A response to the Comments of “Bryan.”

In response to Bryan’s comment on my post from December 29th.

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.

Read Full Post »

Wondering Where I’ve Been?

So, you’re a dedicated reader who’s wondering where I am?

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.

Read Full Post »

America vs. America.

I’m surprised this story has stuck around as long as it has, but it just keeps getting renewed, somehow.

It started with Governor Palin’s comments in Greensboro, N.C. on October 16th, which, according to the popular interpretation, drew a line between small town American and big city America. Here are her remarks with stage direction from The Washington Post:

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe” — here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers — “We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”

Joe Biden pounced on it, as politicians do:

Palin later apologized for the remark, as politicians do (from Fox News):

“I certainly don’t want that interpreted as one area being more patriotic or more American than another,” the Republican vice presidential candidate told CNN. “If that’s the way it has come across, I apologize.”

The story was far from dying, as several conservatives added their two cents on similar politics: Rep. Michelle Bachman (R) suggested that some members of Congress are anti-American. Then, McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer compared Northern Virginia (a DC suburb) to “Real Virginia” (more southern). Although Keith Olbermann should never be taken too seriously, and although this is clearly an overreaction, here is his run-down of the issue from October 20th.

Here’s Bachman:

McCain weighed in on behalf of Western Pennsylvania, which has gotten attention lately since Rep. John Murtha called his own constituents racist, then later tried to clear things up by calling them rednecks. Here McCain panders and adds fuel to the fire:

Here’s Murtha from Fox News:

And the poor attempt at clarification:

A lot of members of the House of Representatives just can’t keep their feet out of their mouths right now. The newest one, and the one that breathed new life into the story just today is NC Representative Robin Hayes, who said, “liberals hate real Americans” (CNN – Congressman admits saying, ‘Liberals hate real Americans’)

Here’s the story from MSNBC with words right from the horse’s mouth:

We know what all these conservatives mean, right? “Pro-American” people have American flag stickers on everything they own. They fly a flag on their front porch. They REALLY love America and get raging angry when anyone challenges America. They love 4th of July parades and salute the flag as it passes. They really are pretty conservative, thinking that change is generally aimed at degrading the country they love so much, the country they see as a shiny city on a hill, offering great freedom for all.

Then there are liberals. They love America and know that it’s patriotic to want to change the country for what they believe is the better, offering more freedom through more equality. These people probably really do love America, but they might not have American flags everywhere, on everything they own. It’s not that they love the country any less than their conservative counterparts; it’s just that they think differently and think that waving a flag and denying the ills of the country might be reactionary. They know that the country is not perfect, and so they feel the need to change it.

Then there really are anti-American people. They come from all walks of life. Some of them live in the middle of nowhere and believe that the government should stay out of their business completely, hating the intrusiveness of law enforcement and the state. They might even be secessionists. The left sees these people as “conservative” and groups them in with Republicans.

On the other side, some hate America because they see the state as oppressive, enforcing inequality and institutional racism, sexism, homophobia, etc… They have bumper stickers on their Priuses that say “US out of North America.” They protest the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the RNC, the DNC, and lots of other things. Conservatives think these people are liberal, but many of them are not. They’re the “left” just as much as the secessionists are the “right,” but that doesn’t mean they’re Democrats or should be grouped that way.

These people are radicals, malcontents. There are lots of them, but not enough to make any difference. There are plenty of Anti-Americans out there, but they are far to the margin, and though they might decide to vote once in a while, they’re not voting because they finally found a candidate who will help them destroy America; they are voting because they know what they wish could happen in the world will never happen, so they’ve begun to compromise, a tiny selling out of their beliefs. Nihilists don’t support Obama, though a handful might vote for him. Extreme libertarians (those to the right of Ron Paul – Anarcho-capitalists?) don’t support McCain, though a handful will vote for him. It is wrong for this race to be represented as between Pro-Americans and Anti-Americans.

A final note about me:
I was raised in Massachusetts, six miles from the liberal Smith College in Northampton, MA. I later lived in California for ten years. Yes, California, a blue state if there ever was one. I recently moved to New York City, home of the New York Times and, according to some, the most anti-American city in the world, worse than Tehran. Name a governor from Massachusetts. I bet you thought of Romney. Name a governor from California. Maybe you thought of Reagan, maybe Schwarzenegger. Name a mayor from NYC. You thought of Giuliani (unless you thought of Bloomberg). How do Republicans get elected in these liberal places? Perhaps things aren’t as red and blue as they seem. Perhaps they’re gray. See where I’m going with this?

