Second Opinion

We've been reading a lot from the President about the War on Terror, the Iraq war, and the general state of affairs on the five year anniversary of 9/11.

Now, via C&L, comes a different take from Major General John Batiste.

Batiste was delivering a speech to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on the planning and conduct of the Iraq War. Here's an excerpt:


"...Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are fighting
a war in secret that threatens our democratic values. This needs to stop right now, today."
"...we must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge, which must include conveying the "what, why, and how long" to every American, rationing to finance the totality of what we are doing, and gearing up our industrial base in a serious manner. Mortgaging our future at the rate of $1.5 billion a week and financing our great Army and Marine Corps with supplemental legislation must stop."

The Third Way

I don't know how many of you remember this but when Clinton first got into office, there was a big push from Clinton and the Democrats to create a "new Democrat"... moving away from the so-called "crunchy" ultra-liberal Democrat to a more centrist form of the party. Alot of off-shoots sprung from that, including the Democratic Leadership Conference and other off-shoots of the party.

Clinton was the first president I voted for (and would vote for him again if I got the chance) so I would claim a New Democrat title. I would label myself in the pro-civil rights, pro-choice, but also for more efficient, sleeker form of government that should stay out of my day-to-day life. I have spent most of my career in the political arena - working for O'Malley for his first term as mayor, then with Franklin during her first term in Atlanta. So now, onto law school, where hopefully the third way really can be found.

Online Tests Are Fun

(test results removed by siteowner... sorry!)

While I don't affiliate with a political party, I am politically active and opinionated so I decided it would be fun to take some online political tests and see how different ones ranked me (mostly because I have no interest in spouting of my opinion on the 'issues' and decided this would be fun) Above is the one that Scarlett shared. On the political compass Jason shared, I scored a -7.63 for economic left/right and -8.31 social libertarian/ authoritarian.

I also scored libertarian on the world's smallest political quiz (all the way at the top). And on the line between left liberal and libertarian on the On The Issues Quiz.

It was fun to see how my responses to different quizzes were interpreted. But I don't really have anything to say about them - I kind of already had an inkling that I might be a little bit liberal.

9/11

Sorry for my 9/11 post being so late.

I am very apathetic to 9/11 because frankly worse things happen everyday in the rest of the world. Yes I will agree it was a tragedy and I saw friends crushed by what happened and the loss of friends and family, however these things happen and one simply must move on. What bothers me most about 9/11 was the reasons that were given for why it happened. At the time I was a politics major and all I kept hearing in my classes and in the cafeteria was “it happened because they envious,” “they hate our freedoms,” “they hate our superiority.” My first question was who are they. They meaning Muslims or they meaning the rest of the world. It became a huge debate in my classes till I was practically thrown out for pointing out the we (the rest of the world) don’t envy you (America) for anything. For the simple fact that we all have more important things to worry about than your so called freedoms and superiority.

I am sorry but when my country is being pimped for its bauxite and limestone or being denied the export of it bananas for foreign exchange and having to fight tooth and nail not to have American Nuclear waste dumped into our waters we certainly have better things to care about than US freedoms. When women are being oppressed and trying to fight that oppression, trying not to get genitally mutilated or sold into sex slavery they have more things to worry about than Brittany Spears latest outfit. Them men who are oppressing these women have their hands full in selling them, persecuting them, raping them, mutilating them and fending off outside influences to this behavior to care if Demi Moore is pregnant for Ashton Kucher. For the people in Rwanda who are suffering from Genocide and in Sudan from ethnic cleansing I certainly think they have more to think about and care about than the frivolity happening in the US.

