Unintentional Humor

I don't spend all my time being interviewed for Donavan's website. Sometimes I read the fine print on political ads.

Years ago there was a comedian who was pointing out the absurdity of the name of some group like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, joking that they were logically fighting some non-existant pro-drunk-driving lobby. I think of that whenever I hear about some group, mentally concocting their opposite and seeing if it makes any sense.

Among other places, this is evident in the fight over a woman's right to have an abortion. On the one hand we have Pro-Life, on the other Pro-Choice. By labeling their movements as such, in one stroke, they demean and ridicule the opposition. No sane person would be opposed to life, and no rational person would be against choice. The implication, obviously, is that if you're not pro-life, you're against it, an untenable position. Or, if you're not pro-life, you must be pro-death, an even less appetizing position.

Since the political ads on television are how many people decide how to vote, there are tons of 'em at right now. My favorites are the ones for the propositions, which invariably paint a gloomy view of what will happen if they're not passed or defeated. What strikes me funny is that these show up every election, but I never notice after the election if they passed or not, and life, pretty much, continues the same. It's a lot of hyperbole, sure, because that's what gets our attention, but on a practical note I don't have any idea what happened to last election's Indian Gaming things, whose ads either threatened the downfall of civilization or some unimaginably bright and glowing future.

Whatever happened, it doesn't seem to have affected my life, but I've little doubt billions of dollars have changed hands.

The tiny print at the end of these ads list the groups who paid for the ads, and there's not a one of them that doesn't contain something like "Concerned Citizens for Decency," or some such laughable name. Obviously, if I don't support their position I'm either against decency, or unconcerned. If they're not "concerned," they're "responsible" or something similar, and I find that insulting.

"We're the concerned ones," they imply, "and if you're not with us you just can't care." If you label your own side as something categorically decent, anyone who questions your view is necessarily loathsome. "We're the good guys, by definition," they proclaim, "so you really can't go against us."

Words are very powerful things, and labels even moreso. I guess it gets those who use them more power or props up their cause, but I can't help laughing when their label is chosen to make me look bad. In the last week alone I've been painted as apathetic, unreasonable, and irresponsible, but only passively and not to my face.

And, yet, I don't feel any different than I did last weekend.