Rutherford, Chapter 3

Before reading this chapter I had never heard of 'PsyOps' so I found that particular section interesting. When the leaflets were dropped and the radio broadcasts were delivered, the chapter referred to this as attempting to sell surrender. It was like a form of advertising that said, "We will try to persuade you to give up now, or we will use our weapons later." One of the commanders who flew propaganda missions over Iraq said, "We like to call ourselves weapons of mass persuasion." So while they weren't scaring the people with weapons... yet, they were scaring them with words and threats, and empty promises. Another example that words can be used as weapons.

A particularly disturbing leaflet with the map of Iraq that said, "We can see everything" from a satellite view is related to the Death Star in Star Wars and it also makes me think of the eye, or whatever it's called, in the Lord of the Rings that is constantly on the lookout... however in both of those instances, the eye is a negative image, something that displays a frightening sense of power that causes the native citizen to cringe. In the chapter, it says that this can also be related to advertising, that the man (the United States) which was definitely at an advantage, looks out across the land and says that everything in its path (the people of Iraq) are his to influence and control.

I had pogs as a kid, no rational needed & i spent an inordinet amount of time over my friends house playing GoldenEye on his Nintendo 64 multiplayer action killing each other. And on my front lawn at home we have what my friend steve affectionatly calls a '911 pole.'

Of the most interesting points in this book (besides the cartoons which excite me to no end) is the seemingly more informal tone the author has taken to colour his pages. While Ramage had acntidotes about p-dog, Lakoff was a little dryer more direct, & now we are back to a speed-readable voice that seems to me far less quotable & more remeber that part when...

The language used that stuck out to me was the consistant refrences to film. We start with Disney, then get into the specifics:
Titanic
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
Terminator
Rambo
Apocalypse Now
GoldenEye
Tomorrow Never Dies
Die Another Day
The World is not Enough
The Poseidon Adventure
The Towering Inferno
The Ugly American
Independence Day
Dr. Strangelove

The author is speaking to me through these films, using the emotional connections to them to prove points quite effectivly in my case. By using these contemporary blockbusteresque films you get a pretty good blanket coverage of the ideas becuase chances are most people have seen the movies., and I really wasn't thinking of them as foreplay, conditioning, for consumtion of media which it seems is what they have softened me up for a spoonful of Bill O'Rileys BS.

Pogs and Presidents

I loved it when Rutherford said that the anti-war "movement" in Iraq became a fad, but unlike the author, I believe that both the pro and anti-war culture in the US did not simply become a fad, but was a fad from the beginning. I'm not saying that I don't sympathize for those who lost friends and family on 9/11, nor am I discounting the magnitude of the event; but lets face it, when those attacks happened, how strong was your personal patriotism? Were you anti-military before that day? Did anyone exude any kind of patriotism, any degree of national pride before the tragedy happened? Not likely. The cultural climate in the U.S. was consumed by celebrity attention. Everyone had opinions of everything in hollywood, a previous blog said it well, "I speak hollywood." While everyone was obsessed over celebrity gossip, there was always that feeling that it was kind of shallow- think "Clueless"- there was a deep absence of substance in pop culture. Then came 9/11. Suddenly everyone in my highschool had their head shaved with talks of joining the military. Suddenly there was this great wave of patriotism going around and there were news broadcasts saying how great it was that stores all over the country were running out of American flags because there were so many people buying them. If anyone actually gave a shit about patriotism, wouldn't they already have an American flag? This all just goes to show that American culture was vacuous as it it were, and now people draw the conclusion that war is a much more substantial topic than last week's episode of "Friends." And you know what, that would have been fine, a little lame, but tolerable. The problem was that nothing changed. The focus did, but to most Americans, the flags they now had wallpapering their cars, homes and offices were no more meaningful than the designer pants they were wearing. Although the focus shifted from celebrity life to political life, people still approached it the same way. Even though they might have grasped the gravity of what they would watch on tv, they still talked about the lastest news from the pentagon as if it were the latest development in the O.J. trial. Still Americans felt better about themselves because the shallowness that plagued their hollywood discussions was more ignorable when they talked about politics, it was "cooler" to do. No one seemed to care anymore about it than they would care if Ross and Rachel broke up. The American flag was transformed from a symbol of national pride and unity, to a fashion accessory to people who want to appear they care. I remember back in 3rd grade trying to explain to my mom why i just had to have pogs, and i had the hardest time coming up with a rationale behind why she should buy them for me - it was a fad, if you played pogs you fit in. I didnt necessarily enjoy the game, and I'm not sure how much the other guys did either, but we all bought them, we all had them, and we all played them. Ask yourself one question, wheter it is an actual flag, a magnet, a pin, a sticker, it doesnt matter- do you own or display an American flag? ...Why? Why do you need it?




By the way, I feel the exact same way about those goddamn bracelets and ribbon car magnets- if you own them, you're a tool and youre perpetuating the same propaganda Rutherford argues against.

Poem

Here is a David Budbill poem, one of which he read tonight, reminding me of the readings.

February 13, 2003

This evening on the radio
the Emperor said that he

had not yet decided
to order a war --

as if ordering a war
were something like

ordering a pizza.

Arrghh

Ok! First I want to say that this book frustrates me. Not because of the author, and not because he is making bad or boring points, but because the subject matter is the war in Iraq. I think it is a difficult situation to talk about especially with opposing political view points. Therefore, not wanting to offend anyone I personally do not agree with the war on Iraq, and therefore find myself even more frustrated when reading this book, because it just brings the entire situation all that much more real.

Now, that I have vented, I want to comment on America's own use of the media when it comes to the war. (oh wait, what media???) The little coverage we hardly see, I'm pretty sure, does not show the reality of what is really going on over in Iraq. We are not seeing how many innocent American's are being killed daily on that television screen. We see harldy anything. Now, not that I want to see all that horrific stuff, it shows how once again media is used to influence society. Al Queda used media to make us look vulnerable and upset after 9/11. Well, by us not seeing what is truly going on in Iraq, we cannot object or even necessarily remember our country is at war.

And Two More Semesters of Spanish To Go

I don’t speak War. Reading about it makes me feel stupid. The politics of war have become this foreign language that I don’t even come close to understanding. I don’t speak Pentagon. I don’t speak Collateral Damage. And neither do millions of other Americans, which the White House realizes.

I don’t speak War. However, I do speak TV. I’m fluent in Hollywood. Color Pictures are my second language. If the Pentagon needs to get a message (Shock and Awe through Jessica Lynch) across to me and everyone else lolling around in front of the TV, they have to speak our language. And they do, a lot better than we speak War.

I don’t speak War. And if I was an Iraqi when the U.S. was marketing safety, personal survival, and the desire to return home, that’s a language I could have understood. It’s human. War turns people into helmets (camouflage) and numbers (death toll) and 2-D action figures (bleeding in smoky photographs).

I don’t speak War. It’s my fault. Right now I speak Final Papers. I speak Sleep. I speak Daffodils. I’m carrying on too many other dialogues to make myself learn another language, so I don’t, and I’m weaker for it. We’re responsible for learning to understand what’s going on (War through Bird Flu), and it’s our fault if we leave ourselves open to be manipulated.

I don’t speak War. I’m off to speak some Mac and Cheese.

I'm that guy

I'm that guy, I know, that's going to be corny and present song lyrics as they're relavant to the reading. My favorite band, KMFDM, has been recording albums for 22 years now, I found it interesting that their first political album, released in 2003, was inspired by the "War on Terror," and ended a 19 year political silence. The song, "Stars and Stripes" can be heard on their aptly titled release, "WW III." I feel that it fights fire with fire in the way that they use entertainment as a guise to convey their message in much the same way Rutherford describes politicians spreading their propaganda.

Star And Stripes

A tyrant is a man who allows his people no freedom
Who is puffed-up by pride
Driven by the lust of power
Impelled by greed
Provoked by thirst for fame

Divided and conquered
Gripped by fear
Wishful thinking that it can't happen here
It's well underway but nobody knows
A repeat of history
That's how it goes
Tell the people that they're under attack
By man-eating foes from Mars or Iraq
Mobilize outrage
Muzzle dissent
Send in the troops
Strike the pre-empt

Stars & stripes
Learn how to fight
We come together by the dawn of the light
Oh so proudly we hail as the rockets red glare
Stars & stripes

Control the airwaves
Fuel the reaction
Use every weapon of mass-distraction
Turn active people into passive consumers
Feed 'em bogus polls and harebrained rumors
Cut back civil rights
Make no mistake
Tell 'em homeland security is now at stake
Whip up a frenzy keep 'em suspended
Don't let 'em know that their liberty's ended

Everything goes in the desperate states
The veneer of democracy rapidly fades
Wreak total havoc on all opposition
In any event fulfill your mission
Totalitarian media sensation
You will give 'em domination
Never mind they call you a liar and thief
By now you're undisputed commander-in-chief

those last two lines are just so cool- unlike Joanna who robbed my color idea

I want color too!

