The Social Imagination

Exploring the Social Imagination

Monday, March 18, 2024

Migrants Don't Want Junk Food Socialism... They want Good Food Capitalism! Its all in their Social Imagination!

 

Migrants at Chicago's largest shelter call food 'horrible', rather buy their  own meals as city spends millions

Migrants at Chicago’s largest shelter call food horrible, rather buy their own meals as city spends millions...

WGN NEWS CHICAGO ~ March 14 2024

By: Lourdes Duarte and Peter Curi

As the city of Chicago spends millions of dollars on food for migrant shelters, some asylum seekers are now buying their own meals.

Former shelter residents can be seen outside the largest shelter in Chicago as they’ve created a make-shift business to provide an alternative for the food some are calling “horrible.”

New arrivals are choosing to use their own money to pay for food even as the city signs a multimillion dollar contracts with two different businesses.

Seventy Seven Communities Meal Service (501c3) has already been paid $3.7 million to feed migrants, but could stand to make as much as $45 million.

A second company, 14 Parish (501c3) has received $3.8 million with the potential to make as much as $57.6 million.

The residents who are choosing to skip the free food…and eat outside gave us pictures of the city provided meals, saying they may look fine but taste terrible.

The city even switched vendors earlier this year hoping to address the issues – but trouble has come up again.

The sent us this statement saying it collects feedback from residents on the food service, adding: “The City seeks to work with our food service provider partners to continually improve food options for residents based on the feedback we receive.”

WGN Investigates did contact the food vendor for the Pilsen shelter – 14 Parish. They said that they’re meeting all the nutritional requirements in the city contract.

Meanwhile, the story also brings up some questions about how much food is provided at shelters. There is no mandate in place but it is part of the city’s effort to meet the basic needs of new arrivals.

 

COMMENTARY: There is no need to say more unless you can't put 2 and 2 together.


ONLINE SOURCE ~  https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/migrants-at-chicagos-largest-shelter-call-food-horrible-rather-buy-their-own-meals-as-city-spends-millions/

 

 

*The so-called food service providers are registered 501c3s [making a profit???] supposedly following state guidelines... ohh scary!

Monday, March 11, 2024

Campaign Promises and Actual Outcomes in the Social Imagination...

Voter Information – In collaboration with the Associated Students of  Madison – UW–Madison

People often measure a government’s success on fulfilled campaign promises. And, most people want their government to address domestic problems first, such as: unemployment, inflation, taxes, along with health and safety. Yet, in reality, a government is only able to fulfill some of its promises because at the end of the day, it never did perfectly align its goals with what voters believed they would do. Governments have agenda's of their own. 
Really? Yes, and those agenda's have to do with power, prestige and money. The average 'Joe/Jane' do not like that idea because they idealize the whole process of the campaign and voting as essential to their democratic dream come true. Sure, in theory, elections appear as opportunities for people to make a choice as to what happens in their government and who represents them in terms of what happens - outcomes.  
This implies that a political system, wherein the masses vote and get their voices heard, is composed of honest parties, an informative unbiased media and civil society. This is, in fact, most desirable in a democracy. Yet, all too often, not just today but in the past, way too many citizens are disgruntled with politicians and campaign promises let alone any kind of satisfactory outcome from their voter participation.

    Psychology today pointed back in 2010 that voters are the eternal optimists who can't learn from experience. We want to believe that our politicians will improve our lives. But when post-election reality hits, we forget how unrealistic we were in believing that somehow "this time," the outcome would be different. In 2008, many Obama supporters and independent voters alike got caught up in this sort of mass delusion of inflated expectations. Supporters sought miraculous results from Obama and the Democratic Congress who they voted into office and when the miracle failed to materialize, they reacted with outrage and contempt. Tea Partiers capitalized on the angry mood of disillusioned voters, many of them basing their candidacies on the premise that their candidates would fulfill a new set of largely unrealistic promises.
    Research in marketing psychology provides intriguing insights into why broken campaign promises "hurt so bad." The effect known as "negative expectancy disconfirmation" has been demonstrated in studies involving consumer products that fail to deliver on their promised effects. According to this research, we have a bias toward being more angry when a product fails to perform than to be happy when it lives up to its claims.
    If politicians are ever to be able to lead, there will have to be an end at some point to the negative expectancy disconfirmation effect. We have to learn to trust again. Great leaders require not only the ability to take bold action, but the willingness of citizens to allow them to try to win without having to make wild and unrealistic promises. On the morning after, it would be nice to wake up and be able to feel that whoever won or lost, the change is one we can truly "believe in."

ONLINE SOURCE ~ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201011/promises-promises-when-politicians-don-t-deliver

 

COMMENTARY: Well, its sad isn't it. What? The whole darn thing is sad... campaign promises and actual outcomes. Even sadder is that the so called psychology here is right but confused. How? Looks like at key phrases: voters are eternal optimists, we want to believe so we have a high expectation... and the so called solution is to learn to trust. Trust in 'great leaders'?  Who is that, who decides who is great and who is not? Basically, the best advice here is to set the bar low (trust only that you have set the bar low enough) and you will not be disappointed.

Friday, February 16, 2024

Lack Luster View of Nuclear Family and Children in the Social Imagination...

 

"THROW THE CHILD" INFOMERCIAL ~ 2024 SUPERBOWL

Given his pedigree playing such characters as Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Professor Charles Xavier, when Patrick Stewart issues an instruction, one’s automatic instinct is to follow it.

However, in the new Super Bowl ad from Paramount+, Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa hesitates when that instruction is three simple words: Throw the child.

