Ok, so in one of my higher moments, I have come to truly appreciate the period as a grammatical tool. I know that the ellipsis is really popular now in popular culture and everything, but what an overly used, trite piece of wannabe ironic visual twist on discourse. I'm guilty, I know. I used to love the ellipsis. What a great way of adding the temptuously tongue in cheek way of writing. After all, it's so easy. There's no effort in what must come next to indicate a sarcastic comment coming. The ellipsis says it all.
But what about the period. Nothing is more blunt than a period. It is an abrupt stop. There's no instruction for pause as with it's cousin the ellipsis, it demands an immediate halt. The tantalizing pause of the ellipsis is widely overused and abused. What a pretentious way of trying to feign intelligence by using what used to be a sacred mark of punctuation rarely used and only when its true intention was intended. Perhaps its just another sign of our ridiculous nature to make anything remotely popular a cultural symbol. Which in the ironic postmodern generation currently underway, provides a sort of paradox as to the loss of meaning when a postmodern icon is symbolized and popularly internalized. That which it was supposed to represent is no longer embodied in the symbolized version digested by popular culture. Nonetheless, I digress.
The ellipsis has lost all meaning now. I say go old school. I say remember the period. Remember how it's simplicity and directness. There's no cowardly pause. There is no sign of weakness, strength and conviction are conveyed by the period. There's no moment of false deliberation purposed here. There's not a single semicolon here, no sir. I am a firm believer in the period, and all that it stands for. I say to you bring confidence to your writing. Don't complicate things by injecting vagueness. Get back to your roots people. May God bless the period, and may God bless America.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Race Relations via Text Message and Facebook
So my boyfriend Zac sent me a text message yesterday morning that read:
"They didn't want to give us 40 acres and a mule so dammit we will take 50 states and a White House! Obama 08*"
I accused him (and Black people in general) of "claiming ownership" of the election. Probably a bad choice of words. His response was as follows:
How can we not claim ownership. The fact is he is black. All I'm saying is that i feel like we have more to celebrate because it is a major step for us a race, and also a major step for our country. I'm not ignoring the fact that we all had to come together for this, but i think you are ignoring what it truly means to us as a race to finally have someone of color in the White House. I mean, we still face a lot of racism and bigotry today, and now that we have a black president, its like a slap in the face to all of the bigots. Therefore i believe we have every right to celebrate and celebrate hard.
My response, or should I say essay, was my best attempt to outline and explain my worries/condemnations about the consequences of making race a larger issue than it should be AFTER the election, and the use of the first Black president as a symbol for racial revenge. I know it's not perfect, and keep in mind that this was written hastily and sent to my boyfriend, so there are some nuances that I probably should explain better but didn't, since he already understands the way I write. On a more personal note, I rarely touch the issue of race and racial relations within our country because of it's volatile nature. I, like everyone else, have very strong feelings on the issue that are always a source of contention. However, I think that I have a valid point, and that excessive celebration on either end is a sign of poor sportsmanship, and a signal of impoliteness at best, ignorance at worst. Regardless, here was my response:
Actually, the fact is he is half-black and half-white. Regardless, he is touted as the first Black president. I'm not saying that this is bad or anything, but it's important to remember that he is mixed. Still, it is a momentous occasion in American history, and definitely one for celebration. It was hard to say in a text because of limited space, but I'll try to explain more of what I meant here.
I know that there is still a lot of racism and bigotry present, and wearing the White goggles makes it difficult to see. But it is still there, as Facebook showed last night. It is incredibly important to have a person of color in the White House for the first time and it is a huge step in the advancement of American society. A slap to the face to bigots is what I hope will be a welcome awakening for a lot of citizens. Celebration is definitely something that Black people have a right to do, but it is not solely limited to them as a race. Although yes, I do believe that there is a larger incentive for celebration than most White people have.
