Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. Because it is intended to be factual, it is distinguished from propaganda. It is also distinct from instances of media bias and failures of objectivity in media outlets, which attempt to be—or which present themselves as—objective or neutral.
The above definition comes courtesy of our friends at Wikipedia -- the source that I rarely if ever let my students use. The article continues to talk about the perceived professional "ancestors" of the practice (muckrakers) and proffers a few perspectives on why "advocacy journalism," is viewed as legitimate by its purveyors. Who knew? I hadn't heard the term until today, from the CNN president's statement on Lou Dobbs leaving CNN.
Now, I am not Edward R. Murrow. I think that's rather obvious as I am not dead. I have a little journalistic background, probably enough to fill a thimble. However, the issue of journalistic integrity keeps coming up in my head as I attempt to find news reports that I can actually view as news. You know, lists of facts reported in a timely, current fashion. You're even allowed to contextualize for the purpose of in-depth stories, but they're still supposed to actually be facts, checked, cross-checked and checked again.
I started thinking about this entry when I saw The Daily Show from November 10, 2009. Yes, I know it's not a news show. It's comedy. However, it really is rather funny that Jon Stewart commented on Fox News' coverage of the health care debate rally. He noticed that the crowd scenes were strange in the fact that from one pan to another, the color of the trees and sky changed. He and his staff then amusingly pulled the footage from the September 12 rally and noted that indeed, they were pretty much identical.
So I checked online to see if anyone had commented on last night's The Daily Show, and there were quite a few comments out there. At the same time, I discovered that Lou Dobbs had resigned. Why didn't I know that? Well, frankly, I don't watch Lou Dobbs. Rants about borders and fences really never interested me. I frankly got annoyed when I glanced one day only to see him blasting government waste on a little-used checkpoint to Canada. We have broken borders -- but the only ones that count are with Mexico, it seems. Does this mean no drugs come from Canada?
So, admittedly, I'm not a huge fan of Hannity or Dobbs. So the fact that Dobbs is leaving CNN really isn't bothering me that much. However, the idea of "advocacy journalism" is really rather disconcerting. One of the reasons I wrote more features than hard news was because I liked having an opinion. I remember from "the olden days" that you didn't put ads on the editorial/opinion pages so that the paper didn't look like it was for sale. However, even in features you can't show a picture of an entirely different play. You can have opinion in Sports, but you can't use a shot from the 1993 Boston Celtics to create a dramatization of your local high school basketball team.
So when did we get to doctor the clips without at least slapping "file footage" on the damned loop? When did opinion trump facts? This is way beyond the "half-full" or "half-empty" perspectives and into a realm where fantasies and our nightmares are true. This is also no longer about "spin." Glen Beck's show carries the motto: "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment," which pretty much puts him up with John Edward and Crossing Over. However, that's at least vaguely honest and not a bad tag line.
It really is strange to think that this trend in journalism actually was viewed as substantial enough to even give it a definition. We usually call that punditry, not journalism. The words advocacy and journalism honestly shouldn't appear next to each other.
Now some of those who know me may be questioning why someone who actually does more marketing and public relations than journalism would even care. I have no problem "touching" things up in an advertisement to make things "prettier." I learned that fat people don't get college educations (at least according to the majority of admissions materials) when I worked at Clarkson University and laid out images. I've airbrushed, patched, colored, muted, lightened, darkened, cropped, replaced and reconstructed. I guess that's part of what bothers me about the Fox footage -- it's really poorly done. I used to teach students about matching light directions exactly to maintain a realistic view. Fox gets to use a different season entirely?
Again, from Wikipedia (in for a penny, in for a pound):
Public relations (PR) is the practice of managing the communication between an organization and its publics.[1] Public relations gains an organization or individual exposure to their audiences using topics of public interest and news items that do not require direct payment.[2] Because public relations places exposure in credible third-party outlets, it offers a third-party legitimacy that advertising does not have.[2] Common activities include speaking at conferences, working with the press, and employee communication. It is something that is not tangible and this is what sets it apart from Advertising.
Does anyone else see the eerie similarity when you parse the two definitions? If you're going to do advocacy, if you're going to do public relations, please leave it to the experts. Don't label it journalism and abandon the quality requirements. If you're going to try and "spin" then at least admit it -- and do it well.
So I guess the new definition is:
Advocacy Journalism a genre of poorly constructed, internally inconsistent drivel spouted by talking heads. Advocacy journalism has a perceived third-party legitimacy until you realize that's really not even a good fake. Because it is pretending to be factual and simultaneously an obvious lie, it is differentiated from public relations. Public relations has quality standards.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Medals Fatigues
For ten years, I have run across a great many military personnel in my classrooms. I even spent 7 years teaching on a Air Force Base frequently. I've generally been popular with my military students because I flatly refuse to give an opinion on the "wars" that are being fought by the United States. I leave the opinions to people who know far more about the situation from firsthand knowledge than I ever will.
So this isn't an opinion piece about the war. It is an opinion piece about the aftermath.
I'm worried. I really am. I'm worried about the people who serve their country so admirably. They give up so much so that I can sit here and voice an opinion. I try to give back to them as much as possibly can. I worked with my servicemen and servicewomen to make their educational experience as positive and supportive as possible.
I've been amply rewarded by the regard that I received in return. I've also been privileged to receive a level of trust that I feel honored to have. The people in uniform have often told me things about their experiences, not in terms of strategy or tactics, but the difficulties they faced physically, mentally and emotionally. It's not happened often, but when it has, I've treasured and kept close the confessions.
The aftermath is significant and I'm not sure our collective efforts have been enough to help our troops. Fort Hood is not an isolated incident, just a larger one than expected. Thousands of servicemen and women are fighting their own battles with memories, fears and emotional fatigue. I've been hearing through the Fort Hood analysis that in reality, unless they're actually hospitalized, psychological and psychiatric assessments are not made. One psychiatrist mentioned that the troops need to acknowledge and ask for the help before they can receive it.
Do they? Does the atmosphere in which they operate encourage such disclosure? I've encountered so many people who can't or won't talk about their experiences to anyone, instead pushing them into a compartment in their minds and hoping for the best. We know this from every action the military has taken for at least the last 60 years. That logic is probably necessary for them to function, but it's probably not in their best interest in the long term.
It's what I'm calling "medals fatigues." All the medals in the world, all the acknowledgments of bravery and excellence do not compensate for what they have probably gone through. Spouses of military personnel have quietly tried to cope with the stresses of their returning loved ones. Does a purple heart make you feel better about a missing limb, a traumatic brain injury or a psychological problem? Does it compensate a spouse for a dysfunctional return? We've heard over and over again that there's just not enough resources for the aftermath, that the troops have often had to wait, and wait and wait some more for treatment.
I think it's time that we figure out a way to support our troops after they get home, before they're deployed again and before they're out of the military. We acknowledge that there's PTSD and effects of TBI's, but we spend more time talking about the health of the NFL than the military. Last time I checked, servicewomen and men don't make nearly as much as their NFL counterparts.
So in all this discussion of healthcare reform, maybe we need to focus more on the military. We need to make sure that these brave people actually the care they need and deserve for what they've done for us. Again, a yellow ribbon just isn't enough. We need to not assume they're fine until they prove differently. We need to assume that the pressures are more than any normal person should be able to process and act accordingly.
So this isn't an opinion piece about the war. It is an opinion piece about the aftermath.
I'm worried. I really am. I'm worried about the people who serve their country so admirably. They give up so much so that I can sit here and voice an opinion. I try to give back to them as much as possibly can. I worked with my servicemen and servicewomen to make their educational experience as positive and supportive as possible.
I've been amply rewarded by the regard that I received in return. I've also been privileged to receive a level of trust that I feel honored to have. The people in uniform have often told me things about their experiences, not in terms of strategy or tactics, but the difficulties they faced physically, mentally and emotionally. It's not happened often, but when it has, I've treasured and kept close the confessions.
The aftermath is significant and I'm not sure our collective efforts have been enough to help our troops. Fort Hood is not an isolated incident, just a larger one than expected. Thousands of servicemen and women are fighting their own battles with memories, fears and emotional fatigue. I've been hearing through the Fort Hood analysis that in reality, unless they're actually hospitalized, psychological and psychiatric assessments are not made. One psychiatrist mentioned that the troops need to acknowledge and ask for the help before they can receive it.
Do they? Does the atmosphere in which they operate encourage such disclosure? I've encountered so many people who can't or won't talk about their experiences to anyone, instead pushing them into a compartment in their minds and hoping for the best. We know this from every action the military has taken for at least the last 60 years. That logic is probably necessary for them to function, but it's probably not in their best interest in the long term.
It's what I'm calling "medals fatigues." All the medals in the world, all the acknowledgments of bravery and excellence do not compensate for what they have probably gone through. Spouses of military personnel have quietly tried to cope with the stresses of their returning loved ones. Does a purple heart make you feel better about a missing limb, a traumatic brain injury or a psychological problem? Does it compensate a spouse for a dysfunctional return? We've heard over and over again that there's just not enough resources for the aftermath, that the troops have often had to wait, and wait and wait some more for treatment.