The fact is that what happened on 9/11 had nothing to do with envy but rather frustration. It happened because someone finally got tired of being pushed and pulled by the America. America gets involved when it is not their place to be involved in other countries issues. They like to play the “Big Brother” role which is unnecessary in some cases. They force their beliefs such as democracy on everyone and thee rest of the world should dance to their beat. I remember after 9/11 all my international friends and I where together and we all thought finally, finally America had their bubble burst, finally they know a little piece of what they inflict on the world, finally for once the terrorist is being terrorized. And yes I do see the US as a terrorist because it bullies the rest of the world and we are getting tired of it. And 9/11 happened because someone decided they could no longer dance to the beat. And I agree with Kara America has learned nothing from 9/11 instead it has been milked to enter an unnecessary war, commercialized and used as a tool to keep Americans in fear. And the mere fact that America has learned nothing means that it will happen over and over again. The simple fact is this America needs to get out of other peoples business and concentrate on their problems. In terms of 9/11 shit happens get over it, the rest of the world deals with more trials and tribulations daily, it’s been five years really get over it.

Party Monster

I've been thinking about the results of the Political Compass, as well as this week's assignment to critique a piece of rhetoric from the party (or tendency?) with which you most identify. In class we've pretty much only been talking about the Democratic and Republican parites, wit ha few mentions of the Green Party here and there. The two-party system is IMHO one of the greatest tragedies of the political system in this country. If one is forced to continue with this practice of "representative democracy," the parliamentary system, with its multiple parties, coalition governements, and runoff elections, would be vastly preferable. Even failing tht, however, it might not be bad idea to consider some of the many "third parties" in this country.

Although Lisa identifies as a Dem, and Klipper is interested in the Green Party (but needs more info), their politics actually fall to the left of Ralph Nader, and as such I would suggest looking at the Greens or, perhaps, the Socialist Party USA. SP-USA is a very cool organization. They're multi-tendency, they don't do identity politics, and they're very active in community organizing in areas where they have a bit of density. I was a member of their youth arm, the Young People's Socialist League, when I was in high school.

Scarlett identifies as a Republican, but as I mentioned in a comment on her post, her ideals of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are the exact opposite of the GOP as it stands today! So, I suggested she take a look at the Libertarian Party. If you like capitalism but want the government out of your bedroom... it's really the only way to go these days.

One could go on all day listing alternate parties. If you like Stalin, there's the Workers' World Party, or the Communist Party USA.

Or maybe you're anti-statist, and the idea of a political party doesn't fit in with your politics; for syndicalists, there are militant unions like the Industrial Workers of the World; or for left-libertarians there are regional federations like the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC).

Well, look around. Maybe you'll find something closer to your own views than your 'affiliation by default.' And it will be a lot more interesting for the assignment to critique rhetoric that's closer to your own views than you thought you might find.

Anyone with a spray can willing to graffiti...

Just to prove you rhetoric comes in all forms. Took this pic on the way to school from my house this morning. Check it out. click on the picture to enlarge it, it's tough to read when it's small

Democrats Fire Rhetoric Back

The Democrats are creating their own rhetoric around Bush's pre-midterm election campaign by ressurecting McCarthyism and the Red Scare.... some of their own scare tactics.

Obama Urges Challenge to Bush Policy
By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 21, 2006; 12:58 PM

WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday called the view that President Bush has been perfect in fighting terrorism an illusion and urged Democrats to challenge the Bush administration's policies....

Several GOP lawmakers and members of Bush's Cabinet have suggested Democrats are aiding the terrorists and behaving like Nazi appeasers. Democrats have countered that the rhetoric smacks of the McCarthyism of the 1950s. "But we don't always pick our fights, especially when the president has the bully pulpit," he said. His talk was sponsored by the liberal political group Moveon.org. Tracy Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, responding to Obama's comments, argued that his Democratic Party's "opposition to the tools imperative to the war on terror illustrates a startling lack of understanding about how to keep America safe.

www.washingtonpost.com

Limiting myself to definitions...

