All in the Rhetoric

Last night, I watched Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention, and I was frankly captivated. What a compelling speaker she is. My next thought was that I would love to use her speech as an example for rhetorical devices and oratory in general.

The more I dig in to curriculum writing, and the more time I spend getting fired up about speeches, politics, tutoring, and even marketing, the more I wonder if I might not find my passion better met in Rhetoric and Composition. Not this year, but maybe down the road...

I'm getting back a little of my fire back, y'all. And it feels great.

Forceful Advertising

Come on, Sheetz. You had a clever thing going. There are so many (better) things you could have done with the Force. This one frustrates me a bit.

Campaign Jokes

"The pundits have asked, 'Is this all some joke?' [...] If they are calling being allowed to form a Super PAC, and collecting unlimited and untraceable amounts of money from individuals, unions, and corporations, and spend that money on political ads and for personal enrichment, and then surrender that Super PAC to one of my closest friends while I explore a run for office...If that is a joke, then they are saying our entire campaign finance system is a joke. And I don't know about you, but I have been paid to be offended by that. [...] If corporations are people, people with a constitutional right to influence our elections, then I promise you that government of those people, by those people, and for those people, shall not perish from the earth."

--Stephen Colbert (rally, South Carolina)

Blackout Notes

Now reading this:

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act): Text of H.R. 3261 as Introduced in House

and this:

PIPA (Protect IP Act): S.968 (Introduced in Senate)

I wonder, sometimes, if the only people practically capable of effecting change are those willing to replace complexity with simplicity as a means to an end. Witness yesterday's Internet blackout by prominent sites such as Wikipedia and Reddit to protest the above bills. In consequence, representatives' websites were crashing, NPR was describing alternative ways to access Wikipedia content using Google's caching system, and (I can imagine) students all over the U.S. were praying that their research papers would not be due today. The solidarity was impressive.

And yet.

Disclaimer: I've only skimmed the two bills in question, and I would need to read more closely with a better knowledge of legal terminology to fully understand what is at stake. To my untrained eyes, however, while the language of the bills is ambiguous and in places troubling, it is by no means the simple "censor the Internet" message that has produced such enormous response. That slogan is far more compelling and accessible to the general public. It prompts action. It calls up negative associations. It creates buzz.

And yet.

I have a difficult time watching political debates for the same reason. On one hand, I'm stirred by the appeal to more jobs, lower taxes, and greater freedom. I want to argue back in short witty phrases and biting remarks against the candidates with whom I disagree or whose rhetoric seems to me to be especially short-sighted. I can play that game too.

And yet.

When we set aside the competition, the "winners-and-losers" denomination, the rhetoric itself is ambiguous, vague, and has little in common with the complexity that marks individuals' day-to-day lives. That conversation, which is missing from the public political arena, doesn't fit in thirty seconds of air time. It doesn't spur immediate response. It doesn't win elections. It doesn't stop the passage of a bill.

And yet.

Winning elections is our nation's way of choosing new leaders. Speaking out against restrictive laws and censorship creates the very space that allows me to muse about these things. Sometimes immediacy has to be a priority.

And yet, at what cost?

Call it a signature move of my generation, but I don't have a confident answer. If nothing else, this gave me something to ponder while I waited for Wikipedia to return.

Open Letter to DrP

You know what, DrP*? If you're going to play this commercial every five minutes on Hulu, there are some things you should know.

I am a woman.
I enjoy action movies.
I do not drink diet soda.
I dislike most rom-coms.


You know what else?

You can keep your DrP10.

That's all.





*And by refusing to type out your name, or your product's name, I am refusing you that 1.5 additional hits you might have gained from this post. Then negating my own refusal by linking to your video. Irony. I get it.
**Maybe I have lost my sense of humor. Blame it on repeat number 10.

Letter on the UC Davis mobilization

This is pretty powerful stuff: Letter on the UC Davis mobilization

For background, read an initial news story from TIME Magazine: A Sleepy Campus in Crisis: Pepper Spray at UC Davis. Also see a recent update from NPR: UC Davis Pepper-Spraying: Police Chief Put on Leave, Chancellor to Speak.

Then watch this video.

Fighting Words

Along with Speech Wars, this new NPR project, Fighting Words, might have to become one of my new favorite procrastination tools.

According to the website, "NPR is following key politicians on Facebook, Twitter and their websites to see what terms are gaining or losing traction on the campaign trail."

Big ones this week? Jobs. "Over the past several weeks, "jobs" been mentioned about 1,500 times by those we're tracking. " Also popular in the last 7 days among...

Democrats: Afghanistan

Republicans: Obama

Candidates: change

Influencers: Pelosi

This is going to be fun!

Blind Luck

Today, I read this article on human trafficking in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, reminding me that there are a lot of things we Americans, myself included, don't like to think or talk about.

Sometimes it's easier to be blind.

Yesterday, I went grocery shopping, and as I waited to cross a line of traffic in the parking lot, I saw a near-collision between a couple heading into the store and a long line of carts a store employee was returning to the building.

The couple reacted angrily, spinning around to glare at the employee, and one yelled loud enough for all passersby to hear, "Why don't you just go back to India where you belong?"

I was not the only bystander who was taken aback. In the first place, the employee did not appear to be Indian. The accusation was full of layers: you are not like us. you do not belong here. we don't want you here. It had very little to do with the accidental collision of several carts in a crowded space.