"Politicians have become entrepreneurs, perhaps better yet retailers, and voters have become consumers, shoppers, and purchasers in the political supermarkets of the land."
If you didn't buy,,,er I mean vote,,,for Bush raise your hand!
So, Bond. Sex, guns, fast cars, sex, competition, sex, and winning. What else could our society ask for? We love it. We watch our wars on television and we eat popcorn to it. The saddest part I suppose is the nintendo aspect that was not even mentioned. I know my little brother owns atleast three James Bond 007 video games for his systems. Again, just starting younger and younger. I always thought that the funniest thing about those video games is the fact that after you kill a bad guy, they dissappear. How could you sell violence with dead bodies?!? Lets get for real here. Who wants to play a video game where it is realistic. Where the 55 people you just killed are sprawled out on the floor and you have to walk around them to leave. Thats another thing! We don't just glorify violence and love it up with butter on top, but we also exaggerate the possibility. I don't know about anyone else in this room but I know I can't take out a room full of people all by myself. It isn't just the bond movies and games though. Like the author pointed out about Apocolypse Now. There is Saving Private Ryan, BlackHawk Down, etc...etc.. We watch excited and cry at the end. Not because it actually happened somewhere else, somewhere real, but because Josh Hartnett got hurt. Excuse me while I vomit. In those video games that portray the wars, the bodies dissappear as well. Gee, How convienent. "No wonder his version was so easy to market:a clean war is a much easier sell than its dirty rival."
Like I mentioned earlier, I think sex is a major selling point on the wars in the movies. What is the movie called with Josh Hartnett and Ben Affleck? The movie isn't even about the war anymore it is about their confusing love triangle. EVERYONE EVERYWHERE SIGN UP FOR THE WAR YOU CAN SLEEP WITH HOT NURSES. I'm so there.

War made to look good

While I found the beginning of this book interesting, it also reminded me a lot of The Persuaders. However, I found it amazing how many people watch tv. Read a book America! Anyways, I found myself most intrigued by the conversation on the James Bond movies. I really appreciated how Rutherford noticed that movies and especially the Bond movies make war into entertainment. Brutal violence is now how we, Americans are entertained. What is wrong with us? I am just as guilty, and I enjoy war movies, but in movies such as Bond, what is the actual point? Rutherford writes at the end of the chapter, "Again pop culture, a sometime laboratory of politics, had pointed the way to making war both a public and a private good, a moral product that might also serve as a source of entertainment" (21). While in the Bond movies James always fights for good and serves to help the innocent, I still question if we should be spending less time watching these frivolous movies and paying more attention to the real war going on Iraq.

I am a stupid American Pig

That was my little epiphany for the day. I started reading Rutherford's book and realized how much it bothers me that he spells words like "honor" as "honour" and "behavior" as "behaiviour." I'm still trying to find the reasons why, but it irritates me so much. As I read on through the chapter, my patience worsened, and I started thinking, "What makes this vestigial "u" so annoying to me?" is it the "torrent" of over-americanization that gives me a haughty impression of the author? Is it just personal taste, or does it make some comment on some elitest by-product of american ideals? It might. I can't pinpoint where the influences may have originated, or how they have managed to make me linguistically biased, but I would really like to know. This idea got me wondering, how many other facets of my convictions and identity have been formed by some anonymous force? But i do like the way that this problem parallels the author's argument.
Moving to a different subject, I liked the fact that Rutherford came right out and tells the reader why he wrote his book unlike others... The cartoons are hilarious, and i really liked the association of Smokey the bear with propaganda. Regarding my previous crisis, I'm not sure why, but i have always associated propaganda with something bad, with no explanation why.
While reading this chapter, I thought of something that i just want to throw out to everyone because i think its cool. The late, great comedian Mitch Hedberg, (we miss you) said that he once visited Canada, and was shocked that instead of Smokey the Bear discouraging young pyromaniacs, they employ Smackey the Frog. "No one ever says, hey, here comes that frog- everybody look out. Its more like hey here comes that frog, Awesome!" Bears are scary, ferocious killing machines who scare little kids into putting down mommy's lighter for fear of a vicious mauling. Apply this to the whorf hypothesis that states that words shape the way we percieve the world, and ask yourself, who are you more likely to listen to a friendly frog, or a six foot tall beast with razor sharp claws? I think the answer is obvious. Simply because I'm a loser, i did my homework-I know that there are thousands more factors that contribute to this, but Canada lost 2.5 million hectares (25,000 square Km) in 2000 to foreset fires... America lost 2.32--- Bears 1, Frogs 0.

Marketing's Moment

This chapter talked about almost the same topics discussed in Lakoff's book; about the image, advertisements, billboards, commercials, selling the product and the name. I enjoy Rutherford's style of writing with his use of short, descriptive sentences that are not confusing like Ramage and not endless like Lakoff's. I almost cried when I seen the chapter was only 18 pages; such a relief from those 40 plus ones in Lakoff.

Anyway, I enjoyed the part about the James Bond movies. I thought this idea, on page 20 was interesting, "In the world of 007, life was organized by the rule of the phallus, meaning that masculine principle of challenge, command, and conquest in which sex and violence were inextricably linked -- 'hot babes and cool weaponry,' to borrow the words of novelist Jay McInerney." This raises some questions in my mind: does sex always lead to violence or violence to sex? Why can't it just be about sex, or simply about violence? Are guys not men if they aren't interested in 'hot babes and cool weaponry'? Does that then make them any less of a man or weaker?

The Rule of the Phallus

[You know what they say about men who need big guns and fast cars, don’t you?]

I’m not actually going to write about the Bond phenomenon; I just wanted to write “phallus.”

What I thought was really interesting throughout this intro/chapter was Rutherford’s use of marketing terms for the Iraq war. In the intro, he called the war a form of “infotainment…a commodity, something that was consumed by millions of people via the media.” It’s true, and it was smart of the Pentagon and the newsrooms to recognize and “co-produce” its marketing. So the rest of us are the “consumers,” lapping it all up (or spitting it out).

In Chapter 1, Rutherford explains what marketing does on a basic level. It makes us want something. We all bought iPods, but now there’re these super-cute, super-convenient, super-trendy Minis, and suddenly we’re just not satisfied—we need a Mini! On a more Rutherford level, suddenly there’s this bad guy and this axis of evil. We can’t sit around waiting for weapons of mass destruction to pop up—we need to do something about it—our national brand-name is at stake.

“Advertising remains the most visible way to advance an agenda,” says Rutherford, which the Pentagon and the newsrooms set about marketing. They had a branded product (national security), a strategy (marketing to “direct behavior”), the retailers (politicians), and the consumers (everyone who watches 4 or more hours of TV a day-good lord!). The rest is making history.

P.S. Rutherford used the pronoun “she” instead of the classic “he” on page 11. I just know we’re going to be friends…

Chapter one

I am enjoying reading through Tuesdays's reading. It is not overwhelming. It seems more clear and concise than previous books and articles we have read. I smiled to myself when I read about Titanic being the highest grossing film as of 2003. I definitely contributed to that sum (saw it a whopping 14 times in theaters...but back off, i was in SEVENTH grade and hey...it was Leo). Anyway...

Breaking through 'the clutter' is exactly what "The Persuaders" gave us a glimp in to. The problem is that 'seeing is not always believing' so the more propaganda and advertising that is thrown out into the world makes it all the worse for getting a product across.

I have to admit though, the third section on war started to annoy me. That section was the least enjoyable to me. I am not quite sure where the harm in using the Bond films as some sort of advertising whether is be for BMW or whoever...I see the point being made, but I do not see the danger or harm in it. So why talk about it?

I enjoyed the writing style, much easier to grasp than other things we have read...but I cant say that I agree with or enjoy reading it. The last paragraph of the reading I REALLY am not going to even touch...I can give my whole opinion but for the sake of arguement I am just going to 'let it go'. But if I had to pick one place in this weeks reading out that realllly got to me...that would be it. Now that I am officially frustrated im going to bed! Goodnight!

Did you see Bush with that Bond girl?

In Chapter One, the comparison between the Bond movies and the coverage of the Iraq war was interesting. Saddam Hussein was obviously seen as the villain, the bad guy who would say, "When you remove Mr. Bush's heart, there should be just enough time for him to watch it stop beating." His threat against the world and the hero, was played up tremendously. We were made to be fearful of one man's ability to kill, and we were led to believe that he would not stop killing until he reached us, (ie. the government and the media's constant reassurance that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was going to use) And we were told about how brutal he was to his own people, so how unmerciful would he be towards us and who would stop him? Enter the hero. Though George Bush is nowhere near as attractive as Pierce Brosnan, he was the only man we had to view as the hero, so we were won over. Because of the format of the Bond movies worked on so many different audiences, audiences also ate up the similiar format that enfolded at the beginning of the war.