I exist in class, now to everyone's knowledge, as the token Republican. As I keep emphasizing though, I'm not a super convservative Republican. Actually, I'm a centrist, who falls just right of the line enough to disagree with some democratic things, and according to the politics test I took, I am even slightly totalitarian.... who saw that one coming? :) For instance, death penalty? I'm with Texas on this one. Go ahead and use it as far as I'm concerned. I don't really think it present much of a threat in our society where people sit on the death row for years and years... and years. I'm for more conservative economic laws, that's for sure. But when it comes to social things, I'm a little more liberal. I am adamantly pro-choice. I'm all for animal rights. And I support gun control. This is sooo introspective and explorative of the inner self! lol. (that means laugh out loud for any non gen-x.. or is it gen-y? people in the class). A fun test to take to find out where you fall on the axis is at http://www.okcupid.com/politics ... check it out!

The Decline and Fall of Truth

In class last Tuesday we briefly touched on the recent review in the New York Times of Frank Rich's new book, The Greatest Story Ever Sold.

I was listening to NPR today (on the actual radio!) and caught a promo for Fresh Air; Frank Rich was the guest, talking about his new book and the 'decline and fall of truth.' I missed it today, but I'm going to listen to it later on the internets.

Links to the Speeches!

Ok folks. Here we go:

All the speeches in September: Here

Specifically we're to work with these three:

September 5th
September 7th
September 11th

For readers unfamiliar:

Our assignment this week is to write a paper analyzing the rhetoric in these speeches in the context of Berger and Aristotle.

Perhaps when we get the papers back we'll post some excerpts.

Torture

this guy's having a rough day in guantanamo...maybe bush's stress position is to hold that face for 24 hours.

Bush's pacification interrrogations

Thought it was funny since we were talking about the topic of supposed torture on the part of the U.S. military. Crazy how the person that got the supreme court to rule on military tribunals in Guantanamo was a Yemeni guy being held there that was Bin Laden's bodyguard and driver...hahah, land of the free!!! only in America...pretty interesting.

As far as political stances go...I believe 99% of politicians are crooks. I do, however, find myself nodding more often than not when I listen to 680 AM. I believe there is a right and a wrong and love things that make sense. I wish the government would get the heck out of my life and pocketbook. I believe that the rights of others should be sought after as long as they do not infringe on the rights of me and mine. PEACE!

I'm a Democrat. but you knew that

I'm sort of obvious like that I guess. Don't want abortion to be illegal. Want the death penalty gone. (However, I don't support human cloning. It's irresponsible to use a procedure on humans that sheep couldn't survive. Do the research. There is no and has never been a healthy cloned mammal.) I'm against euthanasia, and don't get me started on what I thought about Terri Shiavo. And I believe there is no Constitutional reason for not allowing gay civil marriage (and yes I did say civil-requiring churches to allow gay marriage is not compatible with freedom of religion).
Ok, I'm taking the quiz Jason suggested now. I'm too tired to deal with html, so here my cheap copy and paste. Economic Left/Right: -5.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.62
(The other half of the assignment-analyzing some piece of rhetoric from my political party-will come later, when I'm not dead tired.)

Lisa

Left, Right, Up, Down, Ana, Kata...

So, today toward the end of class, we were talking about our personal political affiliations, and the difficulty of defining our politics by party, or by simple political labels like "conservative" or "liberal." One of the greatest flaws of the political system in this country is that the political spectrum is narrowed to two positions which are actually almost identical, in terms of the full political spectrum, and then those positions are presented as opposite ends of the realm of possible political stances. As Noam Chomsky says, the Democrats and the Republicans are just the two wings of the Business Party.

One way to see where you stand in terms of the broader range of political positions is by taking the quiz at www.politicalcompass.org. It charts your position on two axes, a Left-Right economic x-axis, and a Authoritarian-Libertarian social y-axis.

I might as well come out. I'm a libertarian communist, or, if you prefer, Anarchist Communist. But I already knew that.

You can see my graph by clicking this link. Don't worry if that doesn't make sense, it will after you take the test and see the full analysis.