My issue with things like the text message you sent me (which I'm not saying wasn't funny or anything) and some status messages that I have seen on Facebook is that they imply a racial revenge. Obama's election does not signal a great reversal of roles in this country, but I think that's what some people (both white and black) are expecting. Rhetoric such as what was used in your text incites and furthers racial divisions that preclude national unity. Instead, Americans should be focused on working together regardless of race or color. I know that it's easy for me to say that race should be pushed aside, since it rarely affects my life, but discrimination that I have experienced as a result of my sexuality has shown me the dangers and horrors of creating purely nominal divisions within society.
Obama, as a mixed person, should be a symbol of racial unity, not superiority of either race. To claim ownership of Obama as a symbol for Black Americans is to deny White Americans who have pushed for racial equality their symbol for victory. The Black journalist, Roland something, that was on CNN last night said it very eloquently when he referenced the white people who were killed or arrested during the Civil Rights era as just as deserving as the Black people who were. A freedom fighter is a freedom fighter. Rather than keeping the racial divide present in society and just reversing the roles, we should aim for unification. Race is an important issue in society, but only because we make it so. A historical moment like this should be a springboard to a societal progression, not a societal inversion. Racial divisions shouldn't be propagated, nor even ignored. They should be explored and exposed for the faulty foundations upon which they are laid.
Long story short, I think that both Whites and Blacks that use race as a tool for rhetorical purposes are operating from a base of ignorance.
I love you, Have a good day!
~Supes
"They didn't want to give us 40 acres and a mule so dammit we will take 50 states and a White House! Obama 08*"
I accused him (and Black people in general) of "claiming ownership" of the election. Probably a bad choice of words. His response was as follows:
How can we not claim ownership. The fact is he is black. All I'm saying is that i feel like we have more to celebrate because it is a major step for us a race, and also a major step for our country. I'm not ignoring the fact that we all had to come together for this, but i think you are ignoring what it truly means to us as a race to finally have someone of color in the White House. I mean, we still face a lot of racism and bigotry today, and now that we have a black president, its like a slap in the face to all of the bigots. Therefore i believe we have every right to celebrate and celebrate hard.
My response, or should I say essay, was my best attempt to outline and explain my worries/condemnations about the consequences of making race a larger issue than it should be AFTER the election, and the use of the first Black president as a symbol for racial revenge. I know it's not perfect, and keep in mind that this was written hastily and sent to my boyfriend, so there are some nuances that I probably should explain better but didn't, since he already understands the way I write. On a more personal note, I rarely touch the issue of race and racial relations within our country because of it's volatile nature. I, like everyone else, have very strong feelings on the issue that are always a source of contention. However, I think that I have a valid point, and that excessive celebration on either end is a sign of poor sportsmanship, and a signal of impoliteness at best, ignorance at worst. Regardless, here was my response:
Actually, the fact is he is half-black and half-white. Regardless, he is touted as the first Black president. I'm not saying that this is bad or anything, but it's important to remember that he is mixed. Still, it is a momentous occasion in American history, and definitely one for celebration. It was hard to say in a text because of limited space, but I'll try to explain more of what I meant here.
I know that there is still a lot of racism and bigotry present, and wearing the White goggles makes it difficult to see. But it is still there, as Facebook showed last night. It is incredibly important to have a person of color in the White House for the first time and it is a huge step in the advancement of American society. A slap to the face to bigots is what I hope will be a welcome awakening for a lot of citizens. Celebration is definitely something that Black people have a right to do, but it is not solely limited to them as a race. Although yes, I do believe that there is a larger incentive for celebration than most White people have.
My issue with things like the text message you sent me (which I'm not saying wasn't funny or anything) and some status messages that I have seen on Facebook is that they imply a racial revenge. Obama's election does not signal a great reversal of roles in this country, but I think that's what some people (both white and black) are expecting. Rhetoric such as what was used in your text incites and furthers racial divisions that preclude national unity. Instead, Americans should be focused on working together regardless of race or color. I know that it's easy for me to say that race should be pushed aside, since it rarely affects my life, but discrimination that I have experienced as a result of my sexuality has shown me the dangers and horrors of creating purely nominal divisions within society.
