“The informal language shows that Obama is trying to connect with the American people on a very human level.”

Campaign Mapping Project.

I don’t believe any of that, but see how important I made it sound? In fact, as all the coverage I’ve seen and heard suggests, this is a pretty surefire “win” for Obama in the House. On the other hand, GOP representatives are saying this is really Nancy Pelosi’s proposal since it was largely formed before Obama took office. The point here is a little game of authoritative voice in the media. I actually don’t really know what I am talking about, especially with respect to this measure’s place in history, but I said it would be big with confidence. How much of the news we get is swayed in this way? Perhaps Chris Wallace or Brian Williams say something like this and most viewers don’t bat an eye (except that many bat their eyes flirtatiously at Brian Williams, whose rugged good looks and charm are enough to turn even the staunchest media critic to jelly).

Perhaps most significant is the role of the out-of-mainstream media, weather blogs or your coworker at the water cooler (though she or he is not really “media” if the message is delivered one on one), in this. I think we’re seeing rhetoric escalate as the common blogger seeks recognition by adding opinion (if not insight) to information. Less critical audiences, then, take it as information and, in the spirit of the blogosphere, chew on it – they pass around elevated rhetoric, essentially raising the bar of what is thought of as normal, unbiased reporting.

It is also significant to consider that there are at least two prominent sides, both with their elevated bars, but elevated in opposing directions. For an example of this looks like, check out my two go-to opposing blogs: Red State and The Huffington Post.

Here, also is an AP story on the vote:

P.S. Is it just me, or did the Boehner statement seem like one of those clips you see in a movie? The lighting was too good, the sound bite was too generic (“in the coming days,” “small businesses, and our overall economy”), and – frankly – he looks like a movie senator (I know, he’s not a senator; he’s a representative).

If productive and/or just exchange is the object, I would think that “patient translation of difference” is preferable.  “Translation” is an apt term here because my position is not that all differences can be easily reduced to their common denominator and solved.  My purpose is not to advocate a simplified solution to politics as we know it: “Oh, Israel and Gaza!  Can’t you see that you’re just being divisive?  Israel, can’t you see those rocket attacks you hate so much are just cries out for attention?  Hamas just wants to love you!  And Gaza, you know how Israel has been killing hundreds of your citizens every week in response to near-harmless rocket attacks?  Well, that’s just Israel’s way of hugging!  You’re really just the same!”

Ahem.  I think in the privileged west, we tend to be dismissive and arrogant when we need not be.  Perhaps this is common either because that is the American character, or it is the American character because this is how we practice communication.

Do I privilege certain discourses over others?  Yes, though my point is not to do so but to privilege certain discourse styles over others.  If one can present a reasonable persona, one is better prepared to engage effectively, whatever the issue, whatever the goal is.  A reasonable persona in this case is open and fair, not dismissive and arrogant.

“Are there circumstances where we can justly occupy a position of intransigence?”

Certainly.  Not all things can be resolved simply, but presenting one’s position reasonably, without dismissiveness or arrogance, will create a healthier exchange, which will open (or fail to close) the possibility of resolution.

“Is grace or compassion the only poetic challenge we can face against despicable acts of ‘power’?”

The use of the word “poetic” here seems multiplicitous.  Taken literally, I do not believe poetry can combat power.  Perhaps once it could have, but I simply don’t feel that it is relevant, anymore.  Figuratively, if poetry is the opposite of rhetoric, as Lorde suggests, then public discourse itself has the potential to be acts of poetry (compassionate, yet not divisive, as with Dove) instead of acts of power.  Here, I think there is a chance I am contradicting myself, and there is no better time to contradict oneself than when discussing poetry because it’s a fine transition to quoting Whitman from “Song of Myself:”

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Of course, this is a can of worms.  One could read this as intransigence – “I will not budge, despite my lack of reason.”  This would reveal an irrational position, a divisive one in a sense.  One could also read it as the opposite, as the rough synthesis of two positions (the statement, the contradiction, and the acknowledgment of the disunity between the two) Never mind.