I think it's time that we figure out a way to support our troops after they get home, before they're deployed again and before they're out of the military. We acknowledge that there's PTSD and effects of TBI's, but we spend more time talking about the health of the NFL than the military. Last time I checked, servicewomen and men don't make nearly as much as their NFL counterparts.
So in all this discussion of healthcare reform, maybe we need to focus more on the military. We need to make sure that these brave people actually the care they need and deserve for what they've done for us. Again, a yellow ribbon just isn't enough. We need to not assume they're fine until they prove differently. We need to assume that the pressures are more than any normal person should be able to process and act accordingly.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Is she is, or is she ain't my baby: the confabulative rag
Confabulation is a neuropsychological disorder in which the patient suggests (and defends against reasonable evidence) an account of reality which is patently false: for example that their hospital ward is actually a hotel, or that their husband is an imposter. (Courtesy of Oliver Turnbull at http://staff.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/Members/pss40d/Confab)
Politics as usual.
Does anyone else get tired of hearing that? Today, we're getting greeted with a list of political opinions about what today's election means. It's a referendum on Obama. It's not a referendum on Obama. It's a shift in the Republic party. It's not a shift in the Republican party. The 23rd congressional district election in New York will predict everything. Now, having lived in that area for a significant portion of my past life, I assure you if cows had the vote they'd have the greatest numbers in a potential voting block. Democrats are losing ground in preparation to a huge turnover in 2010. No, these elections don't predict anything. It all depends on what talking head is at the microphone. It will, of course, all change in interpretation as soon as the polls close. Frankly, very little of it makes any real sense.
The political scheme that's been developing over my lifetime is really rather depressing. Parties and platforms and parts of government are so mixed up in a media blender that no one knows where to point the finger except at everyone else. I, probably like many folks, wish we could throw out the whole bunch and start over. That, of course, won't really work either. There are probably people actually doing what they're supposed to do. We just don't hear about them.
I think the problem actually lies less in the representatives we elect and more in the highly irrational way that we elect them. Red, blue and purple? Are we talking Easter eggs or ideologies? Why do we vote by color? Admit it, sometimes you've probably just voted "the party line" because of some vague, ephemeral belief in the ideological system that a color represents.
We need to return to basics. And when I mean basics, I'm not talking about family values or reproductive rights or religious freedom or any of those rhetorical artifices. I think we need to return to basic civics lessons that run constantly along the campaign ads, the media coverage and the punditry. What kinds of civics lessons? How about some of the following:
There are three branches of government. They have different functions and operate in a planned checks and balances system. The legislative branch passes laws, the executive branch -- I know it seems weird -- executes them and the judicial branch monitors that process. Each of the branches has fingers in all of the other branches to supposedly keep them honest. A President can promise legislation -- but can't possibly do anything but arm-twisting and vote-wrangling to actually get a law passed. See: lobby. The legislative branch can be stopped cold by a Veto, and either can be stopped by the Supreme Court. Justices are nominated by the President when one decides to step down (which makes the Supreme Court one of the most-watched hospices on the planet). The Senate then confirms this choice. There's this amazing document that talks about this stuff. Gold star if you can guess what it is.
There are levels of government. There's the federal government, state governments and local governments in all of their various forms. Therefore, a gubernatorial race has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government -- unless we pretend otherwise. The federal government and state governments have checks and balances on each other -- I believe we had a civil war over just that issue. People could like "Republican" comptrollers and "Democratic" state representatives and maybe even vote in an "Independent" for the U.S. Senate.
We are a representative democracy. This means that we -- get this -- vote for people to represent our interests in the various levels and branches of government. Once we've done that, there are only a few options available (all of which are incredibly cumbersome) to keep them from voting or acting in any way that they please until they get caught in something illegal or not re-elected the next time. So if you vote in an idiot, you're stuck being represented by an idiot until the next election. Even their own "party" can't tell them explicitly how to vote, though through earmarks and other arm-twisting exercises they can make their displeasure with the nonconformist known.
The previous civics lesson is the reality: three branches, three levels in a representative democracy framework. The funny thing is that folks in other countries know more about our political process than we do as a general population. Education about our own government probably be the best -- and most effectively fundamental change -- in the political process in the United States. It at least would tell us who to get annoyed with legitimately. We need to take personal responsibility for our representatives -- we put them there.
I can feel you bristling. "I didn't vote for them!" Well, perhaps not, but did you campaign for them inadvertently? Did you go door-to-door or by any mechanism educate the other voters around you about the process? Did you fight for coverage of the issues involved? Did you watch the debates? Did you read the platforms and separate the empty promises from the potential gains? Were you involved enough, meeting your civic responsibility enough, to have a clear dialogue collectively about our representatives or did you pull the lever and hope for the best?
Admit it. You more actively interact with your Wii than with your voting booth.
So confabulation: defending an account of reality that is patently false. The only treatment: get a grip on reality.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Lessons I learned from Reality TV
As an educated viewing public, I think we're all aware that most of "Reality" TV is indeed anything but. However, I always wonder if it's distorting our world view into thinking that people are either more or less nuts than "As Seen on TV." So I compiled this list of "lessons" for both viewers and participants in an attempt to understand the appeal.
Less start with the participants. I most cases, I'm really rather surprised that people would fall for/sign up for these shows. The dating ones are certainly the worst. You're signing up to "fall in love," which generally amounts to a round of antibiotics and if you're lucky, your own revenge-taking dating show next season. Now, I could be just grumpy because they're usually focused on heterosexuals, but the appeal of fighting 20 other people for the right to be dumped on national TV seems a bit hollow.
Even if they're okay with the outcome, there seems to be some disconnect with the idea that they're on TV and therefore pawns to editors and producers. "They're not as serious as I am," is a common complaint as is "they're here for the wrong reason." Is there any right reason to compete to be dumped by a man wearing a clock around his neck?
Personality. The ones that later say "I was edited to look that way," seem to deny any responsibility for their own actions. Now, the producers are in some cases responsible for perception, but only in the sense that they played with chronology. Let's be honest. They're not adding any dialogue or CGI effects. That's way over budget. You really did say/do that. You just didn't think it was going to be put in a different context or you forgot you were on camera. When you put yourself out there, in whatever way, you need to expect that. You look vapid, or sleazy, or bitchy, or conniving or stupid (did I forget any dwarves) because that's the behavior you put out there. I know when I open my mouth that I'm going to be held responsible. I don't need a camera to tell me that.
Wardrobe. Can you believe what these people wear? What were they thinking? It boggles the mind to see what contests/shills/participants will wear on these shows. Spandex House makes a killing on these people, except they seem to forget their undergarments. This is a lost marketing opportunity. "Appropriate undergarments for our skanks provided by . . . " But for either gender, it's more of a costume department than a wardrobe.
Body image. First we have the shows where everyone is straight out of a magazine ad for beautiful people. "That's not realistic!" So then, we get a collection of "more realistic" shows with dwarves, overweight people, older people, cougars, widowers and whatever other group seems to hit the scene. The fact they're walking stereotypes as well is beside the point.
Now you may be thinking, "Well, that's just the dating shows." Did you see the premise for the last season of Big Brother? They matched them up based on social group. America's Next Top Model now has "petite" (short) models competing with Tyra's self-absorption. What about the carefully demographic selection on the competition shows? Or whatever passes for Real World these days (I admit, I stopped watching it long ago when casting gay people was no longer novel).
Those are the participants. But what do we get out of these shows? Should we learn based on common sense or based on the system established by the premise of the show? Now, were I Foucault, I would focus on the latter as a more postmodern approach. I'm not Foucault, but I think taking these elements on their own merits is hysterical so I'm going to run with it.
Bad partners can be "fixed." Tool Academy is based on the idea that if you put a revolting excuse for a boyfriend into a 10 week lesson plan, they'll learn to be better. Now, I'm bitter. I admit it. Just about every person I've ever dated is probably a candidate for that show. Once they get their 10 merit badges, they're ready to go. The connection between winning a competition where you wade in a pool-sized petri dish filled with "food products" while wrestling with wombats and being a better person is a real stretch for me.
It's part of the game. I'm unsure about this one, honestly. Say we take the typical behavior of an Amazing Race, Big Brother or Survivor participant. They lie, cheat, steal, trip, gouge, insult, undermine, plot, starve and otherwise destroy anything on their way to "the prize." We also get treated to the gloating confessional sequences where they not only admit they're jerks, but gloat in their successes. Is anyone else finding this a little revolting? Please check your humanity on the way to the set. I can appreciate the competitiveness, but the lack of humanity tends to bother me.
Everything's fine after the reunion show. Bravo's got this one beat. They play out the reunions longer than the series. That way, each participant gets the opportunity to see how hypocritical everyone else was. "No hard feelings." Yeah right. Don't tell me you wouldn't trip them into a pool of hot lava if you could get away with it.