Part of the reason that audiences buy into these formats so easily is because the information they are given is spun. According to the chapter, "There are, by one count, 20,000 more public relations agents working to doctor the news today than there are journalist writing it, in the United States." If most of the information we receive is coming from press agencies or public relations bureaus and then reporters are simply passing the information on instead of finding out the real truth, it makes it impossible for viewers to form different opinions. Unless viewers go out on their own and read or view different sources, but most probably do not. That is why even at Kuztown, if you're writing a story, the public relations person isn't the first person you should talk to, because you want to find other sources that aren't trying to put the current situation in a positive light.

But some situations just aren't positive. However, even during the war in Iraq, the media still can't show the coffins coming home, a reminder that this war was supposed to be "a clean war" with a simple victory, and no gruesome casualties. And we bought into it, just like we bought into the James Bond films, which talk about violence and have huge explosions, but don't show the bloody gorey mess at the end. But just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Not gonna lie-I cried when Mufasa died

People are so easily distracted/

That's why the war in Iraqis sort of like a Disney movie... The conflict was presented...all kinds of characters both charming and villanous were presented... the audience reacts and chooses a stance.... by the time you get about halfway into a Disney movie...some part of you, somewhere in your body, forgets that you're watching a movie and you find yourself distracted. Somewhere amidst the mini dramas of this war in Iraq we all forgot that we were being force-fed all kinds of unstable information in a time of great confusion.... some wanted revenge for the events of 9/11-some were just plain sad....everyone, everywhere felt something. We'd all played into this idea that we were bound by this horrible event and we needed to fill our frames in order to cope with it. Some became incredibly patriotic, others incredibly cynical... That is sort of why I kind of agree.. with the analogy of the war in Iraq to a Disney movie. We all want to act all tough and mighty like our feelings never get in the way of our own good judgements...I think we all felt a little unsettled when Mufasa bit the dust in front of his son in the Lion King...its just... the point that it is so easy to become so clouded up with opinions and ideas that we forget what the actual cause of emotion was. Advertising is like that. Does anyone remember the Jif commercial where the two little girls were having a sleep over and the one girl was homesick so the other girl made her a sandwich using Jif, and suddenly everything was groovy....I don't know... it's easy for them to target our emotions because we're so weak in that department... we crumble as soon as our feelings are taken into view. Part of this is because we all think that our lives mean so damn much. Like everything is really THAT important.... we are so very caught up in our own daily dramas that we integrate so many outside forces into our perceptions that we don't even realize how bombarded we are by it all. Just tossing our dollar bills into the air... playing the game...buying yellow ribbon magnets for our cars...or bumper stickers that say "Defend America- defeat Bush..." whatever. We're all caught up in it. If this war in Iraq really is like a Disney movie-I hope it has a happy ending

blog entry

my title is creative. i know.
ok, anyway: although i found the comparison of the war to a disney movie a bit of a stretch, i understand the point: the war was a highly advertised, pre-packaged debacle. the media coverage made it seem more like a high-tech video game than an actual event. i don't know why, but during the war, i did not really grasp what was going on. perhaps because it did seem like a video game i did not understand the seriousness of the entire situation.
as for the advertising aspect, i felt that a lot of the war posters appealed more to the masculinity of men than anything else. as discussed in the book, there were posters in which soldiers glared out at the looker. i think the posters were more or less a way to attempt to guilt trip people - almost as though, THIS MAN IS FIGHTING, WHY AREN'T YOU, WIMP?! i felt the entire war was more or less a way for america to try to insert their dominance and attempt to prove something to the entire world.
as discussed in chapter 1, consumers went out and purchased more BMWs after the james bond movies. that reminded me of the patriotism of americans. during the war, people invested more money in american flags & american flag apparell. i also felt like consumers suddenly felt the need to buy military-esque hummers and large SUVs like thos seen in Iraq on CNN. at least, that was what i observed.
other interesting points brought up by the book: violence was replaced with technology. when i think of war, i typically think of huge guns and swords. [i don't know why i think of swords, i just do.] to think that we were being shown more of the technological side of war seems as though the gov. was trying to avoid showing actual deaths and more the "cool" side of war. perhaps for more support, i don't know.
oh, also - pg. 21 -- did we really name our targets "pussy" and "galore"? i certainly hope not.
next, i really liked the Winston Churchill quote on pg. 61. there is a reason why, i just don't remember right now. maybe in class i will.
i also found it interesting how we changed the terms of war to make it more friendly. news flash: WAR IS NOT FRIENDLY. let's get real. if we are too ashamed to use the harsh terms of war, perhaps we should be too ashamed to commit those acts. just a thought.
i also wanted to further discuss the freedom of news reporters. or, the lack of freedom. i found it ridiculous that the gov. tried to control what was printed in the press. AGAIN, if we were too ashamed to print what was really happening, perhaps we should not have been doing it. Although i felt that the press had a right to write, i also felt like maybe they should not have printed some information -- like where troops were located or what we were planning to do. more so for the safety of the troops. i wonder what everyone else thinks?
let's see.... i also wondered how many of us watched extensive CNN coverage? in the book, there was a quote from a man who claimed he watched it from the time he got home until midnight. i personally found myself getting bored with the coverage. i felt like it was the same, pre-packaged news report every night with some flashes of high-tech war techniques.
ok, well, hope everyone had a great weekend!
ps - the alice in wonderland link is not working for me. boo!

James Bond Never Killed Babies

(In an earlier comment dealing with the last book, I said that Noam Chomsky is the source of all things intellectual. Please note page 15 of Weapons of Mass Persuasion… HE’S BACK!)

I love the idea of “infotainment.” The real “Reality TV” is on the twenty-four hour news networks. From FOX’s dramatic CGI animation, to CNN’s orchestral intro and outro music, the news stations are addictive. As Rutherford points out on page 5, “The serious business of politics is invaded by the spirit of carnival.”

I love Rutherford’s progression through the chapter. He starts out with the importance of television and how it is the most influential medium, especially in North America and Europe. He also touches on the “Persuaders” argument which he’ll probably get into later in the book. But as far as this section, I think it is important to realize how television is warping people’s concept of reality. I’m not talking about the bias in the news, but the horrible surreal images in modern entertainment: movies, tv show, even books. Perceptions are skewed and subliminal messages are imbedded into the minds of those weak enough to fall into the trap.

Political marketing is a chore, especially when selling a war. It’s really hard to sell something, as Rutherford put it, “when the lives of children are at stake.” For example, just a few weeks ago, a family of 11 people were killed in a U.S./Iraqi Police led raid. They weren’t just killed, their hands were bound and they were shot in the back of the head, execution style. The youngest family member was a 7 month old baby. However, you didn’t see that story on the television, so I’ll show them to you here.

When there is live coverage of an attack in Iraq, we sit in silence watching a live stream from a night vision camera. Occasionally there is a bright green explosion. The news commentators tell us how this attack will lead to the capture of a “bad guy” or “villain” as they are portrayed with unrelenting media bias. People fail to realize that behind every explosion, there are innocent people dying. People forget that they are watching, live on television, the execution of hundreds of innocent civilians. However, as we have seen in action movies like James Bond, the only goal is to catch the bad guy. There are no deaths attributed to those explosions in action movies. When bad guys are actually killed, they are just that: bad guys. Plus, there deaths are so quick and painless that we could care less how many Russians are killed by Bond.

I’ve gone on long enough I imagine. However, I would like to say this. Next time you go to see the next blockbuster movie and waste a week of your life talking about it, think about how distracted you’ve become; think about the 7-month-old babies with gaping bullet wounds in the back of their heads and ask yourself this: “What have I done to change the fascist government that has taken over this country?”

Chapter One

On page 18, author Paul Rutherford describes how the American consumer chooses to watch violent films. Although democracies may value pacifism, Rutherford describes a culture that “where the scenes of conflict are enjoyed as entertainment.” He uses several movies such as the Star Wars saga, the Terminators and Indina Jones as popular violent flicks. Because we predispose ourselves to violent action flicks, the idea of a “just” or “clean” war is not as difficult for the government to sell.

Although an adult viewer may not be as impressionable as a child, the continual stream of violent films may change that viewer’s attitude towards violence. What a person decides to listen to will shape who he will become. Choosing to be around a certain type of person will change a person’s habit. For instance, I had a friend who constantly said “like” or “totally.” As a result of hearing that a million times in one day, I picked it up. Now I can add talking like a valley girl to my long list of quirks.

In the same way, continually watching violence for numerous hours in a week will change a viewer’s attitude towards war. Although watching only one violent movie won’t change a person’s point of view immediately, watching many war movies might. Maybe the person who watched hours of violence would have less qualms with using violence in war. For in stance in a war situation rather than thinking about the civilians who lost their lives, loved-ones or homes, that person may automatically think about defeating the enemy. Meanwhile the person who hates violence on television would hate the idea of killing Iraqi people.