“Is consensus the only way to ‘move forward’?”

I can’t imagine what “move forward” means, but I think striving for a reasonable dialogue is different from striving for consensus.  Consensus is nice, but it is a dream.  Perhaps Democracy is its contemporary (though not perpetual) waking-life equivalent, at least in the context to which the blog is addressed – political discourse.

One last note: the name of this blog is “Graystate” – this is chosen deliberately because it’s not blue, not red, and not purple.  Gray is not a blending of two opposites, but a third position that comes from observing and opposing the two.  In the metaphor, I am not suggesting that I have the solution, the synthesis of competing theses/anitheses, nor am I suggesting that the matter is simply black and white (which is good because “white state” or “black state” or “black and white states” would have been comically racially suggestive.  This would certainly have increased my hits from white supremacists – haha.  They’re dumb – note the intransigence in that statement, and in fact the divisiveness and arrogance, which is apt for my supposed audience, though it would certainly be a turn-off to some readers who might happen by).  At best, this blog asks, what happens when blue and red make gray?  I don’t know, and there is not a definite aim here.  I don’t think I dream of “a better democracy” or a replacement of democracy, and this meager blog certainly wouldn’t have any impact on either of those goals.  It must be, then, just an exercise, a passing of time by chewing on culture, perhaps with some vague hope that someday I’ll think of something useful to do with it (note the multiplicitous/ambiguous pronoun use).

Touch base.

The difference between poetry and rhetoric
is being
ready to kill
yourself
instead of your children.

Now, I don’t care for Lorde’s poetry, to say the least, but this is useful to me because it calls into question what rhetoric, poetry, and language do. For Lorde, poetry is compassion and rhetoric is untruth. Now, I have always objected to this from both sides, but let’s hold onto it for a bit and move on.

In political poetry, there is the common model we see in “spoken word” or “slam” poetry, wherein the poet tells you what’s wrong with the world and how much they hate the bad things and the bad people. Then, there is the other political poetry which is more subtle and tells you what’s tender and human about bad things and bad people. You will notice that Lorde’s poem does the first more than the second, yet Lorde gets credit for being compassionate. In fact, she has no compassion for the pig police officer who did the despicable deed, though she does have compassion for the slain child and the raped 85 year-old white woman, but here’s the rub: there’s no challenge in having compassion for victims, and that is why I think Lorde has produced rhetoric here, instead of poetry, by her own definitions.

Compare that with Rita Dove’s “Parsley” (audio below). Dove approaches a despicable, murderous character with compassion, showing him to be human and thus acknowledging (confronting) her and our own capacity for “evil.” It doesn’t hurt that Dove’s poem is infinitely better in poetics. She has great images that reappear and take on multiple meanings and significances, unlike Lorde’s poem, which comes in the hip style we see so much today.

1-vol-4-27-parsley-rita-dove3

What is the point? Lorde is divisive in it’s treating of the perpetrator, even as she seeks to unite in compassion for victims. Dove succeeds in producing a compassionate and unifying text even as it criticizes the general. The result is a much more significant piece, a poem the blogosphere and the participants of public discourse could learn a thing or two from.

Lorde’s police officer is the other. He’s not like us except that he can make us do bad things because he’s so bad.
Dove’s general is just like us. He’s vulnerable. We can understand why he did such bad things, and that might help us learn to live in our world a little better.

Here’s another shot:
Lorde is to Dove as rhetoric is to dialogue. Get it?

I made this post as a note to myself, something to draw on in the future when I am putting together something more substantial. I’m sorry you read it.

P.S. Lorde’s use of “childish” is very weak. Also, “a greek chorus will be singing in ¾ time” is weak. She tries to turn hip phrases, but hip phrases and puns do not make poetry.

Fox News treats it as ethnocentrically as possible.

Note the tone Gregg Jarrett uses. He calls it “truly bizarre.” Let’s think about this for a moment. Is it bizarre for someone to voice disagreement with a leader? Is it bizarre when protesters burn effigies? Is it bizarre when a blogger or pundit openly criticizes a politician? This is bizarre because “middle eastern” customs are bizarre to Greg Jerret, or whoever put those words in his teleprompter.