I think it would be interesting if other people took the quiz and linked to their charts in the comments... your results might surprise you!

Who am I? . . . or is it "Who I am"

Meat-eating, gun-owning, dirt-bike riding, ice-hockey player and coach who owns an SUV, a powerboat and 2 jetskis while passionately embracing the philosophy that govt should help the less fortunate; protect an individual's right to privacy; provide for the best interests of children; and protect the environment . . . in a fiscally responsible manner.

I've had the unique opportunity to serve in a govt political appointment for five years; with 17 years as a professional in the natural resources field working to make MD. a better place. Feel free to ask me how I justify my 'toys' while suggesting protection of the environment....I've been through it before and enjoy a good discussion.

I've also had the unusual privilege of working for two different political parties in Maryland and I am looking forward to November like a football nut awaits the Superbowl.

Of course, no political party serves my interests completely so my solution was to attend law school and use the LAW (the second most powerful tool after Rhetoric) to rewrite the govt 'playbook' and some day (when my two wonderful kids are grown and working to change the world themselves), my lovely bride and I will campaign for political office and change this mess from the inside-out running on a philosophy that we can protect the environment while meeting the demands of our 'social omnivore' lifestyles; and do it in a fiscally conservative manner.

Ciao!
Paul

At least for starters...

Here's the Washington Post article we're talking about right now:

Bush Team Casts Foes as Defeatist

I hope that helps.

Prophylactic punctuation

Can you have too many Daily Show posts on one blog? Let's hope not.

In this clip, John Stewart analyzes a tendency in the news media to skirt libel by presenting headlines as questions. Can you say anything you want if you're just "asking?" Moreover, what happens when the media we... well, some people... (theoretically still) rely on for information become incapable of presenting us with a simple declarative statement? By turning everything into a question, are the news media really indicating their inability (or refusal) to question anything?

Bush's 9/11 Remarks

I think I found a perfect example of what Orwell was talking about in Bush's 9/11 remarks:

On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Our Nation has endured trials – and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country. So we must put aside our differences, and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies … we will protect our people ... and we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.

The other Side of 9-11

Ok, so there's been a lot of 9-11 rhetoric coming along lately from politicians,tv stations and the like. Not to be outdone, Al Queda, using Islam as their shield, is using the holy month Ramadan as a special warning time for an attack on Americans. I quote, "..., now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy." (Dawood in article below)The scheming attackers have supposedly gone so far as to change their names to common christian names and the head al queda guy in Afghanistan, Dawood, is calling the new attack the second Hiroshima. watch out. This new threat comes right on the heels of 9-11, I think, in order to counteract the United States' attempts to use the attack to bolster support for efforts in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The terrorist mentions is sure to mention it in his article.

He talks about one man that will participate in the attack, " He is very well known in Al Qaeda. He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago. We call him "Jaffer al Tayyar" ["Jafer the Pilot"]; he is very brave and intelligent. Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn't want to panic his people.

I think this is interesting because these guys are obviously paying attention to domestic politics in this country and playing into the conspiracy that Bush knew about the 9-11 attacks and could have prevented them. These guys are playing on the radical rhetoric in the U.S to play on emotions and try and swing the tide of support more in their favor...very clever, however see-through it is.

read the full article here

Ok ... scary!

Jesus Camp

Check out the videos.

(hat tip: C&L)

War is horrible, but...

So, perhaps just a little off the proffered topic of 9/11 rhetoric, but I came across this interesting essay, entitled "War Is Horrible, But..." Here's the first paragraph

Anyone who has done even a little reading about the theory and practice of war, whether in political theory, international relations, theology, history, or common journalistic commentary, has encountered a sentence of the form "war is horrible, but . . . ." In this construction, the phrase that follows the conjunction explains why a certain war was (or now is or someday will be) an action that ought to have been (or ought to be) undertaken notwithstanding its admitted horrors. The frequent, virtually formulaic use of this expression attests that nobody cares to argue, say, that war is a beautiful, humane, uplifting, or altogether splendid course of action and therefore the more often people fight, the better...