Created by ad agency Droga5 and directed by David Shane, “Sir Patrick Stewart Throws A Hail Arnold” manages to take so many of the elements that so many Super Bowl ads have—a collection of celebrities, a comedic concept—and combine them in a way that makes it feel fresh and actually funny.

Why are Stewart, Tagovailoa, Jeff Probst, Drew Barrymore, Knuckles, Arnold, Peppa, and Creed stuck on Paramount Mountain in the first place? Who cares! It’s all just weird enough to make the suspension of disbelief possible.

Credit to Droga5 for leaning into dark, odd humor for the Super Bowl, and to the brand for going with it. But the key here may be director David Shane, who has long been a master of commercial and short-form comedy.

For Shane, it’s all about a great script, and then looking for specific moments. “All stories, whether 24 seconds or 2 hours, are really a collection of moments,” Shane said. “Nobody tells their friends the plot of a movie over and over, but they do quote lines and specific scenes all the time. So, the first thing I’m doing is looking for that or the possibility of that in a script. Moments are about real human behavior. People laugh because they recognize themselves in what they’re watching.

He said that another important quality to any funny ad is comedic friction. “Someone said this, it may have been Freud, but I don’t know because I never graduated college: Violence is funny whether it is emotional or physical,’” said Shane. “In a script, that means finding where the friction is coming from, then it’s about finding the places where people are trying to not reveal what they’re thinking. We never think we’re an open book, but our expressions can betray that. What’s the subtext? Especially in commercials, I’m always trying to work the subtext. What are they saying . . . but what are they really saying? Also, awkwardness is funny.”

https://www.fastcompany.com/91022317/patrick-stewart-paramount-plus-super-bowl-commercial-2024-best-yet

 

COMMENTARY: The underlined texts above are enough for you to get the gist of this post. But, if not, then consider the images only in that 'infomercial/commercial for Paramount +.  In propaganda, its important to use the best possible lures: images, numbers, slogans/catch phrases, stereotypes, and any/all discriminatory measures to reel the viewer in. 

Looking at that infomercial, one should take notice of the carefully selected celebrities, the once popular grunge 'Christian' band -Creed, the mooning of that band, the old football player (representing aging population demanding to "Throw the Child"), a cheesy sheriff in shorts (disrespect of lawmen), a 'Miami' football player of color (American/Samoan Evangelical Christian with one son), a robot or transformer (the future singularity), and a torch bearer aside of a cartoon kid (ushering in the new reality). 

What can any of that mean in context of the title of this blog? It points to the lack luster view of the nuclear family and children in the post-modern social imagination. The traditional family has no appeal no luster/value, women want abortions/control their own body which fits with with a selfish aging American population .So, of course, throw the child away because who needs them; and while you are at it, throw out religion as it is (Creed) passe. 

As for Tua T... he did not throw the child because in the scene he was supposedly 'not ready for the moment'. Mmm. And, as a true Christian, he shouldn't be ready to throw the child. I guess he will eventually get ready or be totally excluded the next time this kind of thing comes up. 

Hopefully, Tua did not think such violence was funny like the rest of America. He chose to opt out but still took the money for the gig. When you think about it... it was probably the right thing to do knowing there won't be a come back. Unless, he changes his 'religion'.

Thursday, February 8, 2024

Politics and Presidents in the Social Imagination...


Politicians today and eons ago deliver rallying cries to inspire people to act. They use a wide variety of rhetoric to spread the word...  

    According to Plato, rhetorike is the faculty of observing a situation with the most immediate and available means of persuasion, different from the idea of polis which weighs out alternative options.... And, Aristotle applied three elements to effective rhetoric, ethos, pathos and logos. Aristotle defined ethos as, “comprised of the listeners’ understanding of the speaker’s good sense.” Therefore, according to these two philosophers, polis relates to the idea of governance which is the set of decisions and processes made to reflect social expectations through leadership of government... Conversely, rhetorike directly correlates to having control or rule of oneself [https://medium.com/@kbreenconsulting/rhetoric-in-politics-93e860aff081].

    Which types of political rhetoric are most persuasive? Politicians make arguments that share common rhetorical elements, including metaphor, ad hominem attacks, appeals to expertise, moral appeals, and many others. However, political arguments are also highly multidimensional, making it difficult to assess the relative persuasive power of these elements [https://csdp.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2376/files/media/lauderdale_variable_argument_persuasiveness_princeton_csdp.pdf].

This is still the case today. Say what? Politicians make arguments that share common rhetorical elements, including metaphor, ad hominem attacks, appeals to expertise, moral appeals etc.  

Why is it then that people (masses that generate a group of one kind or another) think their guy has it right? Somehow they are convinced. How? Rhetorike directly correlates to having control or rule of oneself and this is key. It makes one believe that so and so is right. But, in reality, the other guy/person doesn't have it right. So, what truth is found by anyone? None. Why? Because, their guy or the right guy/person pick they deem decent enough to win doesn't have it right either... not absolutely. 

Thus, after the election, the masses are often disappointed and start creating excuses, or blaming and fingering point to things/people that cause their disappointment...though its never their picks fault. 

During campaigns especially, one should take notice of the theater, the baiting, the hoopla.. and refrain from jumping on anyone's band wagon no matter how sweet it sounds! Why? Because, its a fallen world, and we live in a fallen/broker social imagination.  

Then, why vote at all? That's a good question. The answer is... don't vote for the person. Vote according to the principles that you are willing to die for. At least that is worth the disappointments in so and so that will come and they will. 



*Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life ~ John 14:6.