If my friends are reading this, they might be surprised to see that I have not taken a side. Normally, in private life, I would make my position clear, but this blog is my first real foray into “public life” (not that I have readers, especially ones who don’t know me), and in public life it doesn’t matter what my position is. If I have anything to offer it’s the gray analysis which I hope to hone in time so that it’s not so shallow, not so dull.

Read Full Post »

How President Bush Saved the Day; Or How Bush Ruined Everything.

This morning, I started to write a little post about the DOW’s upward momentum and President Bush’s role in that. Here’s what I began to write:

CNN this morning is reporting that “Stocks surged Tuesday morning, adding to the prior session’s historic rally, as investors cheered the Bush administration’s plan to recapitalize major banks” (Bulls keep running).

Nobody wants to praise President Bush these days, and many liberals seem to secretly hope he spends his last three months in office ruining everything, all over the world. As recently as last week, some left blogs mocked Bush for causing the financial crisis and pushing for a bailout plan that many (in both parties) saw as irresponsible and “worse than Katrina,” with respect to the Bush legacy

I began searching for the blog(s) where I vaguely remember seeing something like that last week, but I lost interest, thinking I didn’t really have anything to go on. I gave up and went about other business. Then, I happened upon CNN.com again and saw this:

Stocks erase early gains
Dow industrials turn lower, Nasdaq sinks, after government details plan to pump $250 billion directly into banks.

Stocks turned lower Tuesday, erasing earlier gains, with investors pulling back in the face of the government announcement that it will spend $250 billion to buy stock in banks, the latest effort to thaw the frozen credit markets.

See what happened there? At 9:37 AM, CNN gave credit to Bush’s actions, saying that was the reason for yet another rise in the market. At 11:57 AM, when things slowed down and dipped, then proceeded on a little roller-coaster ride, the language makes it sound as if Bush’s plan was the result of the problems. Look at this language: “Dow industrials turn lower, Nasdaq sinks, after government details plan to pump $250 billion directly into banks.” “After” makes it sound like things were going well until Bush moved. Further, this sounds as if investors looked at the plan and chickened out: “with investors pulling back in the face of the government announcement that it will spend $250 billion to buy stock in banks…” Perhaps it’s a poor choice of words or liberal media bias, but CNN seems to be playing a game here.

You may have noticed that I did not bother to link to that article. That’s because the text on that page has changed at least three times in the past ten minutes. Currently, at 12:09 PM ET, the language is much more reserved: “Stocks struggle after spike; Dow and S&P 500 seesaw and the Nasdaq declines as investors show caution after a historic rally..”

My point is not that I have stumbled upon a great scoop, a loophole revealing the bias of CNN (though there may be some indication that they are happy to deny President Bush credit for helping the market), rather the point is this: the news is under too much pressure these days. The competition of the 24 hour news networks and the always-on blogosphere has put news in a pressure-cooker. I pointed out something to this effect on October 1st when I criticized Fox News for running a half-finished story on Nancy Pelosi’s unethical use of political donations. I did this not to deny Fox News their story but to criticize them for running such a half-assed version of it. This seems to be a trend in the mainstream press, other people’s blogs, and in mine. As noted earlier, this is my experiment in blogging, and I am learning that it is difficult to put out worthwhile posts every day. It’s just a hobby, or at best the precursor of academic work, for me, but for people whose job it is, this is a tough task: to crank out stories fast – faster than other professionals and faster than blogs. I think what suffers is not just the quality of the stories but the quality of thought of those who read and form opinions based on these stories. Bush-bashers will read the recent CNN articles and think, “that M—– F—–, Bush! He ruins everything,” but that is no more fair than Pelosi-bashers who read Fox News and think, “those F—— liberals! They ruin everything!” I am interested, first in foremost, in discourse, and this is not the breeding ground for positive political discourse, not for a dialogic national discourse but a discourse of divisive rhetoric.

Look at me. I’m a blogger who talks about how wrong everybody else is. I’m so perfect! I’m better than everybody else.

Read Full Post »

Obama: “That Crazy-ass Cracka Tryin’ A Play Me!”

At a campaign rally in Virginia on Monday morning, Barack Obama finally fought back against the negative adds of the McCain campaign, even as the GOP candidate attempts to quell the hatred such attacks have stirred.