They're really in danger on the survival shows. I'm a Celebrity, Get me out of here! blew that one out of the water when their specially-trained-snake-ninjas intervened. Medical teams, cameras, producers, crew and and makeup artists of course provide no real guarantee of safety, right? Survivor this season has already side-lined at least two people for medical reasons. If they allow their participants to die, it's a snuff film. (A snuff film is a film usually documenting the death/murder of a participant). Snuff films are illegal, and so is their distribution. A "hold harmless" clause doesn't excuse producers from criminal behavior.
It's all entertainment, right? Which of course it is, but it doesn't mean I can poke fun at the "reality" it evokes. I admit I enjoy watching the shows because the depths of human stupidity endlessly amuse me. It's not even a recent invention, since Candid Camera has been around since 1948. I know I'm not even pointing out anything new (though probably with some additional twist). But I have to admit, it's not the first-season participants I worry about. It's the ones who come after.
Less start with the participants. I most cases, I'm really rather surprised that people would fall for/sign up for these shows. The dating ones are certainly the worst. You're signing up to "fall in love," which generally amounts to a round of antibiotics and if you're lucky, your own revenge-taking dating show next season. Now, I could be just grumpy because they're usually focused on heterosexuals, but the appeal of fighting 20 other people for the right to be dumped on national TV seems a bit hollow.
Even if they're okay with the outcome, there seems to be some disconnect with the idea that they're on TV and therefore pawns to editors and producers. "They're not as serious as I am," is a common complaint as is "they're here for the wrong reason." Is there any right reason to compete to be dumped by a man wearing a clock around his neck?
Personality. The ones that later say "I was edited to look that way," seem to deny any responsibility for their own actions. Now, the producers are in some cases responsible for perception, but only in the sense that they played with chronology. Let's be honest. They're not adding any dialogue or CGI effects. That's way over budget. You really did say/do that. You just didn't think it was going to be put in a different context or you forgot you were on camera. When you put yourself out there, in whatever way, you need to expect that. You look vapid, or sleazy, or bitchy, or conniving or stupid (did I forget any dwarves) because that's the behavior you put out there. I know when I open my mouth that I'm going to be held responsible. I don't need a camera to tell me that.
Wardrobe. Can you believe what these people wear? What were they thinking? It boggles the mind to see what contests/shills/participants will wear on these shows. Spandex House makes a killing on these people, except they seem to forget their undergarments. This is a lost marketing opportunity. "Appropriate undergarments for our skanks provided by . . . " But for either gender, it's more of a costume department than a wardrobe.
Body image. First we have the shows where everyone is straight out of a magazine ad for beautiful people. "That's not realistic!" So then, we get a collection of "more realistic" shows with dwarves, overweight people, older people, cougars, widowers and whatever other group seems to hit the scene. The fact they're walking stereotypes as well is beside the point.
Now you may be thinking, "Well, that's just the dating shows." Did you see the premise for the last season of Big Brother? They matched them up based on social group. America's Next Top Model now has "petite" (short) models competing with Tyra's self-absorption. What about the carefully demographic selection on the competition shows? Or whatever passes for Real World these days (I admit, I stopped watching it long ago when casting gay people was no longer novel).
Those are the participants. But what do we get out of these shows? Should we learn based on common sense or based on the system established by the premise of the show? Now, were I Foucault, I would focus on the latter as a more postmodern approach. I'm not Foucault, but I think taking these elements on their own merits is hysterical so I'm going to run with it.
Bad partners can be "fixed." Tool Academy is based on the idea that if you put a revolting excuse for a boyfriend into a 10 week lesson plan, they'll learn to be better. Now, I'm bitter. I admit it. Just about every person I've ever dated is probably a candidate for that show. Once they get their 10 merit badges, they're ready to go. The connection between winning a competition where you wade in a pool-sized petri dish filled with "food products" while wrestling with wombats and being a better person is a real stretch for me.
It's part of the game. I'm unsure about this one, honestly. Say we take the typical behavior of an Amazing Race, Big Brother or Survivor participant. They lie, cheat, steal, trip, gouge, insult, undermine, plot, starve and otherwise destroy anything on their way to "the prize." We also get treated to the gloating confessional sequences where they not only admit they're jerks, but gloat in their successes. Is anyone else finding this a little revolting? Please check your humanity on the way to the set. I can appreciate the competitiveness, but the lack of humanity tends to bother me.
Everything's fine after the reunion show. Bravo's got this one beat. They play out the reunions longer than the series. That way, each participant gets the opportunity to see how hypocritical everyone else was. "No hard feelings." Yeah right. Don't tell me you wouldn't trip them into a pool of hot lava if you could get away with it.
They're really in danger on the survival shows. I'm a Celebrity, Get me out of here! blew that one out of the water when their specially-trained-snake-ninjas intervened. Medical teams, cameras, producers, crew and and makeup artists of course provide no real guarantee of safety, right? Survivor this season has already side-lined at least two people for medical reasons. If they allow their participants to die, it's a snuff film. (A snuff film is a film usually documenting the death/murder of a participant). Snuff films are illegal, and so is their distribution. A "hold harmless" clause doesn't excuse producers from criminal behavior.
It's all entertainment, right? Which of course it is, but it doesn't mean I can poke fun at the "reality" it evokes. I admit I enjoy watching the shows because the depths of human stupidity endlessly amuse me. It's not even a recent invention, since Candid Camera has been around since 1948. I know I'm not even pointing out anything new (though probably with some additional twist). But I have to admit, it's not the first-season participants I worry about. It's the ones who come after.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Power of Positive Thinking?
Screw you and your positive thoughts.
Barbara Ehrenreich was someone that I had not heard about before her interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. I already like her. She is the author of Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. When being interviewed, she talked (since it's that month or something) about how when she fought cancer everyone told her to "stay positive." She hated when people said that. It was, to her, a denial that frankly, the whole thing just sucked. She promotes the idea that realism, rather than mindless optimism, is the more appropriate approach and that all this "Power of Positive Thinking" is pretty much garbage.
I had an epiphany. Right then, right there, I had one. It wasn't about heavenly lights, or some form of metamorphosis. I thought back to (you're welcome, literature professors) Voltaire's character Candide, his mentor and the idea that "Everything Happens for the Best." You know what? There's no difference between Candide and Ehrenreich. Anyone who has read Candide knows that it's satire. That's the whole point. The over-optimistic fatalism that dominates the characters' thinking is brought to the utterly absurd for our enjoyment and edificiation.
So let's start with that premise and run with it. I've gone through a lot folks and I admit that I've been guilty of a great deal of mindless optimism in a vain attempt to explain away a lot of things. I've made a list of the things that I no longer have any desire to beat through the power of positive thinking.
My childhood sucked. The idea that I'm a "better person" and "more functional" because of it frankly is absolutely no consolation. The fact that I was in therapy about age twelve pretty much sums it up and the majority of the time ever since even more so. I've been told to accept my family. I've been told to stop resenting them (even worse, by them) in some randomly dreary theme of "forgive them their trespasses." Screw it.
My family's no prize either. Dad's a philanderer. Mom's delusional. My brother seems to be some sort of strange hybrid between the two. They behave badly, live in a lifestyle that I wouldn't wish on a laboratory animal and annoy the hell out of me. I'm the black sheep but remain medical proxy so I can make decisions about their life and death. Does that sound right? No, it doesn't. The biological members of my family just generally are awful people. So screw it, it sucks.
Being single at 38 sucks. At my age, I'm surrounded by nothing but couples. Self-sufficient couples. Couples who frankly, rarely have the time and mostly don't make the effort to bother to reach out in a consistent way to their shamefully spinster-like friends. That is, of course, until they need advice or break up with their significant others. Then single people all of a sudden take on this wonderful existence. I want to go put on a set of blue wool stockings and run screaming around the widow's walk. It sucks to do everything yourself. It sucks that your closest support network is 3 cats (one away from cat lady as I tell people) and though they do manage to fill the bed without stealing covers, it's not just the same. "It's so much simpler to be single," couples say. "You'll meet that wonderful person someday." Screw you and screw him. He's at least one decade late in comparison to just about everyone I know.
Being gay sucks. All along, I've put this positive spin on it. "It allows me to have a deeper understanding of women, or gender, or culture or roles" I'd say. I happily stick my neck out as an openly gay man so that the closet cases don't rule the world. It makes me a good role model for young gay men, I would reassure myself. I'm doing my part for the community. The fact that I've lost jobs, been treated like crap, had I don't know how many people assume the worst of me without even knowing anything but that about me and even had a petition passed around about me at my undergraduate institution is not in any way compensated by positive thinking. And you know what? If you say you're gay, you're pretty much announcing your sex life. That's what will be said of you. The fact that gay can be a cultural identity as well as a series of sexual proclivities and positions is irrelevant. I find this particularly irritating because "and guest" is almost always their spouse for the people who complain the most. Don't even get me started on the marriage bit. And frankly, what has the gay community done for me lately? Are they paying my bills between jobs? Are they running to keep me company (see above)? Are they helping me feel better about myself through emotional support? Nope. Generally, they make me feel worse, the shallow, stupid, hedonistic bastards. Being gay isn't a gift or a curse. It just sucks.
