"Manufactured Hysteria"

Manufactured hysteria is a phenomenon in which someone, usually someone with a vested interest, loudly and openly - and often - proclaims that some otherwise irrelevant event actually carries huge significance and tries - almost always successfully - to create a bandwagon of craziness for everyone to jump on.

We've seen several of these in recent months, and I want to talk about a couple of them, as they illustrate both the differences and similarities between the right and left political groups in America.

First things first; let's talk about Miley Cyrus. She is Billy Ray Cyrus' daughter; reputedly musically talented in her own right; I can't personally attest to this, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt; fifteen years old; reasonably presentable; and far better known for the Disney character - Hannah Montana - that she plays on TV. She's also been in Vanity Fair magazine, and here's where things get weird.

OK. A while back, another Disney actress named Vanessa Hudgens caused a bit of a scandal for Disney when some photos of her, completely naked, obviously posed, and clearly authentic, showed up on the internet. Now Miss Hudgens was of age, so while there is something clearly not good for Disney here, there's nothing inherently wrong with it, and fairly quickly, it went away.

Miley Cyrus is fifteen. Recently pictures of her have been causing a ruckus as well, but there's a critical difference. Miss Cyrus is, in every photo so far, either fully clothed, or decently covered. So, what's the problem? Someone's trying to manufacture hysteria, that's what.

In the first set of photos, Miss Cyrus appears, wearing a crop top and shorts, lying across the lap of her then-boyfriend. Here's the picture:

Indecent as all hell, that; how dare she embarrass Disney, by liking her boyfriend?
Second, she has pulled her top down enough to reveal the top of a green brassiere.
This one - here it is -


- to me seems far and away the most risque of the photos, but really, despite some half-hearted moaning and groaning, no-one seemed to care very much. Maybe this is because she's decently covered, and nothing's showing that you wouldn't see if she went to the beach.

But THEN there was Vanity Fair. And in a photo session attended by her manager, AND HER FATHER, the photographer took a picture of Miss Cyrus, topless.

The world exploded.

Or, at least, that's what Disney would have you think. They're accusing Vanity Fair, and the photographer, of exploiting Miss Cyrus, and making noises saying they might replace Miss Cyrus entirely.

...hmmmmm...

...Doesn't Miley Cyrus cost Disney an assload of money, now that she's popular?
...Hasn't she been making noises about wanting to move on from Hannah Montana?

...hmmmmmmm...

So, I got to wondering. How did Vanity Fair get away with it? I mean, I haven't heard about any arrests for kiddie porn, which topless photos of a 15-year-old certainly are, under the law, so what's up? Could someone, somewhere, be misrepresenting something?

...hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

So, I looked up the picture.


...Striking, isn't it, the way her body is completely covered, except for - again - parts anyone could clearly see in public if this girl were to go to a beach?
Her father was at the shoot; the fact that he didn't pitch a conniption fit about it AT THE TIME, should clue you in that something here smells like bullshit.

See, what's really going on here is that this gives both Disney and Miss Cyrus exactly what they want: a chance to go their separate ways without culpability, because they can both conveniently blame Vanity Fair. Freedom for Miss Cyrus, to pursue her career in any direction she chooses, and freedom for Disney, from having to pay her exorbitant amounts of money. As she's in breach of contract, Disney can let her go without paying extra, and in six months this will be totally forgotten, thus having little to no impact on Miss Cyrus' post-Disney career.

The only person seriously hurt here is the Vanity Fair photographer, Annie Leibovitz, who might lose her job, despite this being essentially a truckload of horseshit. I will get to the political bits of this after my second example, promise.

The second example, here, is the U.S. economy. (Thanks to Jesi for her post, both for inspiration to talk about this, and for the facts and figures she dug up, thus saving me the Googling.)

The U.S. economy is - even now - STILL in the midst of the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of this country, yet the media insists, endlessly, that we are in a recession.

In fact, their only support for this insane notion is that the rate of U.S. economic growth for the first quarter of 2008 is "only" .6%. Now, let's figure out what that means. Of the U.S. economy, which is currently about $13.9 TRILLION, that .6% comes out to about $100,000,000,000 - so, what's that mean?

Well, for starters, it means that our economy grew, in three months, more than the total value of the complete annual economy of all but 55 of the other countries on the planet; to continue to put that in perspective, that means that that single 3-month period saw more economic growth in this country than practically every developed nation on the planet sees in a year.

In other words, we're the richest, and one of the fastest-growing, economies in the world.

At this point I will inject a needed aside; this is usually the point when someone who doesn't understand how our system works, says something like "but what about the national debt?" or maybe "but what about the deficit?"

Well, both of them - in their entirety - are issues of, and for, the federal government; neither of them has a single blessed thing to do with the economy.

See, the federal budget - home of deficit spending and loans from foreign governments, who in turn owe us loads of money as well - is completely, totally separate from "the economy."

So, basically, if your claim is that the economy is bad because of deficit spending and national debt, you flatly have no idea what you're talking about, and need to go take an 11th grade economics and government class.

Right.

So, what's the deal? Why is it that the world's single richest, strongest economy is constantly under siege in the "court of public opinion?"

Politics. See, the media has - correctly - understood that the market can be influenced by people's confidence in it; and they also understand that most Americans still believe that the media basically tells the truth.

They don't.

The constant economy-bashing is an attempt to elect a President, pure and simple. I will explain.

See, if the economy begins to slow - which it is - because investors are getting careful - which they are - because the media is telling them they should be - which they are - then the Republicans look bad, since it's their boy in the White House.

The media understands their power; they know that all they have to do to reverse the damage they're doing to investor confidence is to, after the election of their chosen candidate, immediately begin an endless drumbeat of POSITIVE stories about the economy. investor confidence will rebound, and things will pick up again almost immediately - in fact, too quickly for any economic actions of the new President to have had any actual effect.

Watch closely - should they FAIL in their king-making attempt, the negative drumbeat will continue, as they look forward to the next Congressional election, instead.

Of course, the longer the negativity lasts, the more serious and lasting the damage they will inflict; but what do they care? They're far more concerned with their agenda than with the ultimate effect that agenda will have on the nation.

Now, as promised, what does this say about right and left, and what the hell does it say about the Cyrus family? Well, when the Vanity Fair photo session became a scandal, and it was revealed that her father was tehre, most of the people upset about it jumped to the conclusion that Billy Ray Cyrus is a bad, exploitative father, rather than give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the hoopla was bullshit.

See, conservatives tend to believe that personal character is important. They'd rather someone "iffy" go away, maybe wrongly, than allow them any authority, because a basic lack of character demonstrates a lack of leadership as well. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to dismiss character flaws, so long as the person in question can advance their agenda.

This is why Ted Kennedy, a known drunk and murderer, is still in Congress - and Tom DeLay, who was associated with a crooked lobbyist, isn't.

So, what's the similarity between right and left that this whole thing demonstrates? Both sides can be easily decieved with the vigorous application of the correct kind of bullshit.