The violent media that seems so common on television makes the government’s job of selling a war a lot easier. Although the government should take some responsibility in persuading the public, the public should take responsibility for their own attitutes.

for Dr. Mahoney

Hey Dr. Mahoney,

Yesterday morning I was admited to Chestnut Hill Hospital for treatment for my azthma. They ended up keeping me over night and i was released around 11:30 this morning. The doctor told me to on two day bed rest and he wrote me notes from classes and work friday (then my attack began) through tomorow. I'm going to try to be up at school on time tuesday to be available to attend class. If I am unable to get up there on time should I bring in my papers from the doctor and hospital to show you on thursday? also is the paper rough draft due on thuesday?

sincerely,
Sean.

Such a nice day to not have class. Frolic outside!

On the quiz, I got Alice.
Oddly enough, I never liked Alice. Hmm.

Well, I liked how this chapter started with a statement that the war was manufactured by Disney. That brought about a series of amusing mental images. As well as made the point that the publicity on the war seemed full of grand sayings and images, bright colors, and lack of shading. I could almost picture the war being made into some Disney movie about the journey of a mouse that hid inside a soldier's pocket and George Bush feeding him some cheese. In the touching ending, he would be honored as a hero, getting a medal that was much too big for him. Of course, the whole "bloody, terrible war" thing would be pushed into the background.

The PsyOps campaign, mentioned in Chapter 3, is kind of creepy. Especially the bit about the "all-seeing American eye". It's interesting to realize how prevalent Americans must have been in Iraq to distribute all of this propganda. I can't help but wonder exactly how it got to the people (or how it was allowed to reach the people), and whether or not the Iraqi Government realized what was happening.

Have you ever noticed that the word 'frolic' looks really funny? Hmm.

Okay, I finished reading the first chapter in our new book. It seems like a pretty easy to read book. The intro kinda was a little far-fetched, however, at least to me. I can honestly say that Throughout this war, I have not felt that it was comparable to a Disney movie in the way it was portrayed. I do agree that some things are changed to give the American people a different or at least skewed impression of what is going on during the war. However, war, no matter if you agree with the cause or not, is never a pretty thing. People die, towns are destroyed, and nations are changed forever. I think that the media is controlled, yes, and perhaps we are not shown all that we need to see, but throughout history I think this has been the way our media is. Yes, it has become more commercialized lately and usually has an agenda, but who doesn't. I think the important thing to remember is not to completly rely on tv news and the major networks for all the information. Becuase most of these networks are comglomerates of larger networks with agendas, there will be some type of prejudice about what is shown and how things are portrayed. We have to be sure to get a lot of different news from different places to get the fuller picture. Anyway, those are my feelings on the subject. Hope everyone has a good weekend.

who is chris?

You scored as Tweedle Dee & Dum. Yes, you're both - because they're exactly the same. You're quite dumb, and blatantly oblivious to most things going on around you. You love to tell stories and screw around. You're loveable, but sometimes extremely annoying. Tweedle Dee & Dum 69% Alice 63% The Mad Hatter 63% White Rabbit 56% Cheshire Cat 56% Queen of Hearts 38% Caterpillar 31% Which Alice in Wonderland Character are YOU? created with QuizFarm.com

class tuesday?

we had class on tuesday?

So Confused!?!

First, I would like to start out by telling everyone that I was the Mad Hatter. Is that bad?!? Second, do we have class on Thursday, when is our paper due, and how far do we have to read in good ol Rutherford's book? Thank you! I hope your trip is well! Also, and lastly, I for one vote that every class is like Tuesday's went. Ten minute classes rock....not that we didn't miss you Kevin!

uh...what should i title this??

Hey to all my wonderful classmates and great freindS!
How's it goin in the windy city Mr. Mahoney? Good luck with your meeting and such with your book. I started reading th ebook last night, it's pretty interesting so far. I kinda like it. Haven't finished the first chapter yet but when I do I'll put up my full thoughts onthe book. But if I don't remember i said I liked it so far. good shit. well gotta run, PEACE!!!!
-S

ps: I got alice

Aw man!

I got Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum!

"Yes, you're both - because they're exactly the same. You're quite dumb, and blatantly oblivious to most things going on around you. You love to tell stories and screw around. You're loveable, but sometimes extremely annoying."

Now there's a blow to my self-esteem.

Chicago bound

Hey all...well, as it turns out, I couldn't get a late flight into Chicago. To refresh your memories, I am heading to the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCCs) to present a paper on my upcoming book (shameless plug), Situated Cultural Rhetorics. Sound familiar?

I am in the airport right now, actually. Leaving from the lovely Lehigh Valley airport. Since we won't be having class this week, I'd like to move our discussion to the blog. As you know, we are beginning Rutherford's book this week...and I am curious what you all think about it. I'll be checking out the blog at least once a day while I am in Chicago. I hope the conversation will carry us through the week.

Virtually yours,
Kevin

Chicago bound

Hey all...well, as it turns out, I couldn't get a late flight into Chicago. To refresh your memories, I am heading to the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCCs) to present a paper on my upcoming book (shameless plug), Situated Cultural Rhetorics. Sound familiar?

I am in the airport right now, actually. Leaving from the lovely Lehigh Valley airport. Since we won't be having class this week, I'd like to move our discussion to the blog. As you know, we are beginning Rutherford's book this week...and I am curious what you all think about it. I'll be checking out the blog at least once a day while I am in Chicago. I hope the conversation will carry us through the week.

Virtually yours,
Kevin

The Truth is...

I never read any of Lewis Carroll's "Alice" books, and I haven't seen the Disney movie since the late 1980s. I did, however, save a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico. (What, you think I'm going to use A-grade humor material on this blog? Hell no...).

For what it's worth, though, I scored as Alice in that test, and I'd like to point out that just because I related most with a female character, that in no way reflects on my sexuality or masculinity. I drive a sports car, damn it!

Quiz Results

This is amazing. I tied between my two favorite characters: the Mad Hatter and the Cheshire Cat. The tie breaker gave the Hatter. This is very appropriate considering my late night talk show and my tea addiction. I do a really good Mad Hatter voice, too.

You scored as The Mad Hatter. In the simplest terms, you're crazy. You usually go off on tangents when you're talking, and forget what you were talking about to begin with. You love riddles, and of course, tea. Cheshire Cat 50% The Mad Hatter 50% White Rabbit 44% Tweedle Dee & Dum 31% Alice 25% Queen of Hearts 25% Caterpillar 6% Which Alice in Wonderland Character are YOU? created with QuizFarm.com

Alice and Wonderland quiz results

Right so here's what Emily's quiz proved for me:

You scored as ALICE.
You are the main character ALICE!! your wild imagination gives you loads of curiosity. while you are quite and polite.

Heh.

The Story of Ugh

I loved this paragraph from chapter 8 on page 267: "Stephen Greenblatt (1998) notes that the Starr report offers the reader many of the pleasures of classic fiction: the narrator's apologies for a lubricious tale; time-honored plot devices (the lovers find each other first through mutual eye contact, as in Ovid or Petrarch); the moves of the skilled novelist--Balzac, James, or Eliot--..."

We, as individuals placed in a society revolving around movies, television, plays and novels, create second lives for ourselves based on the characters portrayed. By watching movies and tv shows, I create illusionary events and scenarios in my mind. I sometimes place myself in a character's life; sometimes I change how I would react to certain occurences, change the course of events, but mostly I pretend I am truly that character. Sometimes I even bring this illusionary thinking into my real world. I remember when I broke up with one of my ex-boyfriends. I did it and left walking very slowly down his hallway (he lived in his own apartment), hoping for him to run after me, sweep me back into his arms and tell me he couldn't bear losing me. Well, it almost happened like that. He did run out after me & he did bring me into his arms, and we did get back together (but it only lasted a few weeks after that). But it was an image I had created from watching the many movies and soap operas and I placed it within the context of my own life, silly as it may sound.

I do believe many individuals, especially females, act in similar fashions. People see it in movies all the time: the break-up, the way one feels when seeing one's girlfriend or boyfriend or ex, the way one feels when losing a loved one, the way one feels when getting beaten up... We see these portrayals on a daily basis and there are so many different ones out there that when one of these events happens to us, there is most definitely one that will seem perfectly fit to our situation; describes our exact emotions, reactions and words.

It seems almost impossible not to compare an event in our lives to one in a movie, tv show or book. Admit it, I know each and every one of us has, or will, at some point throughout our lives!

Honestly, I didn't find this final chapter as memorable as some of the others such as the one on apologizing, or the harassment chapter. Throughout the book my mind flew everywhere except Lakoff's train of thought. Sadly not too many examples stood out to me.