Being unemployed sucks. Even more it sucks because most of the time my unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with my actual job performance. Did I get low evaluations? No. Did I often do more than was actually expected? Yes. Did I sometimes get screwed over because I did more than was expected? Yes. It's amazing to me that I can get 6 years of incredible annual evaluations and not get tenure. It sucks that one or two crazy, evil, ugly, soulless, self-righteous people can sabotage my career by literally making things up on the spot, illegally documenting my mental health and sometimes even implying sexual harassment. I won't even go to the bathroom when one of my students or colleagues is in there in fear of making them uncomfortable. Even more it sucks when people imply you're misogynistic because you're gay. Do heterosexuals assume that all women hate other women or that all men hate other men because of lack of sexual interest? No. I'm switching fields (and desperately trying to put a positive spin on it) to get away from the illusion that academia is about truth, freedom of expression and acceptance. It's not.
Being mentally ill isn't all that much fun either. It just sucks. Hooray for being sympathetic, empathetic and compassionate towards other people from my experiences. Taking medications every day, having people tell you "it's all in your head," (Yes, that's why it's called brain chemistry, you moron), or "it's because you're gay," or even the compliments about how "strong you've been to get through all of this," really just sucks. Do I get a certificate for suffering so nobly? Do I get a cookie for through force of will continuing through my life? No. I generally get screwed. Waiting and knowing that eventually, the medications are going to probably lose their efficacy and you'll hit the side-effect merry-go-round again is not a pleasant thought. Having people judge you for it sucks. Paying huge amounts of money to have people tell you you're mentally ill and just as much to maintain your health insurance so you can afford your medications and therapy sucks.
That's just the list of things I feel like explaining in detail. Body images suck. Being overweight in a culture dominated by the cult of thinness sucks. Paying school taxes and then having to re-educate the stupid bastards when they end up in your classes sucks. Going to school forever to be paid nearly nothing sucks. Moving around all the time sucks. Vet bills suck and so does prescription food that costs more than caviar. The fact that you can be unemployed yet still not eligible for food stamps because your income is too high sucks. Being an artist that's been terrorized by just about every other artist sucks. Not having a music group to play with sucks because playing music by yourself, like many other things, gets really rather boring. This list could go on endlessly, but that too, sucks.
So screw you and your positive thinking.
Barbara Ehrenreich was someone that I had not heard about before her interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. I already like her. She is the author of Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. When being interviewed, she talked (since it's that month or something) about how when she fought cancer everyone told her to "stay positive." She hated when people said that. It was, to her, a denial that frankly, the whole thing just sucked. She promotes the idea that realism, rather than mindless optimism, is the more appropriate approach and that all this "Power of Positive Thinking" is pretty much garbage.
I had an epiphany. Right then, right there, I had one. It wasn't about heavenly lights, or some form of metamorphosis. I thought back to (you're welcome, literature professors) Voltaire's character Candide, his mentor and the idea that "Everything Happens for the Best." You know what? There's no difference between Candide and Ehrenreich. Anyone who has read Candide knows that it's satire. That's the whole point. The over-optimistic fatalism that dominates the characters' thinking is brought to the utterly absurd for our enjoyment and edificiation.
So let's start with that premise and run with it. I've gone through a lot folks and I admit that I've been guilty of a great deal of mindless optimism in a vain attempt to explain away a lot of things. I've made a list of the things that I no longer have any desire to beat through the power of positive thinking.
My childhood sucked. The idea that I'm a "better person" and "more functional" because of it frankly is absolutely no consolation. The fact that I was in therapy about age twelve pretty much sums it up and the majority of the time ever since even more so. I've been told to accept my family. I've been told to stop resenting them (even worse, by them) in some randomly dreary theme of "forgive them their trespasses." Screw it.
My family's no prize either. Dad's a philanderer. Mom's delusional. My brother seems to be some sort of strange hybrid between the two. They behave badly, live in a lifestyle that I wouldn't wish on a laboratory animal and annoy the hell out of me. I'm the black sheep but remain medical proxy so I can make decisions about their life and death. Does that sound right? No, it doesn't. The biological members of my family just generally are awful people. So screw it, it sucks.
Being single at 38 sucks. At my age, I'm surrounded by nothing but couples. Self-sufficient couples. Couples who frankly, rarely have the time and mostly don't make the effort to bother to reach out in a consistent way to their shamefully spinster-like friends. That is, of course, until they need advice or break up with their significant others. Then single people all of a sudden take on this wonderful existence. I want to go put on a set of blue wool stockings and run screaming around the widow's walk. It sucks to do everything yourself. It sucks that your closest support network is 3 cats (one away from cat lady as I tell people) and though they do manage to fill the bed without stealing covers, it's not just the same. "It's so much simpler to be single," couples say. "You'll meet that wonderful person someday." Screw you and screw him. He's at least one decade late in comparison to just about everyone I know.
Being gay sucks. All along, I've put this positive spin on it. "It allows me to have a deeper understanding of women, or gender, or culture or roles" I'd say. I happily stick my neck out as an openly gay man so that the closet cases don't rule the world. It makes me a good role model for young gay men, I would reassure myself. I'm doing my part for the community. The fact that I've lost jobs, been treated like crap, had I don't know how many people assume the worst of me without even knowing anything but that about me and even had a petition passed around about me at my undergraduate institution is not in any way compensated by positive thinking. And you know what? If you say you're gay, you're pretty much announcing your sex life. That's what will be said of you. The fact that gay can be a cultural identity as well as a series of sexual proclivities and positions is irrelevant. I find this particularly irritating because "and guest" is almost always their spouse for the people who complain the most. Don't even get me started on the marriage bit. And frankly, what has the gay community done for me lately? Are they paying my bills between jobs? Are they running to keep me company (see above)? Are they helping me feel better about myself through emotional support? Nope. Generally, they make me feel worse, the shallow, stupid, hedonistic bastards. Being gay isn't a gift or a curse. It just sucks.
Being unemployed sucks. Even more it sucks because most of the time my unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with my actual job performance. Did I get low evaluations? No. Did I often do more than was actually expected? Yes. Did I sometimes get screwed over because I did more than was expected? Yes. It's amazing to me that I can get 6 years of incredible annual evaluations and not get tenure. It sucks that one or two crazy, evil, ugly, soulless, self-righteous people can sabotage my career by literally making things up on the spot, illegally documenting my mental health and sometimes even implying sexual harassment. I won't even go to the bathroom when one of my students or colleagues is in there in fear of making them uncomfortable. Even more it sucks when people imply you're misogynistic because you're gay. Do heterosexuals assume that all women hate other women or that all men hate other men because of lack of sexual interest? No. I'm switching fields (and desperately trying to put a positive spin on it) to get away from the illusion that academia is about truth, freedom of expression and acceptance. It's not.
Being mentally ill isn't all that much fun either. It just sucks. Hooray for being sympathetic, empathetic and compassionate towards other people from my experiences. Taking medications every day, having people tell you "it's all in your head," (Yes, that's why it's called brain chemistry, you moron), or "it's because you're gay," or even the compliments about how "strong you've been to get through all of this," really just sucks. Do I get a certificate for suffering so nobly? Do I get a cookie for through force of will continuing through my life? No. I generally get screwed. Waiting and knowing that eventually, the medications are going to probably lose their efficacy and you'll hit the side-effect merry-go-round again is not a pleasant thought. Having people judge you for it sucks. Paying huge amounts of money to have people tell you you're mentally ill and just as much to maintain your health insurance so you can afford your medications and therapy sucks.
That's just the list of things I feel like explaining in detail. Body images suck. Being overweight in a culture dominated by the cult of thinness sucks. Paying school taxes and then having to re-educate the stupid bastards when they end up in your classes sucks. Going to school forever to be paid nearly nothing sucks. Moving around all the time sucks. Vet bills suck and so does prescription food that costs more than caviar. The fact that you can be unemployed yet still not eligible for food stamps because your income is too high sucks. Being an artist that's been terrorized by just about every other artist sucks. Not having a music group to play with sucks because playing music by yourself, like many other things, gets really rather boring. This list could go on endlessly, but that too, sucks.
So screw you and your positive thinking.
Monday, September 28, 2009
fin de siècle
Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-Robert Frost
Has anyone else noticed how morbid we, and the media, seem to be getting? We can't just blame the media for their fascination with death, destruction and apocalypse, because we buy the products that fill the commercial breaks. Lately, I've been doing a not-so-scientific survey of all the programs that predict, fictionalize or otherwise cover the end of the world.
As for the fictional, we have already been destroyed by weather-control machinery, asteroids, comets, earthquakes, nuclear explosions (though these are rather blasé), global warming, tsunamis, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, black holes and aliens many and sundry. We can add to this space viruses, super-Ebola, biological attacks, terrorism in all its forms and of course, zombies. Never forget the zombies or the killer tomatoes.
As for documentaries, we get entire channels devoted to programs telling us exactly how the world will come to an end. Plate tectonics will destroy us all. We'll alternately boil, freeze, drown, dehydrate or asphyxiate depending on which global climate change program you are viewing. Hurricanes are getting more severe, we have more sunspots and droughts are everywhere. Super-bugs, like H1N1, which I am convinced came from my parents' uncleaned basement, will soon overcome all with floods of mucus-soaked tissues. California, like Atlantis, will sink into the sea or drift off in its own direction. That this has already happened psychologically is irrelevant.