Click here to read the full article

Although I generally dislike the sort of insane "market anarchism" of the lewrockwell.com blog, every now and then something good pops up there like the above article. The author, Robert Higgs, is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute. He does a great job analyzing the function of the conjunction "but" in this phrase, which is repeated so often in our poltical discourse that, very often, one does not even stop to analyze the rhetorical function of that small word.

And, well, maybe it's not so off topic. To explicate his thesis about the uses and abuses of this rhetorical strategy, Higgs did a Google search for this precise phrase on September 11th, 2006 and chose 14 of the 1,450 results to analyze. Well, yeah, that's all in the article. But this strikes me as an interesting methodology, if nothing else. Search technology has provided new tools for rhetorical analysis, making it possible to track down thousands of ocurrences of a specific meme and to analyze the different ways that meme functions in various contexts.

Speaking of technological advances and political rhetoric, I wanted to point out the resource that led me to the above essay. Lke I said, I hate lewrockwell.com, so it's not something I check that often. I came across the article through the "poltical opinion" section of the social content website digg.com.
Digg allows users to submit content, and then by "digging" or "burying" stories, decide what ends up on the main page, and what ends up at the bottom. Well... I guess the digg.com about page explains it better than I can here. So... yeah, chack it out.

Is John Stewart in our class?

Via Crooksandliars comes this, a clip of the Daily Show where John Stewart analyzes the rhetoric in President Bush's 9-11 speech. (click on "video" when you get there).

C and L is a really great video blog, they post a lot of things you would otherwise miss because you work or go to school or don’t have cable. For example, just recently they posted this clip from the Colbert Report and

This Congressional Candidate’s TV ad:

And this clip from the daily show:
(my favorite line is: “George W. Bush is the right man to lead us in the era "post-" whatever calamity he leads us into next.”)

9/11 Words, Images, and The Resulting War: An Overall Picture

A video tribute

People talking

9-11 Commission

President Bush and his thoughts (he thinks!) !

Notice that he said, "It was an amazing thought." Poor choice of words!

The Iraq War-This supposedly is somehow supposed to be related to what happened on 9/11, though how has never really been explained and certainly never proven!


I think most of these speak for themselves. I never shut up,however, so I am going to say a few things. The terrible tragedy that happened 5 years ago has been exploited to further the agendas of certain politicians, namely President George W. Bush. Every time an invasion is going to happen, President Bush says it has something to do with 9/11 without offering anything near to proof. Was Osama Bin Laden (forgive me if I've misspelled in this) hiding in Afganistan? If so, why couldn't he be found? And where were the WMD in Iraq? Are they hiding in the basement of some little old lady's now demolished house? Is President Bush going to blame his every foolish decision on 9/11? It looks that way to me.

The following information comes from this website:
National Security

"We're engaged in a global struggle against the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom and crushes all dissent, and has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims. … And against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in and we will never accept anything less than complete victory. … We will defeat the terrorists and their hateful ideology by spreading the hope of freedom across the world. … The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations."

President George W. Bush
July 4, 2006

"On September 5, 2006, The President Released His Updated National Strategy For Combating Terrorism (NSCT), Which Outlines The United States Government Strategy To Protect And Defend American Interests At Home And Abroad From Terrorism. In the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States, along with our partners, have waged a relentless war against the terrorists using all elements of national power and influence. We have made substantial progress in degrading the al-Qaida network, killing or capturing key lieutenants, eliminating safehavens, and disrupting existing lines of support.
Today, the United States is battling a transnational terrorist movement fueled by a radical ideology of hatred, oppression, and murder.
To win the War on Terror, the United States will continue to lead an expansive international effort to:

Defeat violent extremism as a threat to our way of life as a free and open society.
Create a global environment inhospitable to violent extremists and their supporters."


