wrongly convicted would finally have a walk free. Finally we would be able to utilize a way to prove criminal’s innocence.

 

While many make the claim, much like the wire-tapping whine that this is an abuse of privacy it is necessary to realize that not everyone would have their DNA in the database. This would remain a privilege to whoever gets arrested.  Of course, when it comes the day that each baby born is required to give DNA before leaving the hospital you may want to keep your complaints to yourself. The availability of police to take DNA should lie with other personal precautions. Insurance companies routinely require extensive medical history from clients, mortgage lenders subject applicants to giving a full credit report, and employers have urine tests for drug and alcohol consumption. If you are willing to give out all this personal information to these strangers, then why not to the safe hands of the police?

 

FBI, CIA, and local police officers would all have access to this information to help protect you and to no cost to yourself or to our country. In case you haven’t had the opportunity of hearing, we are in the middle of a rather large economic crisis. However, this database would cost little to nothing compared to other issues political pundits want the American public to fund. The laboratory technology and computers are already available under the name CODIS, it is just not being utilized. It is very unlikely for it to cost substantial amounts to begin to use this resource, but the “issue is properly the price that we should put on justice. The electoral rhetoric of ‘Law and Order’ suggests that the public puts a very high premium on protection of crime.” (Weekes)

 

            Thirty percent of crimes contain blood, semen, or saliva of suspects at the scene. All three are things that can be immediately matched with a person using DNA. However, a database is not being put in place to try and replace conventional crime solving. It would be used to identify the suspects then investigations would be conducted from that point by more conventional means. “There is no possibility of escaping the provision of technical evidence before a court. Doctors, ballistics experts, forensic scientists are already a common feature of the large criminal trial. The jury system is actually a bastion against conviction on account of complicated scientific facts.” (Weekes) Unfortunately, currently we lack the organization to do this. The FBI (overseer of CODIS) reports that they have an estimated two hundred thousand DNA samples backlogged and waiting to be entered. Apparently the government has larger priorities on their “to do lists.”

 

            Perhaps they do not realize the impact this would have on the criminal world. Maybe they do not realize the endless possibilities of having numerous people’s DNA available to match on instant to criminal evidence.

            “He was a church-going father of two, and for more than 30 years Dennis Rader eluded police in the Wichita area, killing 10 people and signing taunting letters with a self-styled monogram: BTK, for Bind Torture Kill. In the end, it was a DNA sample that tied BTK to his crimes. Not his own DNA. But his daughter's…looking for close-to-perfect matches with DNA from crime scenes. A partial match with a convicted criminal could implicate a brother or daughter or father of the convict. Such searches, advocates say, constitute a powerful law enforcement tool that, experts say, could increase by 40 percent the number of suspects identified through DNA.” (Nakashima)

 

This specific case was fortunate as Rader was already a suspect and by pure luck- investigators having access to sources such as his daughter’s DNA. However as a number of states stand, lab analysts who determine potential suspects in this way are required to keep their mouths shut. They are simply not permitted to give this information to investigators. Having a database where all DNA was available for all investigators to use would help solve this insanity in addition to allowing more cases to be solved similarly to the way the Rader case was. 

http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-propaganda.html

"The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day."

It's time for a must needed reflection. Republicans/Conservatives, what went wrong? (I mean of course other than our mid September "meltdown" and the celebrity charisma that surrounded our first serious African-American candidate that together made everything else in the country secondary). First of all, spending. The majority of our national debt can give thanks to our lovely conflict in the Middle East, but obviously still a large sum comes from elsewhere. Republicans have been blamed that their lower taxes are to blame for expanding deficits even when it's been proved that they've brought in greater revenue over the past four years. So lets get this straight for all you finger pointers out there. Republicans got us into this ugly mess we like to call the "war to nowhere." This war is digging a fairly large hole in our pockets. Now, although not ready to give up the war, Republicans are willing to refill some of that hole by creating a tax system that gives back to both you AND to the government. Seems to me like while not fixing the entire problem, that at least we're making progress. Perhaps it's time that instead of demanding to have it all, we learn to make a compromise. As for you Republicans, my advice...from now on, just balance the budget, since apparently the people now deal in psychology and symbolism as much as abstract economic data. 

Secondly, Conservatives are supposed to honor past values and behavior. Let me repeat that for you who don't catch things the first time, VALUES and behavior. Somehow it has been mistaken by opposite party members that the series of scandals (i.e. Foley, Cunningham, Stevens, etc...) were to be marked as values. So, of course the Republicans lost their footing there in addition to their frivilous spending. Now Republicans need to make themselves distinguishable from corrupt career politicians. It would most likely be beneficial to refrain from letting incompetent posers (cough) Press Secretary Scott McClellan at FEMA (cough) from reminding the naive public that conservatives haves standards no different from their opposition when they claim otherwise. My personal recommendation: The Republican party should become exclusive. Start turning down members. I mean they have the money, right?

On to the dreaded populism. Good old Joe the Plumber caught on. He realized the case had FINALLY been made that confiscatory tax rates mean that none of us will ever have the liberty of experiencing the financial success guaranteed to others by birth. Miss Sarah Palin had a shot, but unfortunately her soccer mom, bimbo attitude killed it. Past presidents have demonstrated they can represent the people. Both Eisenhower and Reagan showed the public they came from and were the same as the people. Supposedly the wonderful argument that the liberal party is now anti-populist and one of the largely affluent who wish to have the government create a boutique, utopian social agenda, and the lower class who want redistribution and the guarantee of twenty-four seven government attention was never seriously made. 

So now, lets not be addressed as Republicans or Democrats. So, my Dear America, stop pointing fingers. "Democrats," stop thinking you did something heroic and mocking Republicans. Check the polls, you almost didn't vote Obama into office, thank God the electoral college saved your ass. "Republicans," stop playing the "I told you so" game. If anything, it's annoying and you sound like my nagging little brother. He hasn't even been sworn in yet. Stop fighting as democrats and republicans and you'd be surprised what you might be able to get done. Get the facts and make compromises instead of demands; you might just get what you wanted all along. 

One last thing. These compromises. They happen in time. Just a promises from our new president. If we jump the gun and start placing blame on our leaders as soon as things don't immediately fall into place we will end up repeating history. As for mistakes, unless you're going to help solve them keep your mouth shut. The more you complain the longer it takes. Europeans are already acting shocked that Obama voiced to the U.N. he was "conflicted" about free-trade. He has shocked directors about new capital gains taxes. Oh, and you Silicon Valley pricks were acting a little concerned that your demolished 401(k)s haven't surged back yet, guess by now you've also learned that the 65% combined federal, state, Medicare and FICA income tax really does apply to you despite Obama's sign out on the front lawn. Well NEWS FLASH: He was just elected! He hasn't even been sworn in yet! I will be the first to say I am not Barack Obama's biggest supporter (but let it also be known I did not support John McCain) but even I realize that Rome wasn't built in a day.

So what is the importance of demographic catagories? Is there a method to our madness, a reason that our society continues to sort people into black and white, muslim and hindu? There is no importance visible to my eye. I see no importance existant in creating demographic catagories in which we demote and promote certain ethnicities and races. However, for the purpose of writing, reading, education in general it becomes neccessary to address ethnical backgrounds and racial groups. No matter how hard we try to move forward, history will always have a place of influence creating biases within and towards different demographical groups. 

A naïve society is easy to manipulate. Unfortunately an ignorant, naïve society: even easier. This is perhaps why our most elite can be found rising out of advertising and merchandizing positions. They know how to get into our public’s mind and exactly how to play on our public’s lack of knowledge. Sol Sender understood this concept and when he and his Chicago based company were asked to design the advertisement for Barack Obama’s campaign he knew right where to start. 

The red, white and blue banner for change is perfectly designed for catching the eye of every American. Against a blue background, Obama supporters can be seen standing and holding signs with the “Obama ‘08” logo. Barack Obama is placed front and center looking up to the sky, a heroic expression pasted across his face. The snow white suit and tie only make him more appealing spreading almost an angelic like ore. Under him his logo can be found once again, as if you missed the twenty other times it was advertised across the page. If you follow his gaze up, you are brought to the slogan, 

“CHANGE
WE CAN BELIEVE IN.”

It is here the public finds themselves drawn into this “product” being sold. There is no evidence anywhere on the page of types of change, or what will be changed, not even when this change will occur, but that is not important. The single word “change” is all that matters. The Chicago advertisers knew that in order to intrigue the public they would not need specifics. They were aware that this was a time where society had been looking for change and they understood the level of education people possessed creating a realization that they could take advantage of the American people without facts of any sort. A single word would be enough. 

While the slogan is portrayed at the top of the page, the logo itself is actually separate and although shown multiple times in the background of the ad, the main focus for the logo is found lying at the bottom of the page. Obama’s “logo for change” was meant to be more eye catching than other candidate’s logos. However, the untrained public eye would not be aware of this. Obama’s O-shaped logo does not follow the generality of flags and stars shown by other candidates. It is a cross between Van Gogh’s painting “The Sower” and a Thomas Hart Benton depression-era farm scene. Both are incredibly evocative, if not current to a lot of people. Originally Sol Sender wanted an interpretation of Obama’s logo to be made public; however fellow advertisers neglected to used this idea because it was thought to be simply unnecessary. The general O represented Obama and he could use the logo without his name next to it. He was claiming the O just as George W. Bush had claimed the W. The blue of the O and the three red stripes underneath represented the flag. When combined with the white stripes they then become and representation of the plain; the American farmland. Last, but not least the O’s whitespace represents the sun, shining over the plains. Because it is white, it evokes sunrise, not sunset. This is a beautiful depiction, but not needed. The naïve public would not need this to be pulled in. The fact that a difference between other candidate’s logos would catch their eye would be enough. 

While differentiating between logos would be enough to draw a person in, the rest of the picture had to sell itself once the innocent bystander’s attention had been caught. What better than a picture of Barack Obama himself? Obama stands tall and proud showing his audience that he is strong and ready for action. His eyes directed upward imply he is a visionary leader looking to the future, which is something everyone is looking for. The interesting concept lies in his attire. While it is not uncommon to see a politician wearing a nice white collared shirt, it is not often you see that white shirt paired with a white tie. In fact, not once to my knowledge has Obama been seen dressed completely in white. It seems that this was done to create an angelic like atmosphere; turn him into a savior type person even. The color white is a symbol of purity, cleanliness and innocence. It has been used over the centuries to depict angels, in early westerns the “good guys” wore white, not to mention the symbol of a “white knight.” Our brain associates this white with these types of things and that thought of rescue is implanted next to the name Obama in our heads. 

In addition to taking in all of this propaganda we are also addressed with the layout of the overall advertisement. The logo can remain small and at the bottom of the page because it is not necessary when Obama’s face is blown up across the paper. When you follow Obama’s gaze upward it your eyes are drawn to where he is looking so as to make sure you do not miss the word “Change” plastered above his head. The creators of campaign ads, Sol Sender and company of Barack Obama’s ad in particular are not geniuses. They are not brilliant whatsoever. If anything, they are average. It is our public who remain uneducated and unable to see through advertising tricks and techniques. 

It would be interesting to see where our world would be without advertisements. What would happen if people were forced to venture out and try things for themselves instead of getting manipulated and becoming victims of propaganda as many have by Barack Obama’s campaign ads? Perhaps that would give a different spin to things. Perhaps.