One statement did stand out to me was this statement: If you can't talk about it, it didn't happen. Here Lakoff is referring to the relationship between the event and the news media. If the media doesn't talk about an important event, it creases to be important. It almost disappears.

After events happen, they merely become memories. Memories are an intangible thing. If you cease to think about them they go away. Part of the media's job is to continue to presenting memories. However, one has to wonder, who gets to tell the story? Who gets to recap the memory?

In a way the media functions much the same way as a memory does of an event. Perhaps as time goes by, the writers and other media workers gain more insight on an event. In the same sense as time passes, I gain more insights on an event that happened in the past.

For instance, when I was in first grade my teacher honesty seemed like a large massive monster out to get me. I really dreaded going to class because she always seemed to be mad and she yelled like a volcano. Today however, when I think of my dear first grade teacher, I think of an unhappy lady with unsteady nerves and a tiring job.

YOUR MOTHER SHOULD HAVE SWALLOWED

Really grabs your attention, right? Well let me tell you, it may not always attract the attention you want. This phrase appears on the back of one of my t-shirts, and it has gotten me kicked out of malls, accosted by drunks at parties, and even earned me a stern talking to by some tool from admissions last semester. The point i'm trying to make is--and sit down for this one-- I agree with Lakoff's argument that the relationship between language and culture is not mutually exclusive. It made me sad too. I just really liked that quote in the beginning of the chapter from Thucydides. Its true that those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and as advanced as we as a culture think we are, there is just too much evidence that we aren't any better than we were. Like a sheep in wolf's clothing- while appearing to be more intelligent and effective, we are still just the static, simple and slow flock we once were. As the quote reads, "He who succeeded in his plot is clever,but he who had detected one is still shrewder... he who, when the opportunity offered and he saw his enemy off his guard, was the first to pluck courage, found his revenge sweeter because of the violated pledge than if he had openly attacked." On a completely unrelated topic, did you guys know Bill Gates' house controls its own individual room temerature based on the people who are in it?
Whether it's me getting woken up and kicked off a couch in the sub, or Bill Gates creating a monopoly, they are essentially caused by the arrangement and choice of specific words. There's no doubt that words carry certain aestheics with them, Case in point, if you dont mentally react differently to the words "tree" and "rape" -you are a sociopath- at least that's the way the pigs define it. If you still don't believe me, tell me if your reaction to my last sentence would have been any different if I had replaced the phrase, you are a sociopath, with you may very well resemble a sociopath. Or if I were to use the word law enforcement officials instead of pigs, would part of you love or hate that statement any more or less? --damn that was smooth-- What I'm saying with all of this is that words carry an exponentially growing amount of force in the world, and our daily routine that extends farther than yelling fire in a theater. That much of Lakoff's argument, I like, the whole fundamentalist Language =100% Culture tone that I got from the reading. I think Lakoff has some good points in this chapter, but she needs to realize that language is one of many tools that shape culture, not a pice of the mold where it's cast. Language is alive, and it changes and grows just like everything else, and aty any moment any individual can change the way they use it.

Which Alice in Wonderland Character are You? (Extremely Lakoff-related!)

My contribution to the blog this Thursday...
My sadly accurate results:

You scored as White Rabbit. You're constantly worrying about everything, and always in a rush. If you were diagnosed with any psychological ailment, it'd probably be anxiety disorder. White Rabbit 75% Alice 63% The Mad Hatter 56% Queen of Hearts 56% Cheshire Cat 50% Tweedle Dee & Dum 50% Caterpillar 38% Which Alice in Wonderland Character are YOU? created with QuizFarm.com

At least I'm not the stoned caterpillar.

Psycho Cliff Jumpers?

When the chapter started off with Thelma and Louise I got excited, I can't help it. I like the thought of women taking a stand, even if it's a violent psychotic one. I mean come on, how many violent movies are there out there with groups of guys shooting people up? Or two guy friends who congratulate each other on the size of their weapons. Okay, so they men in these movies don't necessarily dramatically drive off of a cliff at the end, but maybe that's the point. Men are treated as though they are allowed to be violent and aggressive, while women have to resist the urge to act out. And if women do act agressively, they will be chased down until they eventually have to resort in admitting defeat (driving off a cliff).

I think Lakoff used Thelma and Louise as an example to illustrate aspects of the Hill/Thomas hearings effectively. She says that the movie "brought up the topic of sexual harassment into sharp focus as a subject of impassioned arguments between and within the sexes, and presented the possibility of retribution." The hearing also brought up the topic of sexual harassment, though it was often overlooked because of the race issue. Anita Hill was seen as a black woman who should have been sticking by her culture, instead of outing a man who was seen as respectable. She wanted some form of retribution, so it became public. Imagine if Anita Hill would have taken the same measures as Thelma and Louise against Thomas. Would she have gotten her point across more effectively? She might have been seen as a victim, but she for the most part she would have been viewed as a psycho. Of course, during the hearings her mental capacity was questioned anyway, so even without a violent approach she is still psycho for standing up for herself.

When Simpson makes an indirect threat to Anita Hill, he says, "real harassment, different than the sexual kind." This is a very dangerous statement, because like the text says it makes it seem like sexual harassment is less valid than other forms of harassment. And who is going to speak out about something that society doesn't view as a "real" crime? That statement seems to make a second threat, to women who want to prosecute men of higher status for sexual harassment in the future. Simpson seems to be saying, "Don't do it. Because you are the weaker gender, and no one will take you seriously."

Do Not Read Me in Class

Before I get started, I want to make an observation: Lakoff clearly is upset about how the courts treated Anita Hill. Although, I do have to agree with her---the senators didn’t pose fair questions or show Anita Hill respect--- Lakoff’s sometimes brutish language turned me off and made me question her credibility.

I also wondered: why did Lakoff choose an incident that happened 10 years after she published a book? I have to admit I never heard of this incident that happened in 1991. I was only eight or nine. I only cared about foursquare, cats and Nickelodeon Gak. I certainly didn’t care about politics or feminism. Because of my lack of knowledge, I feel rather impotent in responding to Lakoff’s observations.

Okay, now that I’m done whining, I can talk about the chapter. When I overlook Lakoff’s harsh language, I think that Lakoff brought up some interesting issues. One example is how the senators were inconsistent with titles between Anita Hill and her opponent Clarence Thomas. While the senators referred to Clarence Thomas as “Judge Thomas,” the senators called Anita Hill “Miss Hill or “Ms. Hill” instead of using her proper title. Even more shocking is Clarence Thomas actually referred to Anita Hill by her first name.

Although I’m definitely not a fan of formalities, using a first name for a potential judge shows a carelessness or disrespect for Anita Hill’s position. Even more disturbing is that first name was only used for Anita Hill. This disrespect states that somehow Anita Hill was as qualified or equal to Clarence Thomas.

Although I do believe Lakoff brought up some interesting points, I have a few questions. The first one is: exactly how many senators referred to Anita Hill as Miss Hill? Was it two or three or a whole row of them? The second question I have is how did Hill's age affect the senators' attitudes? While Clarence Thomas was middle aged, Anita Hill, a recent graduate from law school was only 24. I have to admit, I am more leery of younger people in certain professions. I know it doesn’t make sense since I’m young myself, but I still am. For example, I know I will be more anxious if a young dentist inspected my teeth than a dentist who inspected teeth for twenty years. Sometimes the question goes through my head: does this person know what he’s doing?

more of the same

This book really creeps me out sometimes. Time and again I find myself having read 5 pages or so, and not have a single clue as to what it was about or even relating to. I find it increasingly harder to 'get into' reading this book, and I think part of that is caused by the academic distance Lakoff creates with her language. She strains to maintain an objective and intellectual identity, but that breaks down when she describes the story of Thelma and Loise. After she explicates how a movie famed by female violence towards men alludes to how men objectify women, she uses the word "us" to describe the possession of the new point of view. After that hour long debate over the meaning of "we" in relation to affiliation last week, I wasn't going to let that go. The chapter that follows deals with affiliations with certain groups and ideas. While she describes these affiliations, she uses her language to maintain a middle ground on the subjects she is describing. It seems contradictory then, that on the second page of the chapter she establishes her sympathy to a feminist ideal. I know it seems picky, but I had to write something... I still hate this book.

Chapter 4

WOW,
This chapter was very interesting and enlightening. I felt that the argument presented was very valid. I'd like to just touch on a few points I feel stuck out to me the most.

I'd like to start with a quote from the post of ehammelshaver (I couldn't have said this better, and I want to give credit where credit is due) "The powerful don’t need to come right out and say what they’re threatening because anyone who’s aware of the power aligned against them already knows the threat." I think this is an important point bought out in this chapter. Power and threat are like two best friends skipping on a spring day (not quite like today) through the park. You can't have one without the other. It's important to see what kind of language is used to show one has power and the threat that it poses to other without as much power.