Remember Y2K? The entire world was going to stop because programmers had forgotten to put two additional digits in the year field of databases. I decided to spend the night before the "Y2K event" in Detroit, thinking if any city was going to collapse entirely under badly-constructed computer systems, Detroit was the #1 candidate. I was rather disappointed.
Now we have 2012, some day in December I've heard. I don't mind, because really the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas has always been problematic to me. Students panic at their abysmal grades, people run around looking for the "in" gift for the season and we get yet more warnings about sliding retail sales and credit card debt. It also historically has started a chain reaction of 'cello gigs that keeps me in a tuxedo in my car eating cheeseburgers from one musical religious pageant to another. So that one probably wouldn't bother me that much either.
Even better are the speculative documentaries that attempt to document speculations. Nostradamus, Bible codes, Revelations, Leonardo, Freemasons, Fraggles and prophets using everything from crystal balls to adding machines fill yet another program slot. The Nostradamus Effect is a series entirely devoted to these various prophecies. Frankly, I've always found that it is much easier to read these things and test their veracity after the fact, when you can interpret the code however you want. According to my the dandruff on my cat, we are likely to have a cold, windy winter.
So we have global destruction on fictional, factual and speculative dimensions. But that's not where it ends. We're also incredibly fascinated by individual deaths.
They said it was a "bad summer" for generation X, as we supposedly lost most of our role models, assuming we gained them in the first place from popular culture. I tended to get mine from Gothic romance and historical fiction, but nevermind. Don't you think a hysterically dramatic and romantic death like Madame Bovary's would just be incredibly good entertainment? Damn, VH1 probably already had that idea. Then Andy Cohen from Bravo will interview all the folks with witty comments about their lack of class.
I'm not going to list these notables, not because they aren't worth mourning I suppose, but I hate to be guilty of the random beatification of a particular celebrity. Do I really need to spell out the strange prioritization that occurred with this summer's death toll? How does the media (and the public) determine how long is appropriate for hysterical, media-driven despair to last per celebrity? Is it based on the disease, the scandals, the finances, the drugs, the record sales, the number of movies or programs? Is there a formula somewhere that says we're allowed to mourn pancreatic cancer for longer than breast cancer? Is there another one that allows us to differentiate between journalists of great merit and men who die in sexual-asphyxiation accidents?
So death seems to feature high on our priorities for our viewing pleasure. Whether it's personal, global, national or universal, we will find a way to cover it with suitably-selected computer graphics. I know this sounds cynical, but every time I hear one of the prophecies or new deadly illnesses I think to myself "Yeah, right. Like you're going to get off that easy." I know things can get tough, but does subconscious yearning for the end of the world or our own lives somehow make the present more palatable?
So, will it be fire or ice? Frankly, I'm too busy living to care.
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-Robert Frost
Has anyone else noticed how morbid we, and the media, seem to be getting? We can't just blame the media for their fascination with death, destruction and apocalypse, because we buy the products that fill the commercial breaks. Lately, I've been doing a not-so-scientific survey of all the programs that predict, fictionalize or otherwise cover the end of the world.
As for the fictional, we have already been destroyed by weather-control machinery, asteroids, comets, earthquakes, nuclear explosions (though these are rather blasé), global warming, tsunamis, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, black holes and aliens many and sundry. We can add to this space viruses, super-Ebola, biological attacks, terrorism in all its forms and of course, zombies. Never forget the zombies or the killer tomatoes.
As for documentaries, we get entire channels devoted to programs telling us exactly how the world will come to an end. Plate tectonics will destroy us all. We'll alternately boil, freeze, drown, dehydrate or asphyxiate depending on which global climate change program you are viewing. Hurricanes are getting more severe, we have more sunspots and droughts are everywhere. Super-bugs, like H1N1, which I am convinced came from my parents' uncleaned basement, will soon overcome all with floods of mucus-soaked tissues. California, like Atlantis, will sink into the sea or drift off in its own direction. That this has already happened psychologically is irrelevant.
Remember Y2K? The entire world was going to stop because programmers had forgotten to put two additional digits in the year field of databases. I decided to spend the night before the "Y2K event" in Detroit, thinking if any city was going to collapse entirely under badly-constructed computer systems, Detroit was the #1 candidate. I was rather disappointed.
Now we have 2012, some day in December I've heard. I don't mind, because really the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas has always been problematic to me. Students panic at their abysmal grades, people run around looking for the "in" gift for the season and we get yet more warnings about sliding retail sales and credit card debt. It also historically has started a chain reaction of 'cello gigs that keeps me in a tuxedo in my car eating cheeseburgers from one musical religious pageant to another. So that one probably wouldn't bother me that much either.
Even better are the speculative documentaries that attempt to document speculations. Nostradamus, Bible codes, Revelations, Leonardo, Freemasons, Fraggles and prophets using everything from crystal balls to adding machines fill yet another program slot. The Nostradamus Effect is a series entirely devoted to these various prophecies. Frankly, I've always found that it is much easier to read these things and test their veracity after the fact, when you can interpret the code however you want. According to my the dandruff on my cat, we are likely to have a cold, windy winter.
So we have global destruction on fictional, factual and speculative dimensions. But that's not where it ends. We're also incredibly fascinated by individual deaths.
They said it was a "bad summer" for generation X, as we supposedly lost most of our role models, assuming we gained them in the first place from popular culture. I tended to get mine from Gothic romance and historical fiction, but nevermind. Don't you think a hysterically dramatic and romantic death like Madame Bovary's would just be incredibly good entertainment? Damn, VH1 probably already had that idea. Then Andy Cohen from Bravo will interview all the folks with witty comments about their lack of class.
I'm not going to list these notables, not because they aren't worth mourning I suppose, but I hate to be guilty of the random beatification of a particular celebrity. Do I really need to spell out the strange prioritization that occurred with this summer's death toll? How does the media (and the public) determine how long is appropriate for hysterical, media-driven despair to last per celebrity? Is it based on the disease, the scandals, the finances, the drugs, the record sales, the number of movies or programs? Is there a formula somewhere that says we're allowed to mourn pancreatic cancer for longer than breast cancer? Is there another one that allows us to differentiate between journalists of great merit and men who die in sexual-asphyxiation accidents?
So death seems to feature high on our priorities for our viewing pleasure. Whether it's personal, global, national or universal, we will find a way to cover it with suitably-selected computer graphics. I know this sounds cynical, but every time I hear one of the prophecies or new deadly illnesses I think to myself "Yeah, right. Like you're going to get off that easy." I know things can get tough, but does subconscious yearning for the end of the world or our own lives somehow make the present more palatable?
So, will it be fire or ice? Frankly, I'm too busy living to care.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
In the eye of the Beholder
Beauty is a funny thing. We're obsessed with it as a culture. Whether it's art, architecture, music or the human body, we assess and put a value on something that really is impossible to measure. Most of the time we can't even articulate what it is. Yet we still spend out time trying to measure, and even worse, compare one form of beauty to another.
I watched the last season of Celebrity Apprentice. Jesse James, of West Coast Chopper fame, received the backhanded compliment that there must be something that the cast couldn't see, because he was married to Sandra Bullock. In 2003, however, he was named one of People's 50 most beautiful people. So in six years, he went from "beautiful" to "huh?" I was rather angry. Not because I knew that he was "beautiful" in 2003, but that someone would make such a comparison. The fact that Joan Rivers went on to win the season is an irony that I hope is no longer missed by anyone.
We're also obsessed with fat. It's an odd obsession. We can't decide if we're supposed to be compassionate towards, love, loathe or fear fat. Last week was a moment of incredible cognitive dissonance. Did anyone else notice that Biggest Loser's premiere was on at exactly the same time as the finale of More to Love? I admit it. I didn't watch More to Love. I didn't watch it not because I was revolted by the size of the people involved, but instead revolted by the idea of the "True Love Match" occurring in a single season. Did you also notice that Dance Your Ass Off seems to be in a run-off (excusing the pun) with Dancing with the Stars and So You Think You Can Dance? Please don't forget Dating in the Dark, either.
We have Susan Boyle. She became an international sensation when three celebrity judges were surprised that she could sing. Why would that be a surprise? Because of the way she looked? One judge pointed out how shallow they all were. No, really?
Let's not forget America's . . . Next . . . Top . . . Model! This season, Tyra's crusade is to open up the modeling world to the poor unfortunate girls who are under 5'7". Squat, short, ugly little things that they must be. We even had a season where a "Plus Size" model won, in Cycle 10. Hooray for fat people! Oh, never mind, she's between a size 10 and a size 12 and most of the designers didn't have clothes for her. She's still not the average. I hate to beat the drum for unrealistic body images, but let's face it: models are not like normal people. They're taller, between 5'9" - 5'11". They're smaller, between sizes 0-4. Who would make a size numbered 0? Are you nuts? The "average" American woman is 5'4" and a size 14. Even a "Plus Size" model has to be a TALL 10-12. How are we combating unrealistic body images here, exactly?