Obama, as a mixed person, should be a symbol of racial unity, not superiority of either race. To claim ownership of Obama as a symbol for Black Americans is to deny White Americans who have pushed for racial equality their symbol for victory. The Black journalist, Roland something, that was on CNN last night said it very eloquently when he referenced the white people who were killed or arrested during the Civil Rights era as just as deserving as the Black people who were. A freedom fighter is a freedom fighter. Rather than keeping the racial divide present in society and just reversing the roles, we should aim for unification. Race is an important issue in society, but only because we make it so. A historical moment like this should be a springboard to a societal progression, not a societal inversion. Racial divisions shouldn't be propagated, nor even ignored. They should be explored and exposed for the faulty foundations upon which they are laid.
Long story short, I think that both Whites and Blacks that use race as a tool for rhetorical purposes are operating from a base of ignorance.
I love you, Have a good day!
~Supes
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
President-Elect Barack Obama
I'm at a loss for words. There is so much excitement and fervor running through me right now that I don't know that I can find the words to accurately articulate my feelings. I try to keep my blog relegated to political arguments, but at this momentous occasion all of those intentions are cast aside. We are living in a moment of history. The racial implications alone are staggering, and by far too much for me to even attempt to cover, especially as a white male. The indications of the liberation and progression of society, led by the millenial generation, are promising signs of the change that is to come within my lifetime. I'm too excited and too busy right now to fully explore this development, but I had to say something. God bless Obama, and God bless America. A change is gonna come.
~Supes
~Supes
Monday, October 6, 2008
Political Rhetoric and Your Freedom, the Reasonable Person Standard
I just finished watching a rerun of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and he said something that really hit home with me, and was a very articulate, yet not pretentious, way of explaining my personal position on political discourse in the modern and postmodern eras. I can't remember the exact quote, but he was talking about the mannerisms and style of rhetoric used by politicians when speaking. I should elaborate here, I am describing the flow of words and sentence structure along with word choice that effects how information is presented to and received by an audience.
Stewart's comment was something to the effect of "Why can't we just sit down and talk like adults, without the use of 'code.' Politicians devise sentences that allow them the 'wiggle room' to go back and restructure our positions later for 'plausible deniability.'"
The purpose of this blog is not to show examples of our of politicians performing, it is rather to argue for the loss and potential recovery of the Reasonable Person Standard, as described by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman in their book, The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Critical World (great read, really very interesting if you're into Journalism or Sociology at all, easy to follow for the most part). The Reasonable Person Standard (RPS) is relatively self-explanatory, but it still warrants further explanation.
Now, I should tell you I'm not going to cite anything here. If/when I use a quote, I'm not going to do page numbers in the book and all that jazz. I'm posting my formal essay after I finish this blog, and it contains all the proper citations for the references I'm using. So check that one if you need specificity.
The RPS could be obtusely defined as "common sense;" however, this would be an oversimplication. I think the best way to explain it is to think of jury duty. When your on a jury, you're job is to look at the facts, and decide what a reasonable person placed in that situation would do or understand. It's not rocket science, there are absolutely no academic requirements for serving on a jury. Now Jamieson & Waldman go more in depth and explore about nine other guidelines for political press coverage, which are more specific in how to successfully execute the Reasonable Person Standard in a journalistic setting and are important, but not necessary here. They can pretty much just be lumped under the umbrella of the RPS. Again, refer to the formal essay for detail.
When politicians use spin or misleading rhetoric to confuse the public perspective, they are undermining your right to information and your right to make your own choices based on pure information. Dare I say it, your freedom? Isn't that kind of what freedom is, at least from a very broad democratic perspective. People are supposed to be able to make their own decisions about their lives, based off of accurate information provided to the public. Now, I'm not going to argue that most people don't want to participate and are uninterested in active democracy, but that's partly due to the difficulties in finding clear, unspun information that is widely available and easy to understand. Enter what is supposed to be the role of journalism in society. With spreading postmodern skepticism, however, the media is losing its reputation as an unbiased source of clear and reliable information. To go in deeply here would take too long, and would not be effective for the purpose of this blog, but maybe I'll write about it soon in another.