How can there ever be a victory? What exactly are they fighting? A concept? An ideology? President Bush claims time and again all this war is because of 9/11. He has this theory that there was this big conspiracy or something like that. Only in his mind! On a less sarcastic note, one thing I have learned is that a good theory has the potential to be falsifiable (thank you DR Walz). This means that it is open to be disproven if it isn't true! Yet he sets things up in such a way that they can neither be proven nor disproven. Are we just supposed to swallow his theory whole? He still hasn't given any evidence on how Iraq is linked to 9/11. Again, only in his mind! I'm obviously sick of all the claims of things being done in the name of protecting America after 9/11 when there's no proof that it has anything to do with it.

Lisa Messenger

Voting in the Primaries

Ok. So for those of you who saw me disappear from class early yesterday, and witnessed Betsy's hails of good wishes, you would know that I went to go vote yesterday. Let's recount the events that occured and the failures of our voting system, shall we?

So after trekking to my car, I had to speed uptown to my neighborhood. Because you are not allowed to vote just anywhere, but at the specific location designated to your neighborhood depending upon district. I suppose this is to prevent overloading the polls with voters (ha!), but it's actualyl quite inconvenient to be tied down to one location.

Upon arrival, I learn that I am not, accoridng to the state of Maryland, affiliated with a party. I tell the lady, well actually I DO have a party affiliation (not that it's really public knowledge, but just to solve any lingering curiosity, I'm Republican- try not to shriek, I'm a pretty liberal Republican, which is a contradiction really, and there are so very of us in the city of Baltimore). It's a rather involved process to become affiliated with a party- takes about half an hour, which I thought I would sacrifice. However, then I learn that should I become affiliated with a party, I would not be able to vote for any Democratic candidates. What's the problem here? Well. I am a staunch supporter of Mayor O'Malley and I was intent upon voting for him.

Apparently, there is no place for people like me in the primaries. They exist to weed out the competing candidates in the separate parties. I wish I had known that ahead of time, before I booked it out of UB only to turn right around and book it back downtown for my 5:30 PM class. And they wonder why people are discouraged from voting in our modern society? It's annoying that I am unable to support the candidates I'd like to, and they might possibly be cut out from the election. Oh well. Lesson learned. I'll do the only thing I can do, which is to wish my mayor good luck!

The New Generation of Revolt

I thought Professors Swaim & Yarrison would appreciate this one. NPR's song of the day a while back was "Less Polite" by this guy Will Kimbrough. He said he was trying to resurrect Bob Dylan with the sound but addressing some current issues. A sample of the lyrics:

I'm trying to be less polite
I'm saying what I really feel
The President's a fool I don't want to get up early and I think I need a good stiff drink

I'm trying to be less polite
I'm fed up with the Christian wrong
Let the people marry
Tell me why you are so worried
Let me sing it to you in this song

Here's a link to the song (hope I get this right)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5599747">

What's Paxton doing now?

(Okay, here goes nothing; blog-rookie attempts mult-media post!).

Some background -
The US Justice Dept has a number of statues incorporated into its infrasctructure. Including the now-infamous breast of one statue known as "Minnie Lou". In 2002, however, conservative US Atty General John Ashcroft decided that he would no longer give briefings at the USJD in front of a naked statue. As a result, he ordered curtains be used to cover the offending anatomical feature.

Media reports indicate that the art deco statues date from the 1930s when the Great Hall in the Justice Department was built as a grand, two-story room to be used for department events and ceremonies. Two enormous statues are sited at the opposite end of the hall. On the left, a female figure represents the Spirit of Justice and, to the right, the male is the Majesty of Justice. The male statue is clad with a strategically-draped cloth while the female statue wears a sort of toga that reveals one breast.