Fat is beautiful. Fat is unhealthy. We're starving ourselves to death. We're eating ourselves to death. We spend too much on plastic surgery, so why not try this $300 jar of fish egg cream? I'd rather eat it, preferably with a Vodka flight and some blini. We keep going a multi-billion dollar dieting industry. We have charts to tell us how fat we are by height, weight and BMI.
So back to Biggest Loser. One contestant mentioned that she no longer wanted to be "just" a pretty face or a nice personality, codewords in the dating world for "You'd better get out the forklift and blindfold if you're going to date." I can't blame her. I'm a "great smile" with a dose of "really funny," and a heaping portion of "great personality" myself. Try marketing yourself in the gay community with those descriptors. It's hard to articulate those qualities to someone who has nothing but a penis shot on their profile. How does one open up a conversation with a penis? I've always felt uncomfortable with that idea.
So if "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," then we are some of the mostly willfully blind people ever. We have eyes, but we would rather concentrate on flaws. We have minds, but we'd rather not think. So what is beautiful? I can't articulate it clearly either, but I hope I'll know it when I see it.
Beauty is a funny thing. We're obsessed with it as a culture. Whether it's art, architecture, music or the human body, we assess and put a value on something that really is impossible to measure. Most of the time we can't even articulate what it is. Yet we still spend out time trying to measure, and even worse, compare one form of beauty to another.
I watched the last season of Celebrity Apprentice. Jesse James, of West Coast Chopper fame, received the backhanded compliment that there must be something that the cast couldn't see, because he was married to Sandra Bullock. In 2003, however, he was named one of People's 50 most beautiful people. So in six years, he went from "beautiful" to "huh?" I was rather angry. Not because I knew that he was "beautiful" in 2003, but that someone would make such a comparison. The fact that Joan Rivers went on to win the season is an irony that I hope is no longer missed by anyone.
We're also obsessed with fat. It's an odd obsession. We can't decide if we're supposed to be compassionate towards, love, loathe or fear fat. Last week was a moment of incredible cognitive dissonance. Did anyone else notice that Biggest Loser's premiere was on at exactly the same time as the finale of More to Love? I admit it. I didn't watch More to Love. I didn't watch it not because I was revolted by the size of the people involved, but instead revolted by the idea of the "True Love Match" occurring in a single season. Did you also notice that Dance Your Ass Off seems to be in a run-off (excusing the pun) with Dancing with the Stars and So You Think You Can Dance? Please don't forget Dating in the Dark, either.
We have Susan Boyle. She became an international sensation when three celebrity judges were surprised that she could sing. Why would that be a surprise? Because of the way she looked? One judge pointed out how shallow they all were. No, really?
Let's not forget America's . . . Next . . . Top . . . Model! This season, Tyra's crusade is to open up the modeling world to the poor unfortunate girls who are under 5'7". Squat, short, ugly little things that they must be. We even had a season where a "Plus Size" model won, in Cycle 10. Hooray for fat people! Oh, never mind, she's between a size 10 and a size 12 and most of the designers didn't have clothes for her. She's still not the average. I hate to beat the drum for unrealistic body images, but let's face it: models are not like normal people. They're taller, between 5'9" - 5'11". They're smaller, between sizes 0-4. Who would make a size numbered 0? Are you nuts? The "average" American woman is 5'4" and a size 14. Even a "Plus Size" model has to be a TALL 10-12. How are we combating unrealistic body images here, exactly?
Fat is beautiful. Fat is unhealthy. We're starving ourselves to death. We're eating ourselves to death. We spend too much on plastic surgery, so why not try this $300 jar of fish egg cream? I'd rather eat it, preferably with a Vodka flight and some blini. We keep going a multi-billion dollar dieting industry. We have charts to tell us how fat we are by height, weight and BMI.
So back to Biggest Loser. One contestant mentioned that she no longer wanted to be "just" a pretty face or a nice personality, codewords in the dating world for "You'd better get out the forklift and blindfold if you're going to date." I can't blame her. I'm a "great smile" with a dose of "really funny," and a heaping portion of "great personality" myself. Try marketing yourself in the gay community with those descriptors. It's hard to articulate those qualities to someone who has nothing but a penis shot on their profile. How does one open up a conversation with a penis? I've always felt uncomfortable with that idea.
So if "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," then we are some of the mostly willfully blind people ever. We have eyes, but we would rather concentrate on flaws. We have minds, but we'd rather not think. So what is beautiful? I can't articulate it clearly either, but I hope I'll know it when I see it.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Elephant in the Room
You know you're not supposed to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Jimmy Carter called the elephant out and introduced it to us as "Racism." But there are a lot of elephants in the room that go unmentioned. I'd like to introduce you to the mother of all the elephants in the room, prejudice.
prej·u·dice 1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristic (Mirriam-Webster Online)
Was Joe Wilson being racist? I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. Racism is indeed ugly. But it's just one baby elephant. It certainly has deserved attention, but again, it's just one member of the herd. We've watched two specials on "Black in America," had it implied that Obama called Kanye West "a jackass" as a political artifice. Of course, the fact that Obama is only voicing an opinion that most of the United States probably shares at this time becomes irrelevant. I have to admit I laughed at it all. I particularly found amusing the fact that Kanye is even allowed within 3 miles of a microphone during an awards show. But racism is really only part of the picture, isn't it?
Looking at the definition furnished by our friends at Mirriam-Webster, prejudice is "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." Simply, it's the ability to believe the worst of something or someone before anything has actually happened. Democrats represent one form of prejudice. Republicans represent another. We have the "birther" movement that somehow cannot accept the fact that Obama was actually born an American citizen on American soil. We see on television people, that for whatever reason, think that Muslims are taking over the country. So much for a country founded on religious freedom. Gays have some hidden agenda, though if you know many gay men the idea of a hidden agenda in the face of a penchant for gossip is rather ludicrous. The Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission are working together with the Papacy. We need to fix "Our Broken Borders," a codeword that always seems to be associated with some form of xenophobia. White people don't care about black people (Sorry, Kanye). We see that the road goes in two directions. Everyone wants to believe the worst of everyone else.
"The great melting pot," an illusion of homogeneity that has been pushed in our culture as trend like molecular gastronomy, has utterly failed to encapsulate the reality that is American culture. It would imply that we were (and are) on the same page. We're not. With homophobia comes heterophobia. Guess what? We don't trust you either. With religion, we get schisms, crusades and jihads. With politics we get blind adherence to a party without sufficient knowledge and trophies made out of the head of whichever party member has managed to embarrass themselves that week. We're not the same, don't think the same and don't act the same.
But the issue, I think, boils down to the simple phrase "before sufficient knowledge." When I still taught college classes, I'd often be asked what I thought about the "War" in Iraq. I would see my military students cringe and brace themselves for what they thought would be a liberal diatribe about the evils of war. My answer was always the same, "I don't know, I haven't been there, I don't necessarily believe what I've been told and I don't have first-hand knowledge, so I can't give you an opinion." One student gave me his deployment coin one term. He gave me that coin, which I will always treasure and keep safe, because he said I refused to voice an opinion before I had sufficient knowledge. I refused, at least in that instance, to give in to prejudice.
I'm not some paragon of tolerance; I have my own predilections (Mirriam-Webster lists predilection as a synonym for prejudice.) I've been part of diversity groups, interest groups, diversity training and every conceivable grouping of people grasping for some shared form of rationality. I must admit, I'm prejudiced against the prejudiced. I keep adding people to that group as my general cynicism grows. I've added a lot of educators to that list. I've added relatives, friends and former friends, colleagues, supervisors, media outlets, journalists, pundits and just about every other type of person. I want to believe the best of everyone. I really do. I desperately fight not to generalize out or categorize from many of the unpleasant experiences I've had. It's getting harder.
But, I'm still going to fight that fight. I'm not going to accuse Joe Wilson of racism. I have to admit, I'll accuse Kanye West of utter and complete tactlessness. I'm not going to accuse Jimmy Carter of oversimplifying the situation. I won't even smack the people who think Muslims are taking over the country. But the one battle I will continue to fight, every day, is the idea of formulating an opinion "before sufficient knowledge." That's all I can do.
So the question is: what do you think you can do?
You know you're not supposed to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Jimmy Carter called the elephant out and introduced it to us as "Racism." But there are a lot of elephants in the room that go unmentioned. I'd like to introduce you to the mother of all the elephants in the room, prejudice.
prej·u·dice 1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristic (Mirriam-Webster Online)
Was Joe Wilson being racist? I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. Racism is indeed ugly. But it's just one baby elephant. It certainly has deserved attention, but again, it's just one member of the herd. We've watched two specials on "Black in America," had it implied that Obama called Kanye West "a jackass" as a political artifice. Of course, the fact that Obama is only voicing an opinion that most of the United States probably shares at this time becomes irrelevant. I have to admit I laughed at it all. I particularly found amusing the fact that Kanye is even allowed within 3 miles of a microphone during an awards show. But racism is really only part of the picture, isn't it?