“That Crazy-ass Cracka Tryin’ A Play Me!” Obama said before a crowd of about 6,000 bewildered supporters.

Obama campaign adviser and AIG CEO David Axelrod (and former member of the Weather Underground) admitted that the new strategy comes in response to reports Sunday that McCain has narrowed Obama’s lead in Virginia.

Oh.  Sorry.  I made that up.  I started this blog just a few weeks ago to experiement with blogging, to see what it’s like to try to keep up with and analyze the news and other blogs for rhetoric.  One of the things I have discovered is that it’s hard to come up with something insightful every day.  That “insightful” part is important because why else would anyone want to look at my blog (not that I think annybody wants to look at it)?  I think I am getting at a very important aspect of blogging culture: there must be strong opinions every day to feed the readers’ thirst.  Otherwise, blogs would be just links to news stories that anyone coud find in the mainstream media.  It’s as if bloggers, who sometimes have valuable and unique insight, are forced to manufacture stories (albeit less deliberately than I have here) where none, or little, exist.  The easy way to do this is by attacking what the “enemy says.”  For example, here is an except from Redstate.com:

“Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail”
Quoting Joe Biden in a Yahoo News story: “offshore tax loopholes” to hide $100 billion a year in income, Biden told the crowd Sunday, “It is unpatriotic when you earn your money in the United States of America and you hide it offshore to avoid taxes, making sure YOU have to make up the difference.”

The Redstate blogger’s entire commentary is this:

If Biden knew anything about tax policy in particular and economics in general, he would know that his comments constitute fatuous nonsense. But I suppose that it is now “unpatriotic” to point out these basic facts.

Interestingly enough, all of those people who decried supposed attacks on their patriotism during the course of the Bush years are now silent while Joe Biden goes about trying to prove Samuel Johnson to have been one of the smartest people to have ever walked the Earth. Expect their silence to continue.

This is not a story. It is not news. It is, however, a characteristic blog post. Both sides engage in this. Check out this on Talkingpointsmemo.com: TPMtv: Into Thin Ayers.

What’s more, I think this is my first glimpse into what it’s like to be in the media in a 24-hour news cycle. The drive to produce makes stories out of nothing and escalates the rhetoric. I think this is the root of polarization in media these days. Watch Keith Olbermann on MSNBC sometime. What would he do if there were no bonehead Republicans one day? Does an Obama presidency mean the end of Olbermann’s show? Not if he can find enough stories on Fox News to make fun of. I think Olbermann and most of Fox are really just bloggers on TV.

If Obama were to call McCain a “cracker,” that would be a great thing to pounce on for the right, just as the left pounced on McCain calling Obama “that one.”

I see myself making up more stories in this blog because it’s more fun and it feels more honest. At least when I make up a story, I don’t feel like I am stretching just to get something out there worth reading.

Read Full Post »

How I Invented the Modern Political Discursive Mode at Age 8

It was 1985. We were on our way to Grammy’s house, just eight miles from home, and somewhere near Loudville road, all hell broke loose. This is the story of the Great Backseat Debate of ’85.

It was a blustery day, as days in our memories of Western Massachusetts tend to be. I can assure you that the leaves were fading to their yellows, reds, and browns as we meandered our way through the back roads. Father held his familiar post at the helm and mother sat supportively by.

Sister, the eldest, sat behind mother. This was her right in our family when the passenger seat, itself, was not available. Behind father was my brother, Ronald, a mischievous smirk ever-stretching across his countenance. I should have felt it coming. There I was, between brother and sister, out of sight of mother and father, an easy target from either side. The inevitable struck, to which I responded, “MOM! Ron hit me!”

“Mother, I categorically deny any wrongdoing,” my brother retorted, to which my mother replied, “Ronald, keep your hands to yourself.” What followed was an exchange of historic proportions. The classic debate:

“Awww, ma, I didn’t even touch him!”
“Did too!”
“Did not!”
“Did too!”
“Did not!”
“Did too!”
“Did not!”
“Did too!”
“Did not!”

Little did my brother and I know, but 20 years or so before its time, we were modeling what would become the standard mode of political discourse, especially on a series of tubes known as the internet (note: at the time, we predicted it would be a series of trucks, but history, and Senator Ted Stevens, has proven us wrong).