According to one writer "For Mr Ashcroft, the decision of the sculptor not to chose a more modest piece of clothing, was, in his opinion, obviously something of a boob."

ABC Television reported: Mr Ashcroft decided enough is enough and drapes were installed at a cost of more than $8,000. Mr Ashcroft's officials claimed it was been done for "aesthetic purposes".

So what's all this have to do with the class we're taking? Today, we were wondering if Tom Paxton had transitioned from the 60's and Vietnam to the current follies...here's the lyrics from a piece he penned a few years back:

First, the WORDS ---

JOHN ASHCROFT AND THE 'SPIRIT OF JUSTICE'By Tom Paxton
John Ashcroft went to meet the press,
He faced the microphones.
His heart was full of righteousness
His voice like God's trombones.
But then he saw the statue that was set behind him there.
She was 'The Spirit of Justice'
Yes, but one of her breasts was bare.
John Ashcroft looked with horror at this gleaming marble globe.
It thrust itself upon him
From a loosely falling robe.
It was so hard to concentrate on those he there accused
With that marble breast behind him,
Poor John Ashcroft got confused.
Each time he saw that marble breast the poor man was appalled,
He quickly gave the order
And a curtain was installed.
Now when he makes a statement
You can see him on the tube
He has curtained off the statue
But you'll still see one big boob.

Now the MUSIC

and finally, the IMAGE:

Yup, it's a posting about 9/11 rhetoric

So I guess the important question for tomorrow will be which vote ended up having had the higher turn out. The vote that took Pluto off our list of planets or today's primary?

And that's all the coverage of the primary I'm going to bother with, mostly because I didn't get to vote (Maryland runs a closed primary).

Onto the other proposed topic: 9/11 rhetoric.

There are some things I like: songs like those by David Rovics (Reichstag Fire or Santiago) or cartoons like the clearinghouse of cartoons from MSNBC (which, as much as I don't like MSNBC, is pretty cool to look through). The cartoon I keep coming back to week after week is Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World. It's one of those incredibly long running cartoons and he has (throughout the 8 or so years I've been following him) mocked pretty much everyone (very egalitarian). What I really liked about his most recent comic which was done in honor of 9/11 and the Bush administrations handling of its aftermath? His use of the word 'defeatocrats'.

I do have to admit to the fact that I'm not all that moved by most of the 9/11 rhetoric. So much of it is based on the idea that something significantly changed with 9/11. Frankly, I don't think anything really did change. How many of us are doing the same thing we were doing five years ago? How many of us think, feel, and act the same way we did five years ago? Because my undergrad degree has taken five years, I found myself literally doing the same thing at the same time I was five years ago on Monday. Because I've been growing up (I was a teenager when 9/11 occurred), I know that I feel more strongly about some things then I used to - but ideologically, my thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc are largely what they were five years ago. I think that's what has really struck me about 9/11 - the fact that we don't seem to have changed.

But that's just my thought (I generally only have one a day). My other thought (sometimes I have two thoughts a day) is that a little less empty chatter would be fabulous. I know that this goes against most tenets of television, but wouldn't a little silence be nice? The constant bombardment of crap (I mean, high quality news programming brought to you by Rupert Murdoch) is exhausting. This is what really bothered me about the 9/11 memorial coverage - there was absolutely no silence or reflection. It was constant news, analysis, coverage of the memorials in DC, NY, and PA, and then more analysis - I watched more network TV Monday than I generally do in a week and I was really surprised, I honestly thought there would be more moments of silence. I didn't see one (literally, I may have missed them, but there were zero moments of silence that I saw).

Just as a comparison, on the News Hour, Lehrer does a role of the fallen soldiers. And he does the damnedest thing. Silence. He shows the official picture, name, and rank of the fallen soldiers and then closes the show with his goodnight. It is one of the most respectful thing I have seen on teevee. It's as though there is a place for dealing with what's going on in terms of military action around the world (in the body of the show) and a place for respecting the fallen soldiers (which is a special, seperate segment at the end of the show).