The tone is light, like there’s nothing serious about this, nothing serious about the custom.

In the end, Jarrett is a little cheeky, saying, “by the way, throwing shoes at somebody, that’s a supreme insult in the middle east. You can only imagine the fate if Saddam Hussein was still in charge.” That’s to remind Fox viewers that Bush did the right thing in eliminating Hussein. Of course, if her were still in charge, the shoe thrower probably would have been commended for protesting what many Iraqis still see as an unwelcome invasion of their country. Plus, think about the tone specifically when Jarrett says “that’s a supreme insult in the middle east.” To me, it sounds like he’s mocking it, like that belief is of no value.

Incidentally, what does “alert” mean? Is this story really something we need to be alerted about? Maybe if he was hit. Maybe if the shoes turned out to be bombs. I just don’t think this constitutes the kind of situation that requires such urgency. To me, it’s more of a “by the way” story or a “you might be interested in this” story.

Part of this is about rhetoric, talking about slogans and accusations of socialism.

Is it just me, or can you hear a lot of breathing and fidgeting when Zakaria is asking questions?

One is Journalism.org’s “Principles of Journalism.”

This is gold. A lot of my posts tied directly to these:

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth uhhhhhhhhh
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens nope.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification think of the stories I found on Fox News that had been rushed to “press”
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover “independence” is unlikely anymore
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power or a shill to power
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise sure. I give you that one.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant sensationalism
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience

Note: I am posting this primarily for my own use later. Thanks.

Or

The candidate for change? Not likely. Today he confirmed that he’s just another in a string of presidents beholden to the matriarchal agenda. Surprise, surprise, there’s a women at the Secretary of State.

Or

Clinton supporters voiced their outrage today in response to President-Elect Barack Obama (or P-EBO, as they have taken to derisively calling him for short) named her SECRETARY of State. “Secretary, huh?” Said Elizabeth Lopez of Pasadena, CA. “So, what, she’s gonna fetch him coffee and pick up his dry cleaning? What a pig.”

Or

It’s a good move for Clinton because it puts her in the spotlight more than any Senate committee could, and it will give her untouchable foreign policy experience. She seems a shoe-in for the nomination in 2016 at this point.

That’s weird.

I haven’t had time for the news lately, as I not only picked up an additional class that requires me to spend 8 more hours in transit per week, but I have been working on Ph.D applications. This is no easy task, especially when one applies for programs in field with which one has no real background. So, yes, i have been working a ton on trying to look like I am prepared for graduate work in rhetoric, communication, and journalism – this is largely the reason this blog exists.

Anyway, I thought I should drop a line and give a little story (above) for the heck of it.

1. “We’ve been over this a million times.”
2. “I’m so hungry, I could eat a horse.”

In politics, hyperbole runs rampant, but politicians usually know they can’t use it like this. Obama isn’t inflating number for effect when he promises tax cuts for 95% of working families. Here are a few memorable moments from each campaign that show how hyperbole works its way in without resistance, as rhetorical tools, as illustrations, as boastful and proud pledges of degree of commitment or promise.

McCain’s moment of hyperbole (and a weird smile):

For some, that may be a bit over the top, but it doubles as an image of the battle of good versus evil, in addition to illustrating the level of his commitment. Implicit may even be seen a critique of President Bush.

Obama’s moment of hyperbole:

This is the cynic in me talking, but Obama’s election is not the fulfillment of the promise in American that all things are possible, nor is it a reassurance of the power of American democracy. Perhaps if it had been a night when votes fixed everyone’s problems, that would be a convincing reassurance. Obama’s election is symbolically positive for progressive change in the country, but he’s still just a Democrat who ran against and defeated a Republican. That doesn’t represent a change in Washington in itself. The change his campaign promised wasn’t his election, was it? I thought he was promising to change America with the things he would do as president. The hyperbole here is in the overstatement of the meaning of the night, itself.