Case in point:

CNN has a posted a silly little blog about a silly little stumble in the debate: “Obama campaign highlights ‘that one’.”

It makes a big deal about McCain saying the following:

“It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate, loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me.”

Of course, a reasonable person accustomed to reasonable political discourse would allow that McCain meant nothing racist and that it implied no deep-seated racism or even an archaic racist rhetoric. No, McCain was trying to be cute. It was kind of cute, as it always is when an older person plays coy, but it was not racist.

What’s even worse is what follows in the comments to this blog. here’s a sample:

“I was appalled by McCain’s reference to Obama as ‘that one’. In light of the question, his remark struck me as rude.” – M. Gary-Smith

“McCain was very disrespectful in that moment. Unbelievable! If he wants to avoid rumors of racism, being disdainful and of an angry temperament, and grouchiness and the contempt of age, he needs to show more respect.” – Joshua, College Station Texas

“Really bad, although this is politic we still are brothers and sisters. you CAN”T refer to one of your countryman as THAT ONE. It’s simply unacceptable.” – Haris

Yes. Quite. There are a few people who disagreed, and this is where the similarity to the Great Backseat Debate of ’85 comes in:

GIVE ME A BREAK YOU WHINING DEMOCRATS!!! It was nothing more than a comment. Anything to add race to it to win right democrats, you people are beyond low. – Amy in Texas

This is precisely equal to “Did too” on the level of intellectual discourse. Not surprisingly, on blogs, where anonymity is safe and distance is great, dialogue is not the norm. Although two opposing views may be and are in this case represented in one forum, they speak over each other, shouting the other down with no feedback, the third phase of communication (transmit, receive, provide feedback). This is why I disbelieve in the claims that the internet is the door to utopian participatory democracy – not just because blogs are the playground of only certain people (you know, those people – shhhhh…). Contrarily, I believe it serves only to polarize more, as the lack of dialogic exchange drives each side to their own virtual ghettos with a massive wall between. Neither crosses over, though some send flaming bags of feces from time to time (thus, the terms flame, flamer, and flame-war).

The commenters even bring up that McCain refused to shake Obama’s hand, something Wolf Blitzer “noticed” during the broadcast. Of course, McCain didn’t refuse to shake Obama’s hand. He was nothing but civil after the debate. In fact, Tom Brokaw couldn’t see his teleprompter because McCain crossed the stage to embrace Obama. Any attempts to frame these two “incidents” as “appalling” is simply the discursive inheritance of my brother and my historical debate.

Read Full Post »

Mission Statement

The purpose of this blog is to offer my analysis of media on both the right and left (and the center, and everywhere else), including blogs and mainstream news and anything else that piques my interest.

The subject matter of this blog is primarily politics and rhetoric or related issues regarding language that I find worthy of comment.

Abut me: I am technically a poet in that I hold an MFA in Creative Writing with a specialization in poetry from San Diego State University.  However, I make very little effort these days to get published as a public poet.  Instead, i am most concerned with teaching composition at Medgar Evers College and College of Staten Island and doing some of the work that I plan to do in a Ph.D program in the next few years.  Really, this is that work, as my Ph.D goals are to analyze rhetoric and communication in new and traditional media.

My audience is small.  I don’t know yet who, if anyone, would be interested in reading my blog (or if I would have the time and wherewithal to sustain the effort needed to satisfy anyone who is interested).

Additional context

Things I know:

• Nobody cares about my blog
• I have little-to-nothing to add to the political discourse
• I’m just chewing news like countless other bloggers
• I have a lot to learn about blogs
• I have a lot to learn about politics
• I have a lot to learn about discourse

The name of this blog is a parody, but not meant to be mocking, of redstate.com, a popular conservative blog.  I wanted to be gray state because it’s neither red nor blue, nor in between them.  Gray is not even a color, so it’s not that I intend this blog to be centrist (purple) or marginalist (green, yellow).  I want to maintain an even keel in that I intend to stay critical of all positions.  I’m not here to praise Fox News or MSNBC or CNN, nor am I here to give shallow criticism of any of these organizations.  The same can be said for Redstate or Daily Kos or McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden.  Although I do have some opinions on which side of these binaries is “better” or generally “more reasonable,” I think the most useful contribution I can make to the blogosphere is to stay not neutral but equally opposed to all bad rhetoric and equally vigilant of all notes of interest.

Read Full Post »