However, as a gift for those that do like the noise, here's a selection of comments from world leaders compiled by the BBC.

Mother Nature on someone's side....

The MD Democrats are suggesting a supernatural force on their side... from The Washington Post today re: the primary.

"Governor Ehrlich has created a bad climate for people coming out to vote," said the Maryland Democrats' Walker. "But Mother Nature seems to be negating that a little bit." (The forecast for the Washington area calls for partly cloudy skies with a high in the low 70s today -- perfect weather for voting.)

It is interesting that the Democrats are now employing the "supernatural" mode - similar to the Republican's evoking God in the 90s and early 2000s. I wonder if the pendulum is shifting?

Link to Article

Scarlett

What say the owls?

Karl Rove hearts Sophistry

Last Tuesday Dr. Yarrison spoke briefly about sophistry and I wrote in my notes "Karl Rove is a sophist". So I googled "Karl Rove Sophistry" and (among other things) came up with this article from the Daily Kos.

In the article Ankoss says that Karl Rove fabricates simple-minded ideas that he calls "moral clarity" and feeds them to an American people hungry for simple and reassuring answers. She (he?) calls the American masses "impatient, arrogant, and ignorant", and while inclined to agree, I can't help but think it's not entirely their own fault.

I refer to the anonymous blurb on Dr. Swaim's handout when I say that the American masses, inundated with false choices everyday, "no longer have the capacity to consider that the answer may be neither." Red or blue? Coke or Pepsi? Brave warrior or defeatist? It's all the same thing. The insidious advertising culture in this country has trained us well to pick between the proffered choices and think we're getting what we want. Karl Rove is simply picking up where they leave off, offering simple, plausible (yet fallacious) choices when, in fact, the situations are difficult, require thoughtfulness, and are rarely black and white.

Karl Rove is a sophist and we need to understand that the answer to most of his questions is neither.

Saturday at the Walters

I’m a big fan of political cartoons. The first thing I do when I get a newspaper is head for the back of the first section and see what the cartoonists have to say (then I read the editorials; then off to the real comics to see if Aldo Kelrast has gotten his due from Mary Worth … but I digress). While I enjoy reading political cartoons, especially when I agree with the sentiment, I’ve never thought of them as art. Seeing Kal’s cartoons outside of the newspaper, enlarged, and on display at the Waltershelped me make that transition and will certainly change the way I look at cartoons in the future.

Berger says “The media shape the texts they carry” (Agitpop, pg. 160). In this case there is the obvious difference between small, blurry newsprint and a well-lit gallery display, but there is also the less obvious (more ominous?) influence of deadlines. Kal says that most of the time he’s drawing today what we’ll see in the paper tomorrow. This means that a lot of his cartoons aren’t finished, they’re just stopped. I’ve never thought of the cartoons as unfinished or un-thought out. It was interesting to see several cartoons at the Walters with whited-out text or new bubbles taped over old, evidence of the work in progress.

For me, this class is all about deciphering the Rhetoric that assaults us from every direction in this modern world. To do this it helps to see a text clearly, not just from the perspective we are meant to see it as Audience but also from the Artist, Publisher, Director, Evil Mastermind, etc., perspective. It’s not difficult to find the political rhetoric in a political cartoon. Discussing the influences, ideas, and limitations that led to the creation of said cartoon, however, might be beneficial when we start analyzing less obvious texts for political rhetoric.

Here are some pictures from the exhibit:



The artist himself, all decked out in a fancy vest:



An example of a work in progress. Check out the 5th panel for taped-on text bubbles and the 6th panel for white-out.



I took a crappy picture, but this is art damn it!


The following three cartoons are everything a political cartoon should be. They express a sentiment (usually expressed in words) in such a way that it becomes more tangible, adds dimension, and really brings it home. These are powerful cartoons: