Yesterday I picked up a copy of Good magazine. I had heard a little about Good but didn't know much. I am pretty inclined to like any publication that sets out to celebrate and educate about doing good.
Unfortunately my hopeful thoughts came to an end after reading the insipid election edition. The cover story lists 1,565 reasons to vote in this year's election. However, had Good decided to be more honest, they would have entitled the article "Reasons to Vote for Obama".
Let me first state that while I do not support Obama, neither do I support McCain. The Republicans have been a disaster over the past 8 years. However, I find it rather disingenuous for this magazine to devote an election edition to giving reasons to vote for one candidate.
Don't believe me? Here is a pretty representative sampling of some of the reasons to vote:
1538-1541. John F. Kennedy was 43 when he became the youngest elected president in U.S. history. Obama is only four years older.
1549. Guantánamo.
1551. Republican operative Allen Raymond spent three months in prison after illegally jamming Democratic phone lines during the 2002 New Hampshire senate race.
1553. Centuries of European colonial genocide and white-washed American history shouldn’t be for naught.
194. The people currently in office—to say nothing of the fools at the EPA—are clueless about environmental preservation and sustainability.
196. You didn’t vote in 2000, when you were living in Florida, and we’re all still mad at you for it.
644. If he wins, Barack Obama might actually appoint people of color who care about the interests of minority communities. Attempts at this by previous presidents only led to appointments of people who worked to protect their respective administrations by any means necessary, no matter how damaging it was to the communities they came from. (We’re looking at you, Condi.)
650. Having a black president would not be insignificant.
652. John McCain has an explicit, stated intention to overturn Roe v. Wade.
788. No one wants to read the equivalent of “Dewey Defeats Truman” on Wednesday. Don’t let it be close.
929. Even though no one seems to agree how many people have died since we invaded Iraq, 90,000 dead civilians is a safe estimate.
1117. “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” —John F. Kennedy
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at such petty partisan ranting. Nor am I surprised that they don't seem to have a problem with pissing off half of the country. But I do have a big problem with cloaking such juvenile partisanship in moralistic tones. "Good"? I think not.
Comments
I will call you on this one.
I will call you on this one. The cover story lists "reasons to vote in this year's election". Maybe I missed something, but it does not say "neutral reasons". You link the title of the magazine with the reasons, and to some, the ones they cite may be "good." Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, people may differ on "good" reasons for voting. This mag seems to have a 'left of center' bias that colors your view of "good". It may be a better description to call it 'reasons to vote for Obama' but that is a 'truth in labeling' issue where the bias is revealed.
That being said, you make a valid point when it comes to political discussions- call it truth in labeling. How many times have you seen or heard a political ad sponsored by a group entitled 'Citizens for [insert self-promoting, misleading description here]? The bias is concealed, carefully couched in a way that suggests 'we are good' and 'they are bad', or 'if you are not for this goal, you are wrong.' The names of the groups are often grossly misleading. Shudder to think that one might say "there ought to be a law"- isn't that the criticism conservatives often level against 'liberal' ideology?
r.johnson
r.johnson
I think my primary concern
I think my primary concern is the labeling used here. Just like many people are disturbed by the partisan and ideological misuse of the term "values" or "family values" (afterall, who could be opposed to family values?) I am reacting to the use of "good" here. How could one oppose "good"?
Understandable. On a
Understandable. On a related note, I am dismayed at the number of "when did you stop beating your wife" type attacks that seem so prevalent in this cycle. I would not have said anything (in this string) until I saw this video. Unbelievable.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/mccain_spokesperson_we_all_kno.php
r.johnson
r.johnson
Post new comment