Looking at the definition furnished by our friends at Mirriam-Webster, prejudice is "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." Simply, it's the ability to believe the worst of something or someone before anything has actually happened. Democrats represent one form of prejudice. Republicans represent another. We have the "birther" movement that somehow cannot accept the fact that Obama was actually born an American citizen on American soil. We see on television people, that for whatever reason, think that Muslims are taking over the country. So much for a country founded on religious freedom. Gays have some hidden agenda, though if you know many gay men the idea of a hidden agenda in the face of a penchant for gossip is rather ludicrous. The Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission are working together with the Papacy. We need to fix "Our Broken Borders," a codeword that always seems to be associated with some form of xenophobia. White people don't care about black people (Sorry, Kanye). We see that the road goes in two directions. Everyone wants to believe the worst of everyone else.
"The great melting pot," an illusion of homogeneity that has been pushed in our culture as trend like molecular gastronomy, has utterly failed to encapsulate the reality that is American culture. It would imply that we were (and are) on the same page. We're not. With homophobia comes heterophobia. Guess what? We don't trust you either. With religion, we get schisms, crusades and jihads. With politics we get blind adherence to a party without sufficient knowledge and trophies made out of the head of whichever party member has managed to embarrass themselves that week. We're not the same, don't think the same and don't act the same.
But the issue, I think, boils down to the simple phrase "before sufficient knowledge." When I still taught college classes, I'd often be asked what I thought about the "War" in Iraq. I would see my military students cringe and brace themselves for what they thought would be a liberal diatribe about the evils of war. My answer was always the same, "I don't know, I haven't been there, I don't necessarily believe what I've been told and I don't have first-hand knowledge, so I can't give you an opinion." One student gave me his deployment coin one term. He gave me that coin, which I will always treasure and keep safe, because he said I refused to voice an opinion before I had sufficient knowledge. I refused, at least in that instance, to give in to prejudice.
I'm not some paragon of tolerance; I have my own predilections (Mirriam-Webster lists predilection as a synonym for prejudice.) I've been part of diversity groups, interest groups, diversity training and every conceivable grouping of people grasping for some shared form of rationality. I must admit, I'm prejudiced against the prejudiced. I keep adding people to that group as my general cynicism grows. I've added a lot of educators to that list. I've added relatives, friends and former friends, colleagues, supervisors, media outlets, journalists, pundits and just about every other type of person. I want to believe the best of everyone. I really do. I desperately fight not to generalize out or categorize from many of the unpleasant experiences I've had. It's getting harder.
But, I'm still going to fight that fight. I'm not going to accuse Joe Wilson of racism. I have to admit, I'll accuse Kanye West of utter and complete tactlessness. I'm not going to accuse Jimmy Carter of oversimplifying the situation. I won't even smack the people who think Muslims are taking over the country. But the one battle I will continue to fight, every day, is the idea of formulating an opinion "before sufficient knowledge." That's all I can do.
So the question is: what do you think you can do?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Expression is a Costly Venture
I went to Emerson College. The motto of the college when I attended was "Expression is Necessary to Evolution." This is a laudable concept. But how much does expressing oneself cost? It depends on who you are. I sit here at my computer, unemployed, and "express" my opinions for free. It that sense, I am very cost effective.
We all know now about the poor representative from South Carolina, Joe Wilson who heckled President Obama during his address during a prime-time joint session of Congress. Desperate to fill a twenty-four news cycle, the media immediately latched on the lapse of decorum and then proceeded to connect it to every other instance of rudeness documented during the "summer break," of town hall meetings and mob psychology. Opponents of whatever possible health care reform bill you can think of have immediately distanced themselves from the hapless Wilson, who has reportedly just increased his election war chest by one million dollars. Of course, so has his Democratic opponent. At the same time, proponents have decided to open up a debate on Wilson's rudeness in the House. By now, you're thinking "Oh great, another blog entry about rude people." Nope. Let's talk finances.
Finances? What do finances have to do with Joe Wilson heckling the President? More than you might think. The debate about Wilson's behavior is decried as a waste of time and a distraction. They're right. It's also a waste of money. I did a few calculations trying to figure out how much money it takes Congress to pass non-binding and random resolutions that really don't get anything done but fill space on C-SPAN. These are just rough numbers folks. Finding actual accurate data has been difficult at best.
The "average" representative makes an annual salary of $174,000. In addition to this, a representative is granted at least $1,299,292 for expenses annually. These are just the base numbers. I'm not including the cost of the Capitol, infrastructure or maintenance. This means that per representative we spend $1,473,292 at a minimum annually. Annually, Congress meets approximately 160 days a year. If we estimate a work day of 8 hours, then our representatives cost a minimum of $1151 each per hour (approximately $19/minute) based on dividing the annual cost by the number of session hours. But Congress works more than just in session, right? That's not fair! Well, it was before. In 1789, representatives were paid $6.00 per day that Congress was in session. Between 1815-1817 Congress was on a $1500 annual salary before returning to a per diem of $8.00 per session day until 1855 where the annual salary was reenacted. This is just for one representative. We have 435 "voting" members in the House of Representatives alone.
According to general House rules, co-sponsors of a resolution get 40 minutes of discussion time to allocate, 20 minutes per sponsor. This, again, is a minimum. This means that per resolution we spend an average of $767 on each representative. You multiply this number and you realize that each resolution costs a minimum of $333,792 in representative expenses alone. Again, to be fair, I'm being conservative. I'm not counting the amount of paper, ink, reproduction costs for each of these resolutions.
So discussing Joe Wilson costs the American public $333,792 at a minimum. Since it's obviously beyond the 40 minute mark, it's costing us much more. So this "distraction" is costing us $8,265 every minute that it continues. So yes, it really is a waste. However, neither party has a monopoly on useless, time and money-wasting resolutions. We have designated "Buckle Up America Week," and successfully established that "Yankee Doodle" is from Fort Crailo in Rensselaer, New York. These are examples from the 103rd Congress. Guess which one was sponsored by which party. Does it really matter?
The mind boggles when you begin to multiply these costs by the number of resolutions "expressing," "congratulating," "recognizing," or creating "Awareness." When I searched "expressing" in the same Congress, I got over 202 resolutions. Again, just with the minimum numbers, the 103rd Congress spent at least $67,425,984 dollars "expressing" itself. And they're worried about a budget deficit, paying for health care reform or complaining about "taxing and spending" behavior? I wonder if anyone in the GAO is listening.
I think I'd like to present a bid to aid Congress. To save time, and money, I am willing to sacrifice myself for the mere price of $50,000 per useless resolution, a cost savings of $283,792 per expression. I won't even ask for an office or a staff. You want September 21, 2009 designated as "Official Penguin Dancing Day?" Done. Ka-ching!
Or even better, maybe we all want to express that Congress is wasting a lot of money doing remarkably stupid things. The cost: priceless.
We all know now about the poor representative from South Carolina, Joe Wilson who heckled President Obama during his address during a prime-time joint session of Congress. Desperate to fill a twenty-four news cycle, the media immediately latched on the lapse of decorum and then proceeded to connect it to every other instance of rudeness documented during the "summer break," of town hall meetings and mob psychology. Opponents of whatever possible health care reform bill you can think of have immediately distanced themselves from the hapless Wilson, who has reportedly just increased his election war chest by one million dollars. Of course, so has his Democratic opponent. At the same time, proponents have decided to open up a debate on Wilson's rudeness in the House. By now, you're thinking "Oh great, another blog entry about rude people." Nope. Let's talk finances.
Finances? What do finances have to do with Joe Wilson heckling the President? More than you might think. The debate about Wilson's behavior is decried as a waste of time and a distraction. They're right. It's also a waste of money. I did a few calculations trying to figure out how much money it takes Congress to pass non-binding and random resolutions that really don't get anything done but fill space on C-SPAN. These are just rough numbers folks. Finding actual accurate data has been difficult at best.
The "average" representative makes an annual salary of $174,000. In addition to this, a representative is granted at least $1,299,292 for expenses annually. These are just the base numbers. I'm not including the cost of the Capitol, infrastructure or maintenance. This means that per representative we spend $1,473,292 at a minimum annually. Annually, Congress meets approximately 160 days a year. If we estimate a work day of 8 hours, then our representatives cost a minimum of $1151 each per hour (approximately $19/minute) based on dividing the annual cost by the number of session hours. But Congress works more than just in session, right? That's not fair! Well, it was before. In 1789, representatives were paid $6.00 per day that Congress was in session. Between 1815-1817 Congress was on a $1500 annual salary before returning to a per diem of $8.00 per session day until 1855 where the annual salary was reenacted. This is just for one representative. We have 435 "voting" members in the House of Representatives alone.
According to general House rules, co-sponsors of a resolution get 40 minutes of discussion time to allocate, 20 minutes per sponsor. This, again, is a minimum. This means that per resolution we spend an average of $767 on each representative. You multiply this number and you realize that each resolution costs a minimum of $333,792 in representative expenses alone. Again, to be fair, I'm being conservative. I'm not counting the amount of paper, ink, reproduction costs for each of these resolutions.