This is becoming one of the great problems of society in our time. The manipulation of information to present a distorted view of facts is undermining our freedom and our ability to govern ourselves. Then again, we've done it to ourselves. We've made the true facts so complicated, so difficult to find, that most Americans have given up searching for them. Further, any information that is presented to individuals rather than observed by them is increasingly beoming suspect as fraud in the mind of the individual. We've let a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Fellow Americans, call for reliability and accuracy from your media. Demand clarified, but not oversimplified information. Don't allow rhetoric to twist facts to fit the story, use the facts to write the story. Become an active member in your democracy. Freedom is yours for the taking.
Supes
Stewart's comment was something to the effect of "Why can't we just sit down and talk like adults, without the use of 'code.' Politicians devise sentences that allow them the 'wiggle room' to go back and restructure our positions later for 'plausible deniability.'"
The purpose of this blog is not to show examples of our of politicians performing, it is rather to argue for the loss and potential recovery of the Reasonable Person Standard, as described by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman in their book, The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Critical World (great read, really very interesting if you're into Journalism or Sociology at all, easy to follow for the most part). The Reasonable Person Standard (RPS) is relatively self-explanatory, but it still warrants further explanation.
Now, I should tell you I'm not going to cite anything here. If/when I use a quote, I'm not going to do page numbers in the book and all that jazz. I'm posting my formal essay after I finish this blog, and it contains all the proper citations for the references I'm using. So check that one if you need specificity.
The RPS could be obtusely defined as "common sense;" however, this would be an oversimplication. I think the best way to explain it is to think of jury duty. When your on a jury, you're job is to look at the facts, and decide what a reasonable person placed in that situation would do or understand. It's not rocket science, there are absolutely no academic requirements for serving on a jury. Now Jamieson & Waldman go more in depth and explore about nine other guidelines for political press coverage, which are more specific in how to successfully execute the Reasonable Person Standard in a journalistic setting and are important, but not necessary here. They can pretty much just be lumped under the umbrella of the RPS. Again, refer to the formal essay for detail.
When politicians use spin or misleading rhetoric to confuse the public perspective, they are undermining your right to information and your right to make your own choices based on pure information. Dare I say it, your freedom? Isn't that kind of what freedom is, at least from a very broad democratic perspective. People are supposed to be able to make their own decisions about their lives, based off of accurate information provided to the public. Now, I'm not going to argue that most people don't want to participate and are uninterested in active democracy, but that's partly due to the difficulties in finding clear, unspun information that is widely available and easy to understand. Enter what is supposed to be the role of journalism in society. With spreading postmodern skepticism, however, the media is losing its reputation as an unbiased source of clear and reliable information. To go in deeply here would take too long, and would not be effective for the purpose of this blog, but maybe I'll write about it soon in another.
This is becoming one of the great problems of society in our time. The manipulation of information to present a distorted view of facts is undermining our freedom and our ability to govern ourselves. Then again, we've done it to ourselves. We've made the true facts so complicated, so difficult to find, that most Americans have given up searching for them. Further, any information that is presented to individuals rather than observed by them is increasingly beoming suspect as fraud in the mind of the individual. We've let a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Fellow Americans, call for reliability and accuracy from your media. Demand clarified, but not oversimplified information. Don't allow rhetoric to twist facts to fit the story, use the facts to write the story. Become an active member in your democracy. Freedom is yours for the taking.
Supes
Thursday, October 2, 2008
VP Debate - Palin Chokes and Warbles
Ok, so I could be just a little high, but did anyone else see Sarah Palin during the Vice Presidential Debate on ABC? It probably was the same on every channel, I guess, but at 10:28 p.m. (I'm quite sure of the time because I have an obsessive habit of looking at the clock) watch Sarah Palin carefully. While attacking Biden during her conclusion, Palin looks at Biden and cuts her eyes, kind of like she's sizing him up or something. Right after this, she chokes (or something) and her voice starts to warble. She gets her voice back, but it's a hilarious minute or so of her choking during her big conclusion, right after she attacked Biden. A.K.A. kind of symbolic of women being the weaker sex. Agh, you'll get a full recount of the debate tomorrow, maybe. If I can find it on YouTube. Of course I'll be able to find it on the Internet in general I guess.
