Paht the First (I). Shot to the foot?
During the state senate campaign and highlighted in the recent debate, several colleagues noted that Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) refers to his challenger, Elizabeth Warren (D) as "Professor Warren."
Quoting several colleagues from a listserv:
Brown makes it a point/
To call Warren, "Professor,"/
Like it's an insult.
That's an old tactic.
I remember in 1990, Bill Weld always called Silber "Doctor."
He also called Silber "Dr. Know-it-all."
It may have worked, since Weld won.
Clearly in 2012 Brown's "Professor" honorific is not out of respect for Warren's position at Harvard University Law School (notwithstanding insistence to the contrary). Rather, it is an attempt to paint her as part of (an imaginary) academic elite, thereby distancing her from the voter base.
Elitism in academia? It is curious that the 1% income group aren't considered "elite" by Scott Brown and his GOP / Tea Party admirers. While they simultaneously rail for better academic achievement in our schools, they hypocritically snub Warren's superior academic achievements with several pale arguments.
Of this republican gaff and others, I believe the most stark is the financial irony at play in this election:
Most of us are in the middle- to low-income brackets.The "1%-ers" in the highest income bracket have their businesses funnel $ tons of dough $ to republican / conservative causes and PACS. Folks, this translates to: less taxes for them (big businesses and the wealthy corporate officers and directors) and more taxes for us (small solo/independent business owners and wage earners).
We are the people that Elizabeth Warren will represent zealously. I believe that most Massachusetts voters supporting the Republican incumbent are ironically in the same middle- to low-income group as we folks who openly support Warren. So, I cannot fathom middle and low-income Massachusetts republicans and Tea Party loyalists who, in their collective shot-to-the-foot thinking support the republican incumbent and his anti-education achievement snub.
Paht the Second (II.) Satire never shot anybody, so relax.
On a more satirical note+, I attempt to explain the "anti-education achievement" snub through social science research. It appears from my sources that the anti-education "perfesser" snub especially appeals to voters in a specific demographic, who consider it as an emotional truth.
The following analogy is considered "true" by an overwhelming number of voters in this demographic as reported to me by a very reputable source close to a campaign, but whom I cannot name, as s/he is not authorized to speak on such matters, but knows someone who can:
"Snobbery is to higher education as smaht is to radio talk shows."
So, what about this so-called demographic? According to those that know, the "I-have-a-shotgun-in-my-pickup-truck-rear-window-rack-or-I-wish-I-did" ("Rear Window") demographic perceives the referenced analogy as an emotional truth based upon conclusions of social research. The Rear Window demographic group also finds personal beliefs affirmed through media outlets and reality TV, much like advertising reinforces post-purchase satisfaction.
Why? Because this group finds a consistency with a belief structure that either: (1) accepts anecdotal opinions as absolute truth (i.e. reality show reality) or, (2) merges emotional opinion and rational fact as equal (unless it is their best interest to think otherwise - this is the "radio talk show reality").
Snubbery is snobbery? In either case, this Rear Window demographic will use the anti-education achievement snub for self-serving, hypocritical and disingenuous objectives. Simply put, it is far cooler among Rear Windowers to sound ignorant and pan intellect rather than embrace it. I note from the confidential report I received that this phenom only occurs in Massachusetts. It would appear that our colleagues, family and friends in NH, CT, RI and NY are completely rational and always make the correct socio-political assumptions.
That proffered, my source also provided me with the following poll sample and results in support of the "Rear Window" snub premise. Purportedly, 100% of those polled identified themselves as "persons" and also, an overwhelming majority were included as part of the "Rear Window" demographic because they selected at least one of the responses below.
One respondent "Person" provided 489,928,399 responses and footnoted that it would have been 489,928,400 but for one natural person having opted-out. Therefore, this poll is 100% accurate with only a marginal margin of error, so there is no need to ask.
Please complete the following phrase:
I most want a senator who :
A) "...is a delightful couversationalist and I most hope will join me for a libation."
B) "...also has a couple of Honey Boo Boos at home";
C) "...checks the maid's work by bouncing quarters off the bed";
D) "...uses the family's $45,000 pickup like a monster truck on Dot Ave.";
E) "...believes that 'Knowledge is Good'." *
Conclusion: Totalitarian and fascist regimes eliminated free thought, creativity and intellect from government and society throughout history. Consider on the extreme what Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Castro did to the artists and academics in their countries. Let's be rational and consistent when supporting or criticizing the other guy and not resort to cheap shots, demonizing and stereotypes.
Notes and disclaimers:
+ This satirical analysis and fake poll does not intend to reference any political office incumbent or candidate. It is a fake poll report indicating the imaginary perceptions of potentially real persons, so politicians cannot be considered here legitimately. Information was provided to this blog by a reputable third-party and it is reported as true before someone else does. Why should CNN and Fox get all the glory? Should you find that the statistical responses above somehow actually correlate to actual data, you are clearly in error.
*Citing the Faber College statue/motto from the film, "National Lampoon's Animal House"