Another interesting point was that race overpowers gender. I personally have always believed that. Although women were treated very unfairly for hundreds of years, can you really compare their gripes with those of African Americans who historically have been the "underdog" and treated way worst (at least in my skewed opinion)? The whole idea of Thomas pulling out the "race card". Personally I'd like to know who turned this into a card game, where a person uses the joker or the Ace to beat. I hate to say this: but some people do use their race as a crutch, excuse or right to do whatever to whomever, and of course I don’t agree with that, but I think the race card is accused of being used more often when the "majority" doesn't want "minorities", and other "majorities" to believe they have done something wrong. I found it interesting how the "gender card" and "race card" were used in an all out battle.

I also liked the whole discussion on power and positions. How the title of "judge" holds a certain power, and when Ms. Hill would be addressed as Anita, it shows a lack of respect. I just thought that was an interesting thing to look at, how the title of a person can be threatening and intimidating.

I'm a bad student, aren't I?

Chapter 4 of the Lakoff book was, to me, one person's subjective reading of an event now 15 years old and a footnote to history. Lakoff got her shots in; on men in general, on the right wing, on specific senators, and others. Once in awhile, cause the book is apparently about language, she connected aspects of the trial ... er, hearing to something language related. There is much about politics and society and much less about language. Overall, since I find the the whole men vs women obsession of American society very, very uninteresting, I was sort of bored by this chapter. But alas, what can I do? (yeah, I did it, I typed "alas" without any irony).

I found the discussion of so-called tag questions interesting. I'm sure anyone who was a kid at some point (which I suspect is everyone) can remember being asked leading questions ("Rob, it was you who drew in that library book, wasn't it?") and having no way to get out of answering them. I often wondered why I was being asked questions that the adult obviously knew the answer to. Was it some form of control or punishment or humiliation? Yeah, it was me who shouted the obscenity in the lunch room, and everyone knows it. "Rob, isn't it true that you were the one who found it necessary to sceam the f-word?" seemed unnecessary to me. I guess the answer is that they wanted to see if I'd admit my misdeeds, and since I was a "reluctant interlocutor" being forced to give information out that would damage myself, tags were the best way to do it.

In a lot of little ways, language was used to discredit, intimidate, and incriminate Anita Hill, which is sort of lousy. Refusing to call her "Professor", giving her less time to pause, and asking questions that couldn't be answered "yes or no" all smack of impartiality. Still, it is Congress, after all, so should any of that be a surprise? The same sort of thing happened with the whole Clinton-Lewinski thing (see Chapter 8).

Well, I guess that's that. Boy, this is a crappy response, isn't it?

Tomorrow is Wednesday, right?

Blogger and I were having issues last night. I'm going to try again to post this.

The first few pages of this chapter had me sitting mouth sort of agape and eyes unfocused. For a while, anyway.
I was thinking, "Huh? What do all these stories have to do with anything?"
In fact, even as the chapter progressed, the information was given to us only in tidbits, placed in various places throughout the text. I may not have even noticed them except for the orange highlight of the wise, patient person who had this book before me.

While some of the points made throughout the chapter about how language influences things and can be used to take control of a situation- by Lakoff using the Hill/Thomas example- were good, I felt like they were buried. Not as buried as the points in Ramage’s book, but scattered. There was one point, I forget what page, where Lakoff listed the specific dates certain broadcasts had aired. I thought that additions like that were unnecessary and detracted from the points.

This chapter was very race and gender-focused. Those commentaries were interesting in and of themselves, and when put with the connection of language being used to exemplify gender issues, it kind of ties everything together. Kinda’… sorta’. Maybe?

Lakoff Response

I have to admit that I sometimes have trouble getting through the whole reading in one sitting. I must admit though that this reading held my interest a LITTLE more! Starting off with Thelma and Louise was a great way to grab my attention. It was definitely not needed, but still fun to start out with. (I still have to see the movie)

I really felt I was into the next story about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. I was disgusted with the quote from the New York Times Magazine, "Hell confronted and unltimately breakched a series of taboos in the black community...Anita Hill put her private business on the street, and she downgraded a black man to a room filled with white men who might alter his fate-surely a large enough betrayal for her to be read out of the race." This is one example of all of the "expressions of anger" towards her decision to STAND UP FOR HERSELF after being SEXUALLY HARASSED! I cant tell you enough how angry I was the furth i read on.

I was brought back by the next subject...the Watergate incident. I thought it was quite funny how she put it...."people in the oval office plotting like common thugs." It marks the beginning of the downward progression between the republicans and democrats.

I really did enjoy this chapter more than the previous ones. I thoguht there were little instances of humor thrown in (i.e. the godfather example and the 'sleeping with the fishes' example) and i felt this helped keep it light enough to enjoy.

Mad Bad & Had

I found this chapter to be extremely interesting; it actually held my attention the entire time and I finished it in under an hour, nice surprise.

The scenario depicted reminded me of another: a Lifetime movie (I know, I know) about a sophomore college girl (pretty, outgoing, well-liked) who was raped by the star football player. The college both attended was solely concerned with football; creating the best players, the best team, etc. She pressed charges and took him to court. Needless to say, she wound up looking like a psycho while the guy walked away, went back to playing football, went back to his same pattern of sex life.

There are a lot of tie-ins I have between this movie and this chapter. The first is on page 130 "Sen. Heflin: [to Anita Hill]: Now, in trying to determine whether you are telling falsehoods or not, I have got to determine what your motivation might be. Are you a scorned woman?" A similar question was proposed to the female in the movie. She was asked if she had been feeling down about herself, her dating life, her sex life. I feel this question is extremely private and also the woman looks wrong in no matter what answer she gives. If she says 'yes' she's basically done, they made their point. If she says no they might assume she's just saying that to avoid embarassment or to make herself look stronger. So either way, it is a no-win situation for the female.

On page 131 "Many stereotypes of women, black and white, are invoked without explicit examination: women as liars, fantasizers, hysterics, and malleable dupes. Typically, Hill is damned if she conforms to one of these stereotypes and damned if she doesn't (because if she doesn't, she's not good --i.e., normal --woman)." This is true even out of the courtroom. My boyfriend is in a fraternity and I frequently hang out with him and some of his brothers. They talk about girls and how they are all psycho, make stuff up, lie and are stupid (literally). The male being has been trained through generations to have this masculine mindset about the female gender. A man is not a 'true man' unless he believes these suppositions. Men assume they are stronger and more dominant in every aspect of being. It is wrong to stereotype attitudes toward any person, any gender, any race or culture. What determines a feeling? Many people have different interpretations on words. To hold someone to a certain feeling is biased because that is how one personally views how that feeling is portrayed and expressed by another. It's all presumption and assumption, and isn't it wrong to make pre-judgmental decisions on another based on words?

On page 131 "Thus when Thomas makes long speeches telling his audience how life is, and who he is, and what everything means, the audience considers this normal, since he has become an honorary member of us for these proceedings." In the movie, whatever the star football player said was right. He was a strong, powerful athlete, well-respected and liked by his coaches, fellow teammates, and friends. How can anyone accuse him of being a rapist, of doing anything wrong or immoral? When people state qualifications it is hard for the audience to view the bad things charged against them because the accused is seen as intelligent, worthy, a powerful individual who could or would never take a part in acting deviant. People's mindsets and opinions become morphed based on what are deemed 'acceptable' or 'respectable' qualifications or merits.

This is quite long. I have many other tie-ins but I will save them for class discussion.

Anita Hill is a Black Woman

I wanted a picture of Hill in her "prim" turquoise suit, but Google Images let me down.

Race vs. Sex: the ultimate bout

*note to class* this chapter writes ont he relationship between sex and race in society and politics. it uses magnificant examples of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. I could sit here and discuss the political side of things but I am not. Politics bores me so instead Im writign onthe subject from my own perspective and touching upon briefly ideas mentioned in the chapter.

This chapter opens up witht he ultimate of chick flicks:Thelma And Louise.This is a film, that despite over a decade of people talking about it, I have never had the chance to view. Well rather I have but chose not to. Instead of viewing Geena and Susan's Excellent Adventure i viewed race related films suchas Boyz in the Hood, Blazing Saddles and variou films ont he holocaust and world war 2. the relationship between races, for me, has always been more intersting than the war between the sexes. I was raised to be gender blind, women and men are the same in 90% of the ways (the other ten percent were mainly biological/ fashion). Race, however, was different. My parents didnt say this is the way you treat these people versus this is the way you treat those people.

In first grade my best friend, Greg, was black. I knew what black was, but overall i didnt care. Greg was into what was most important: Batman. Basically I grew up around people of diferent races and my school did a decent job with teaching children about different races and people of the world. After Greg my next best friend, Draye (also black). In middle school Draye got held back and we didnt talk much after that. After Draye came Dave, who is jewish.