(On a more personal note, it's the first time in 4 (FOUR!) days that I've been able to smoke. Good green is so hard to find...)
Supes
(On a more personal note, it's the first time in 4 (FOUR!) days that I've been able to smoke. Good green is so hard to find...)
Supes
Monday, September 8, 2008
Newt Gingrich and Gay Marriage
So I saw Newt Gingrich on The Daily Show today, and I kinda wanted to know his whole back story. I remember him being vilified in the media when I was younger, but never knew why. Anyways, I looked him up on wikipedia and read about the controversy along with some other random facts, but nothing really about his political stance on divisive issues; for this, I had to go to Newt's own website. I overheard him mentioning something about the environment, so I looked it up, and guess what! Newt Gingrich actually wants to cut back on carbon emissions, and has really (no, really) written an entire book titled "A Contract With the Earth" that pleads for a bipartisan approach to saving the environment. What a standup guy. Except that the rest of his views on policy and social issues are a direct inhibition of my freedom. Ok, here it comes: gay marriage.
American Solutions, a 527 group (these groups try to influence public office elections, thanks wikipedia) that was created by Newt Gingrich had this to say on its website
"Every time a court defines a new right or creates new meaning beyond that created by the executive and legislative branch, it undermines the rule of law and the ability of a free people to govern themselves. When the court steps back and limits itself to objective interpretation of the law, it puts power in the hands of the people. It gives them the ability to define for themselves what laws and standards they will live by, so long as they act within Constitutional bounds. When judges rewrite the law as they see fit, our entire system of laws becomes subjective and loses the authority it is meant to have."
First off, I just have to mention how neatly tucked away this was in a hard to find figurative corner of the website, and how intentionally vague the rhetoric is here. At no point is the phrase "gay marriage" mentioned. Nor is the word "gay" or even "constitutional amendment." With careful reading, however, it is blatantly hypocritical and misleading.
In the first and fourth sentences, judges are vilified as "law-tamperers" who create rights without regard for consequence. Not only that, but it also undermines your freedom! Not so much. Judges are actually interpreters of law, not creators. Let us not forget that only fifty years ago, judges "rewrote" the laws. They tore down the "authority" of those laws based on "subjective" interpretations. You remember that don't you? Desegregation? The Civil Rights Movement? As for undermining freedom, when a judge rules against gay marriage, or a state votes in and gay marriage ban, I lose a freedom. I guess the social sanctions for being a homosexual aren't enough, they must also be institutionalized through law to ensure that future generations of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans are ostracized. It's not only a conservative mindset, it's the law.
The second and third sentences are a bit trickier to decipher, but it's all clearly there if you read it carefully. The second sentence specifically is an attempt at heightening emotion. It uses strong, evocative rhetoric to rouse feeling from the reader. "Objective interpretation" (which, let's be honest, isn't that what courts and judges are supposed to do? Of course we all want that!) of the law is what "puts power in the hands of the people" (nice alliteration, huh? If only they could have used 'paws' instead of 'hands'). The opening half of the third sentence says that if judges acted accordingly, the people could fully govern themselves and live their lives exactly the way they want to...so long as they "act within Constitutional bounds." What a great idea! So, as long as I don't do what the constitution specifically says I can't, I can live my life the way I want to, right? Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Even without a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, states such as Georgia (where I live) do have amendments or statutes preventing same sex marriage. The federal Constitution says nothing about the definition of marriage as far as I can remember. In fact, the main part I do remember is about equality of man, and the basic inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I am in no way making the plight of the Civil Rights Era synonymous with the struggle for marriage equality, the two are analogous, at least in unconstitutionality. The nationwide debate and state referendums on gay marriage over the past six years have created a new era of "Jim Crow-esque" laws being used to deny GLBT citizens their rights. "Johnny Rainbow Laws," if you will.