So discussing Joe Wilson costs the American public $333,792 at a minimum. Since it's obviously beyond the 40 minute mark, it's costing us much more. So this "distraction" is costing us $8,265 every minute that it continues. So yes, it really is a waste. However, neither party has a monopoly on useless, time and money-wasting resolutions. We have designated "Buckle Up America Week," and successfully established that "Yankee Doodle" is from Fort Crailo in Rensselaer, New York. These are examples from the 103rd Congress. Guess which one was sponsored by which party. Does it really matter?
The mind boggles when you begin to multiply these costs by the number of resolutions "expressing," "congratulating," "recognizing," or creating "Awareness." When I searched "expressing" in the same Congress, I got over 202 resolutions. Again, just with the minimum numbers, the 103rd Congress spent at least $67,425,984 dollars "expressing" itself. And they're worried about a budget deficit, paying for health care reform or complaining about "taxing and spending" behavior? I wonder if anyone in the GAO is listening.
I think I'd like to present a bid to aid Congress. To save time, and money, I am willing to sacrifice myself for the mere price of $50,000 per useless resolution, a cost savings of $283,792 per expression. I won't even ask for an office or a staff. You want September 21, 2009 designated as "Official Penguin Dancing Day?" Done. Ka-ching!
Or even better, maybe we all want to express that Congress is wasting a lot of money doing remarkably stupid things. The cost: priceless.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Celebrating the Disasters of Our Lives
I love the news. It allows me to track the anniversary of every horrific event ever to strike the world over the lifespan of an average generation X-er.
So what are we celebrating now?
We're celebrating the anniversary of the collapse of the financial system, September 14. We just finished celebrating September 11, and I'm sure we'll find another disaster to celebrate within the next week or so. It reminds me of when we used to make up holidays as an excuse to go to the bar, eat chocolate or order pizza. "It's National River Birch Day!"
Maybe like me, you're watching the discussion of President Obama's speech. You're hearing about the fact that "Wall Street," that mysterious financial entity that lives in a world only vaguely parallel to ours, hasn't learned "its" lesson yet. Maybe you saw the blip on adding more regulations, or loosening up credit restrictions so that businesses and people can start spending money again. Maybe, like me, you see the demagogues, the pundits, the talking heads point their fingers and shake their heads like a gag from The Colbert Report. Republicans did it. Democrats did it. The communists in China are responsible. It's a plot for reparations. It's a plot to socialize us. But it all comes down to a group of people saying that we need to spend more money.
Why do we need to spend more money? There seems to be the most odd tension between realizing that being frugal has its own reward and a desire to consume what we can't really afford. Isn't that what credit is? Being able to buy what you can't afford to pay for all at once?
People are learning to cook again. Walmart tells us that we can eat breakfast at home and save money. No, really? Restaurants that serve over-priced pub food are now pushing value meals like McDonald's. The idea of "game night" has becoming a selling point for shops. People are actually (I mean, really!) looking in fliers, newspapers, coupon books and advertisements and going to (shock!) different stores for different items. Smaller grocery chains are learning what they can't make up in economy of scale in selling Pepsi, they can actually compensate through service and local produce that doesn't rot before you get it out of the Big Box Store. We start looking at ways to stretch what we have rather than just toss it out and start over.
I'm "funemployed." I don't know who coined that term. I saw it online. I can't pretend that I'm suffering. I'm not. I was (and am) lucky that for now, at least, I have the money I need to pay my health insurance, buy food, keep a roof over my head, pay utilities and my auto insurance. It may be that things get grim for me before they get better. I lost my credit score years ago in my own conspicuous consumption cycle. I don't have credit cards. I don't have a mortgage. My car, thankfully, is paid off and though a death trap, it's a fuel-efficient death trap. So I put my in applications, cross my fingers and figure out new ways to stretch the time that I now have available so I don't talk to my cats that often. I promised myself not to worry until they started talking back.
So it's back to fundamentals for me. Ordering pizza is a luxury. Comparison shopping not only fills the time but gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I am getting the best value I can. I test generics for flavor. I hit the sales at the various pet stores so my cats aren't being fed Ramen noodles and using an empty litter box. I eat my vegetables. I have more fun chatting with the people at the laundromat than the drunken queens at the bar. Buying a book is cheaper than buying a video game. I've figured out 1,700 recipes to use eggs that are on sale for 88 cents a dozen. I've figured out ways to make leftovers into a new gourmet dish by baking it with something else. I buy the manager's specials. I haven't bought any new clothes since January, but who needs to when everything is now a trend from the 80s? Do I really need harem pants?
The best comment I heard today in the analysis is that companies are going to have to adjust to the fact that people aren't as likely to finance their lives with 200 not-so-easy payments. It's viewed as a problem. Is it really a problem? Does sweating the payments on a room-sized flat screen TV equal the sense of security that you have from knowing you have a buffer for when things go wrong? We stopped leasing and trading cars, a practice I actually never quite understood in the first place (feel free to explain it to me). Does actually owning something not feel better than renting it?
They say frugal is the new black. It's an odd metaphor to compare a perspective on finances to a fashion trend. If the "new black" gets us to stop wasting, start living within our means, sacrificing the convenience of one-stop shopping to the joy of small businesses and relearning "a penny saved is a penny earned," how is this a problem? Okay, for some industries this is going to hurt. But maybe the "new black" will allow us to stay in the black for the long term and luxuries will become special rather than commodities.
So what are we celebrating now?
We're celebrating the anniversary of the collapse of the financial system, September 14. We just finished celebrating September 11, and I'm sure we'll find another disaster to celebrate within the next week or so. It reminds me of when we used to make up holidays as an excuse to go to the bar, eat chocolate or order pizza. "It's National River Birch Day!"
Maybe like me, you're watching the discussion of President Obama's speech. You're hearing about the fact that "Wall Street," that mysterious financial entity that lives in a world only vaguely parallel to ours, hasn't learned "its" lesson yet. Maybe you saw the blip on adding more regulations, or loosening up credit restrictions so that businesses and people can start spending money again. Maybe, like me, you see the demagogues, the pundits, the talking heads point their fingers and shake their heads like a gag from The Colbert Report. Republicans did it. Democrats did it. The communists in China are responsible. It's a plot for reparations. It's a plot to socialize us. But it all comes down to a group of people saying that we need to spend more money.
Why do we need to spend more money? There seems to be the most odd tension between realizing that being frugal has its own reward and a desire to consume what we can't really afford. Isn't that what credit is? Being able to buy what you can't afford to pay for all at once?
People are learning to cook again. Walmart tells us that we can eat breakfast at home and save money. No, really? Restaurants that serve over-priced pub food are now pushing value meals like McDonald's. The idea of "game night" has becoming a selling point for shops. People are actually (I mean, really!) looking in fliers, newspapers, coupon books and advertisements and going to (shock!) different stores for different items. Smaller grocery chains are learning what they can't make up in economy of scale in selling Pepsi, they can actually compensate through service and local produce that doesn't rot before you get it out of the Big Box Store. We start looking at ways to stretch what we have rather than just toss it out and start over.
I'm "funemployed." I don't know who coined that term. I saw it online. I can't pretend that I'm suffering. I'm not. I was (and am) lucky that for now, at least, I have the money I need to pay my health insurance, buy food, keep a roof over my head, pay utilities and my auto insurance. It may be that things get grim for me before they get better. I lost my credit score years ago in my own conspicuous consumption cycle. I don't have credit cards. I don't have a mortgage. My car, thankfully, is paid off and though a death trap, it's a fuel-efficient death trap. So I put my in applications, cross my fingers and figure out new ways to stretch the time that I now have available so I don't talk to my cats that often. I promised myself not to worry until they started talking back.
So it's back to fundamentals for me. Ordering pizza is a luxury. Comparison shopping not only fills the time but gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I am getting the best value I can. I test generics for flavor. I hit the sales at the various pet stores so my cats aren't being fed Ramen noodles and using an empty litter box. I eat my vegetables. I have more fun chatting with the people at the laundromat than the drunken queens at the bar. Buying a book is cheaper than buying a video game. I've figured out 1,700 recipes to use eggs that are on sale for 88 cents a dozen. I've figured out ways to make leftovers into a new gourmet dish by baking it with something else. I buy the manager's specials. I haven't bought any new clothes since January, but who needs to when everything is now a trend from the 80s? Do I really need harem pants?
The best comment I heard today in the analysis is that companies are going to have to adjust to the fact that people aren't as likely to finance their lives with 200 not-so-easy payments. It's viewed as a problem. Is it really a problem? Does sweating the payments on a room-sized flat screen TV equal the sense of security that you have from knowing you have a buffer for when things go wrong? We stopped leasing and trading cars, a practice I actually never quite understood in the first place (feel free to explain it to me). Does actually owning something not feel better than renting it?
They say frugal is the new black. It's an odd metaphor to compare a perspective on finances to a fashion trend. If the "new black" gets us to stop wasting, start living within our means, sacrificing the convenience of one-stop shopping to the joy of small businesses and relearning "a penny saved is a penny earned," how is this a problem? Okay, for some industries this is going to hurt. But maybe the "new black" will allow us to stay in the black for the long term and luxuries will become special rather than commodities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