So this is not to say i didnt know that there were racial tensions. I knew their were. Almost as soonas i got my Job at the Acme i heard the most common phrase uttered: "its cause im black ain't it?!" this is both workers and customers saying this. As a person I get offended by this.
I'm a cashier. say Im giving change abck to a black woman and its short a dollar and she goes off on me aying i horted her a dollar casue Im white and she's black. I do not shortchange someone due o them being blakc or asian or anything. if i give short change its casue i suck at math. There are alot of people who have been raised to hate white men becasue of what they did 200 years ago and continually bring it up today. What the hell, why hould i have to be accused of enslaving someone when i was a)not born yet and b) my family didnt get over here till the 1800s when they Irish had their Potato famine. but tis becasue Im white it is my fault it happened. so becasue i shorted a woman a dollar im suddenly trying to enslave her. (BTW: what i jsut menioned happened to me saturday).

now we come to the subject of sexism. personally i feel Lakoff hates men, is an Uberfeminen bitch, and to perfectly honest doesn't care who she pises off to get her points across. Was Anita hill unjustly treated? yes. was it bulshit that Thomas played the 'race card'? yes. was it the fault of every man? no.

but for some reason that is what she was saying, that if you were born with a penis it is your fault she was treated unfairly. perhaps i was reading too much into it, pwerhaps i was reading the book wrong. Im not sure and I dont know. but i feel she was was hard on men. Men didnt screw with Hill's career, it was a small gorup of people who happened to be men. I hate lakoff. im out.

Hill/Thomas

I enjoyed this chapter—it was like watching a DVD with the commentary on. The “story chapter” is always a good choice because I’m able to keep myself from blanking out for 40 pages by convincing myself I’m having fun.

It seemed power played a significant role throughout this chapter. I’ll breeze through a few main points:

Power and threats – Good lord! I did not care for the implication in Simpson’s little speech that “[Hill] will be injured” or that harassment of the sexual kind isn’t “real” (or at least not as real as the beating in court that Hill was promised). Lakoff makes a good point: The powerful don’t need to come right out and say what they’re threatening because anyone who’s aware of the power aligned against them already knows the threat.

Power and race v. gender – Who knew race trumps gender? It was interesting how Hill’s defenders tip-toed around the issue of race, not wanting to be labeled racist, while Thomas’s defenders didn’t seem to care about seeming sexist and used “the race card” to their advantage, building power against Hill’s “gender” case.

Power and position – Lakoff describes Thomas as “a long-time Washington insider.” Clearly, he knew the ropes, knew the people, and knew how to work the system. Hill pretty much just knew Thomas, which didn’t get her anywhere. As a result, Thomas was able to use his pre-existing status to stay one step above Hill.

Power and questions – This is where it gets juicy (not really) and we can see how people recognize the importance of power. If asking a question is really a sign of weakness, and if during a trial people ask a lot of questions, then somewhere people begin to find ways of flipping power to their side even when they’re admitting weakness (asking questions). Thus, the tag (Is that correct?), which “emphasizes the power of the questioner to force a response.”

Since “no comment” can’t be used to respond to a question during a trial, power is given to the questioner. As a result, Thomas was able to give a lot of “yes/no” answers, which painted him as clear-headed and in control. Hill, meanwhile, was encouraged into rambling responses making her seem more unsure than Thomas.

(Urgh, this is getting long so just one more.)

Power and titles – “Professor” and “Judge” are clearly titles of distinction, while “Miss,” “Ms.,” and “Anita” imply informality, lack of status, and lack of deserved respect. By never calling Hill by her title as “Professor,” Thomas and his defendants were taking her down little notches on the power scale to make her seem less reliable than he is as “Judge.”

In conclusion, I’m not happy with Lakoff for ruining the plot of Thelma and Louise for me.

Clarence Thomas is a Black Man

There is no such thing as reciprocity in today's political system. As far as judicial nominations, it's a battle of shear numbers. As Lakoff points out on page 122, after the borking, there began a language war between "us and them." Our country was founded on a series of compromises. As the example in the book points out, senators on the judiciary committee like Alan Simpson already made their minds up in the Hill/Thomas thing. Lakoff makes a great connection between apologies and threats, saying that they are often issued in a non-canonical form, the indirect threat. I love the explanation she gives on the top of page 124. It's kind of long and I had to take a breath afterwards. I think this entire section was summed up well with the Queen of Hearts' quote: "Verdict first - evidence afterwards." As with most of our legislation and even the more recent Alito hearings, the votes are split based on party affiliation.

Then, the mess turns into an all out language war, doesn't it? The entire situation was a disgrace to the system our founders set up, isn't that right? After the long show down, Lakoff breaks down the "who won" argument. I would agree with all the arguments, but I wouldn't say that anybody actually "won."

I would like to jump back to the anagram of five levels. I would like to add the 24-hour news networks to the 3rd and 4th level. They chew the hell out of stories because well... they have all day to talk about them. The same thing happened with our lovely bake sale here at KU. Nobody remembers what really happened and now it's been drawn out so long that I think it is worthy of the scholarly article (level 5).

And did you hear? Mark, the president of the college republicans, is going to be kicked out, and as rumor has it, they are appointing a black president to the position, who, just a few weeks earlier, said he didn't know much about politics on Dan Brockway's pathetic talk show. What a wonderful political stunt. Now they can play the race card if their group is attacked. Sounds a lot like the stunt Daddy Bush pulled with Thomas because, as we all know, Clarence Thomas is a black man.

(did anyone else miss the Thelma and Louise connection?)

Another Response to Lakoff

While, Lakoff's book tells many interesting stories, I am finding myself more and more frustrated with her. I want to stop hearing stories, and start hearing something more concrete, more informational.

Now that I have vented, I did find a few parts of this reading interesting, but the parts that were not stories. On page 125, Lakoff states, "The construction of an event's meaning is a collaboration between the actions of the participants themselves, later interpreters, and finally, all of us, both makers of meaning and receivers of it." I found this quote interesting, and also important because it is quite possible and easy to interpret something wrong from the media. However, this wrong interpretation could also easily turn into a new interpretation if the majority of the public interprets it incorrectly. Does that makes sense? I know a lot of times, I see a commerical and I go, "what?", not understanding what they meant. I then figure out what i think it means and probably complain about that advertiser and their not so understandable commercial. This is a very trivial thing, but when it comes to a misunderstanding of our own world or society it can be a lot more unsettling, especially if it is a negative misunderstanding. Therefore, meaning is not just what the original messenger states. It is a full collaboration of the messenger and the receivers.

reaction to skittles

I just finished reading Skittle's blog entry, and I am highly impressed with his concise description of apologies. I think he nailed it when he created the three groups. Apologies can pretty much fit into one of the three categories that he so cleverly named.
I find it interesting that for one word: apology: we can have so many categories and meanings behind it. I think that is why I am enjoying this book so much, because it is exploring the manipulations of language and word choice. I find Lakeoff to make valid, interesting points that are really allowing me to step back and truly examine people and their word choice.
I work as a DR in Johnson Hall and so I interact with people everyday. This past weekend, I found it interesting to see how people used the word sorry. By using Skittles' three categories, I’ve decided that people are just too impatient to make true apologies. Band-aid apologies are quick and easy and allow people the convenience of avoiding conflicts. Numerous times, I heard "sorry" mumbled without people making eye contact or even slowing down to make sure the offended heard the apology. As Skittles pointed out, people rarely make REAL apologies.
Moving on, I also found it interesting how he pointed out the addition of words and the distinction that creates. Honors classes, premium gas, etc. does not necessarily mean the class or gas is inferior, it just provides a distinction from the norm. I think that the term "woman doctor" may not necessarily mean inferiority as it does something that was not common. The term has been around for quite some time and I believe that as more time passes, the phrase will die out altogether.
I also just finished the 3rd chapter and very briefly wanted to comment on the hill/Thomas trials. I think that in the '90s, while people were trying to pass off acceptance as the "norm," it is a shame that Hill had to experience not only sexual abuse from her boss but also verbal abuse from members within her race. To think that society would have wanted someone to keep quiet about sexual abuse so as to aid in the advancement of a colored person is down right sad. Also, the double standards that were placed on Hill were ridiculous -- although I feel that many of those double standards still exist today. I am sure we will elaborate on chapter 3 in class, so that’s enough for now. Have a great weekend everyone. And remember - spring break is less than 7 days away. woot!

re: remeber when books used to say something?

Hello chums! It's 10 minutes before class because I got out early from my last class, so pleese parhden thu bad spellin and gramur.

Since my time is limited, I'm going to rehash that which was hashed by someone else, nix_bresser, who has hashed the hasher, Lakoff. The post was "remeber when books used to say something?" What a great header. I don't think that the ideas in this book are anything knew. "All I saw happening in the text was the author correlating all of her references to the Whorf hypothesis- for over 40 pages." Right on! Though Whorf is rocks, this book is like many so many others, an ungodly expansion on things we already know. I can take 2 page paper for one class and turn it into a 15 page paper for antoher class. "This reading comes off like a research paper muddled by too many examples." Exactlrty mie poynt.