So thanks, Newt Gingrich, for your concern about the environment, it is much appreciated I'm sure. However, for basically everything else you stand for (including the integration of church and state, which don't get me wrong, I'm a religious guy, but that's ridiculous) I think you couldn't be farther from what truly represents myself and many others as citizens of Georgia. Your close-minded perspective is only another example of the traditional, fundamentalist viewpoint that has keep America socially stagnant and politically mired despite being in the face of revolutionary innovations in technology, health, and communication over the past eight years.
American Solutions, a 527 group (these groups try to influence public office elections, thanks wikipedia) that was created by Newt Gingrich had this to say on its website
"Every time a court defines a new right or creates new meaning beyond that created by the executive and legislative branch, it undermines the rule of law and the ability of a free people to govern themselves. When the court steps back and limits itself to objective interpretation of the law, it puts power in the hands of the people. It gives them the ability to define for themselves what laws and standards they will live by, so long as they act within Constitutional bounds. When judges rewrite the law as they see fit, our entire system of laws becomes subjective and loses the authority it is meant to have."
First off, I just have to mention how neatly tucked away this was in a hard to find figurative corner of the website, and how intentionally vague the rhetoric is here. At no point is the phrase "gay marriage" mentioned. Nor is the word "gay" or even "constitutional amendment." With careful reading, however, it is blatantly hypocritical and misleading.
In the first and fourth sentences, judges are vilified as "law-tamperers" who create rights without regard for consequence. Not only that, but it also undermines your freedom! Not so much. Judges are actually interpreters of law, not creators. Let us not forget that only fifty years ago, judges "rewrote" the laws. They tore down the "authority" of those laws based on "subjective" interpretations. You remember that don't you? Desegregation? The Civil Rights Movement? As for undermining freedom, when a judge rules against gay marriage, or a state votes in and gay marriage ban, I lose a freedom. I guess the social sanctions for being a homosexual aren't enough, they must also be institutionalized through law to ensure that future generations of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans are ostracized. It's not only a conservative mindset, it's the law.
The second and third sentences are a bit trickier to decipher, but it's all clearly there if you read it carefully. The second sentence specifically is an attempt at heightening emotion. It uses strong, evocative rhetoric to rouse feeling from the reader. "Objective interpretation" (which, let's be honest, isn't that what courts and judges are supposed to do? Of course we all want that!) of the law is what "puts power in the hands of the people" (nice alliteration, huh? If only they could have used 'paws' instead of 'hands'). The opening half of the third sentence says that if judges acted accordingly, the people could fully govern themselves and live their lives exactly the way they want to...so long as they "act within Constitutional bounds." What a great idea! So, as long as I don't do what the constitution specifically says I can't, I can live my life the way I want to, right? Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Even without a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, states such as Georgia (where I live) do have amendments or statutes preventing same sex marriage. The federal Constitution says nothing about the definition of marriage as far as I can remember. In fact, the main part I do remember is about equality of man, and the basic inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I am in no way making the plight of the Civil Rights Era synonymous with the struggle for marriage equality, the two are analogous, at least in unconstitutionality. The nationwide debate and state referendums on gay marriage over the past six years have created a new era of "Jim Crow-esque" laws being used to deny GLBT citizens their rights. "Johnny Rainbow Laws," if you will.
So thanks, Newt Gingrich, for your concern about the environment, it is much appreciated I'm sure. However, for basically everything else you stand for (including the integration of church and state, which don't get me wrong, I'm a religious guy, but that's ridiculous) I think you couldn't be farther from what truly represents myself and many others as citizens of Georgia. Your close-minded perspective is only another example of the traditional, fundamentalist viewpoint that has keep America socially stagnant and politically mired despite being in the face of revolutionary innovations in technology, health, and communication over the past eight years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