Sorry I couldn't post more but assignments for thursdays are near impossible unless they are given a week in advance.

Journal Entries: They Tend to Gather up if You Don't Do Them

The Many Meanings of Sorry

Liz brought up some interesting points about public apologies. I definitely agree with Liz: apologizing for such as slavery which happened over one hundred years ago seems like a safe publicity stunt. In fact this political apology is about the only case where apologizing doesn’t lower the person to the status of wrong doer, but elevates the person as a hero willing to admit to injustice. It seems like an apologizing for slavery would not hold Bush accountable to anything. Therefore, it would be an easy apology to make and certainly, not a painful one.

Before I go any farther, I think I should separate apologies into three categories: the band-aid apology, the save-face apology and the real apology. The band-aid apology is worth a nickel. It’s the sorry you say when you bump someone in the hall. Although, it is nice to say, it doesn’t mean that much. I probably use it like twenty million times in one day. The second one is the save-face apology. People use this apology to get someone off their back. Used as a means to look better, this apology requires no remote feelings of contrition. Finally, there is the real apology. Unlike the band-aid apology or the save-face apology, this apology requires action. It’s tough. It often brings painful feelings about wrong, but it changes one’s worldview.

I used that type of apology one time and it sure wasn’t fun. For example, one time I was in a relationship where I manipulated the other person. Although, I didn’t do that deliberately, often my opinions coerced her opinions. When a third party gently pointed that out to me and I realized how I hurt her, I felt horrible about my lack of respect. I went through the painful process of evaluating my actions and my attitudes. I went to her and apologized. The bottom line was: I hated my action and wanted to work on changing it right away. Manipulation was something that I didn’t want in my character. Since then, I was careful not to manipulate other people.

That is an example of what I call a real apology. It wasn’t easy or fun and it brought a change in character. Although I do not have the ability to judge Bush’s motives when he apologized for slavery, I can only speculate about his sincerity through his actions. Maybe if he is truly sorry for how slaves were treated and the many effects such as broken families and poverty, it might eventually come across through showing extra dignity to people.

I believe if Bush were truly sorrowful, he’d first apologize for the failing and then hate slavery. Not only would he hate slavery, maybe he’d hate anything to do with slavery. That sort of apology would affect all areas of his life such as how he treats his family, the laws he enforces and his policies for foreign nations. Maybe if he truly hated slavery, he’d also hate the sweatshops in China where people labour for long hours for dirt pay.

Although, we don’t practice slavery, the act of taking advantage of weaker people greatly influences our everyday life. When I looked up the word slave in Oxford’s dictionary, I saw several definitions. One said a slave is a person who is legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience. We clearly don’t practice that one. But then I saw this definition: A helpless victim of some domineering influence.


Entry for chapter two: the markedness of females

Lakoff introduced a new idea for me about female markedness. For example, in certain contexts man is used to describe both males and the general human population, while the word woman is segregated into its own category. An example of marking would be the doctor profession. Although the word doctor describes a person in a specifically field, usually the word doctor brings a man wearing a white overcoat to mind. As a result, we say woman or lady doctor to describe a woman in the profession. Although I never really thought about female markedess, I do think its sounds funny to say woman doctor if you really think about it. It probably sounds funny to other nations such a Sweden. I also think woman doctor is a term future grandchildren will laugh at.

Through adding “woman” or “lady” before doctor that somehow lowers the qualifications of the doctor. The markedness for the female words infers that men are somehow normal while woman are not normal or less than human.

Although Lakoff, clearly brought up an interesting point, I’m not sure if one should jump to that conclusion right away. What if having a separate category makes her distinct? In some situations having markedness makes something more prestigious. In school, you can take a class or an honor’s class only you qualify. Or if you go to a gas station, you can get regular gas or premium. In this case the extra word is a word of distinction

In response to...

I loved nix_bresser's blog "Remember When Books Used to Say Something" and have been having quite similar reactions. Like I said in my blog for chapter 2 (the one with 43 pages), I was distracted nearly the entire time reading due to the fact that it was 43 pages of nothing. Ever since reading Ramage, with his 30-35 page chapters about examples and reiterated statements, and then the last chapter almost completely about Bush's State of the Union Address, I have become extremely wary, almost afraid, to read and above all sit through, another work that is longer than that of Ramage's. Ridiculous? It took me 3 days to finish chapter 2, with extended breaks during each day to busy myself with other tasks not related at all to torturous elaborations and common-sense (or am I just comparing what I think is common-sense to what I assume everyone else thinks common-sense is? Ahh.) observations. It simply makes every inch of my body cringe when looking at the syllabus and seeing that another 37+ pages of Lakoff are due for both Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. It literally makes my stomach flop. I find pride in myself that I am able to have the perseverance to force myself to read her words. Why does this book exist? Who allowed her to publish it? Great questions nix_bresser! (I'm not sure who you are or I would call you by your first name).
Anyways, I am done responding. My stomach is aching for food, I have a headache and both pangs will only be intensified if I continue to keep responding to this Lakoff woman's book.
Good day.

I don't have title creativity either: Response to Lakoff Blog

I am responding to Beth’s blog titled “I don’t have title creativity: Lakoff Chapter 2” posted at 8:08 pm in which she discussed framing, which was a theme that I also responded to in Chapter 2.She says, “We constantly have an idea in our mind about how something is supposed to go, and when faced with a different scenario than what’s expected, we are thrown off.”

Beth gives the example of calling the doctor’s office and expecting to hear a machine, but instead hearing a human voice. This also relates back to language because we are used to indirectly communicating with people through e-mail, instant messenger, and answering machines, so sometimes communicating face to face or even voice to voice seems startling. Technology has allowed the way we communicate to be less about conversation and more about getting what you need from another person, and moving on.

Lakoff says that frames allow us to make predictions and generalizations. So isn’t this holding us back? If we are all trapped within our little frames of reality, which give us repetition and comfort, but don’t allow us to have new perceptions and experiences then how are we evolving on a day to day basis?

Beth discusses in her blog Alice’s confusion after she is switched from one frame to another, and compares this confusion to being an infant. That sort of reminded me of making the transition from high school to college, forming new relationships, and being in an environment that was completely different to the one of your home with your parents. It didn’t feel normal at first, but like Beth says, “We constantly change what is “normal” in our minds. So while once I may have felt lost without my parents’ home and company as a constant reassurance, now I can hardly imagine wanting to move back home. I think that is partly why it is so difficult to live at school and at home, because you are constantly changing your frames, and your perceptions are constantly changing.

Lakoff 2

Wow. This chapter took me three days to get through. 43 pages. I honestly think this was much worse than any of Ramage's. While reading, I became distracted by glancing up at the page number, 32 more, 25 more, then I would try to do the math on how many I had read, how many more pages this chapter had than the next, and the next; it was horrible.

One part I enjoyed was in the section of "The Feminine (and the Female)." The line, "The masculine is also the word we use to speak about the species in general: t is understood as including the feminine, not vice versa: 'The tiger (not the tigress) is endangered.'" I came to a conclusion as to why this might be. It is said that the tiger is endangered because there is a greater chance that the tiger will become endangered quicker than the tigress. The tiger is the hunter, is the one who is more aggressive, fights more. When something is more aggressive, the chances of becoming killed are much greater because it is putting itself in danger more consistently. Therefore, the male has a greater chance of becoming extinct due to the fact that it places itself in dangerous, brawling situations on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, much more than the female (tigress) does, enabling her to live longer.

Another topic Lakoff states is "Thus German has one word, Mann, for 'male,' and another, Mensch, for 'human being.' Yet no one is suggesting that German speakers are less sexist than speakers of English." I am studying French and this is another language that is extremely "sexist," yet who discredits the French for being so? Amie is the word used for a friend who is female. Ami is the word used for a friend who is male. If one is talking about friends in the plural sense, it is always amis, unless the group is completely comprised of females.

Interesting.

The "Mooching" Post

I think that the analysis of Bugs Bunny and William Shakespeare was "awe" inspiring. Who would ever think that both of this "characters" could tell us so much about life, and yet they're both so different and cater to two different audiences. While I might be going out on a limb, I don't think many people who watch Bugs Bunny, also study Shakespeare. They both tell us about life, presented in a different way but the same information. I think this shows that it's not what you say but how you say it. This section discussed language in ways many of us wouldn't think about. The fact that we all know that words and phrase and always changing with times is something that most people know, but many can't explain how or why. I like the example Greg uses of Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence lol. It was funny, but it also makes you think how someone could write as "beautiful" as:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It just reads so well, but then you think "Well didn't he own slaves, and if so how could he truly believe this and continue to act against it". It shows how language can be used by anyone, even those who don't understand, or agree. I think that the study of language is the study of human behavior, thought, and actions.