Perhaps the speaker had recently lost a job and was looking for someone to blame. Maybe. I don't know. It wouldn't excuse their behavior, but it made me stop and think. Whatever caused that anger and aggression caused the shopper to disregard the employee as an individual with a complex story of her own.

Sometimes it's easier to be blind.

But then some unrelated incident, like a crowded parking lot or rush hour traffic or a willful child or an imperfect friendship forces the anger to the surface and causes the ugliness of our thoughts to be displayed before our own eyes.

It's easier to get upset about social injustice or the injustice others display than it is to recognize the angry thoughts I am careful to suppress or the damaging words I rehearse but tell myself I'll never use.

All of these are ugly. All are evidence of brokenness. All, I think rightly, provoke a sense of anger and indignation and a desire for change.

The problem comes when I imagine that it's possible to repair the external manifestations without dealing with the internal causes.

Sometimes it's easier to be blind.

The Court in Session (2/3)

...continued from part one...

In line at the court house, people wore everything from tattered jeans and flipflops to stylish blouses and business suits. Heavy jewelry. Some speaking Spanish. Some with family members. A few babies in strollers. Teenagers in cutoff shorts. Elderly women with powdered hair and bright pink lipstick.

Now and then, lawyers speared through the lines. They were carrying briefcases. They wore suits. They didn't wait to be told where to go or what door to open. And they were swinging their arms as they walked in big, purposeful steps or leaned in to chat with the people behind the imposing desks and glass windows.

In the midst of so many people, the process was an isolating one. Only one person at a time through this door. Those who are done are quickly ushered out past the clerk, through a different door than the one they entered. People in line read a book or stare into space. Eye contact is shifty, tentative.

Given the slightest hint of a smile, people around me would begin to talk. They wanted to know what was going to happen. They wanted to tell their story. They wanted someone to listen. They wanted someone to alleviate their guilt, or to share it. But no one wanted to be the first to ask. We--or at least I--didn't want to show that we were nervous, or confused, or a little lost.

A woman behind me got to talk to one of the officials "directing traffic" through the lines. She had been pulled for speeding while trying to get help for her 82-year-old mother, as I understood her story. She was angry, and she had been telling everyone around her that she didn't belong here; she had only done what she needed to do.

When she began talking to the officer, she said the same thing to him--angrily. He took her citation and looked at, listening patiently. She finished, "And the officer told me to bring my ticket here and they would dismiss it, but--"

She would have continued, but he interrupted her: "And I've just dismissed it," as he scribbled his initials on the pink slip with a thick green penstroke.

Her response was not what I expected, based on her past performance. Not, "It's about time," not "Why did I have to wait all this time?" but a loud "Hallelujah!" which was echoed by several people nearby who shared in her relief, even though it did nothing for them.

Shortly after that, I noticed that a man one loop of line over from me had a tattoo on his arm that read, "Grace." The woman's response to her sudden reprieve of judgment made me think about how ungrateful I can be about the grace I have received.

My instinct, as I tried to distance myself emotionally from the people around me, was to judge them: their complaining, and justifying, and grumbling. Even as I practiced my own excuses, I scorned theirs. Even as I hoped for some show of mercy from the court, I privately decided that they did not deserve to be let off.

My own ten thousand talents? Forgotten.

...to be continued...

The Court In Session (1/3)

Court Date: August 25, 2009, 8 a.m./1 p.m.

A few months ago, I got my first speeding ticket. Friends with similar citations had been able to get the fines reduced by going to court, so I decided to go. It was not a productive endeavor, but it was interesting in a people-watching kind of way.

Unless you are on jury duty or want to know about the courtroom procedures for lawyers, there is almost no helpful information on the District Court website, so I did what I normally do: I got there early.

The line stretched halfway down the block.

I asked the person at the end of the line what it was for, and she said, "to enter the courthouse." With a sinking feeling, I stepped in behind her and tried to look nonchalant about the whole ordeal.

A few younger teenagers walked by as we stood there. Turning to each other, they began to whisper and giggle, pointing at the long line outside the courthouse as they sauntered past. It felt like a stigma, as if we were carrying signs that said, "We have to be here. We can't just walk away yet."

To keep from thinking about my instinctive flush of shame, I took on the part of observer, detaching myself from the reality of what was happening, and imagining that I was writing an ethnography of the court. Here are a few of the things I noticed...

When we had just reached the doors to the building and were beginning to inch our way toward security, an official came outside and directed the second half of the line to move to another entrance.

Quickly, the grumbling sprang up in my part of the line. We had already been waiting for half an hour, and now we were the back of the line, while those behind us would now be at the front of theirs. It was not fair. I wonder if for people who are confronted with black-and-white laws (of traffic, of civic behavior), equal--fair--treatment becomes even more of a preoccupation than it usually is.

Now, a few hours later, the odd image of the morning that sticks in my mind is of belts. Lots of belts: leather, black, brown, canvas, glittery, thin, thick...

To pass through the metal detector (much like an airport), each person had to remove everything metal on their body, including their belts. Even nametag clips were banned inside. Afterward, the lobby area was filled with people threading their belts back through the loops, or draping it over their shoulders and fidding with the ends like a shawl, or coiling and uncoiling it around their hands.

Another hour later, before I finally reached the front of the line, some people were still holding their belts in hand, fiddling with the buckles or clenching their fingers on the leather. Maybe it was comforting to them. Maybe they just forgot they were still holding them.

...to be continued...

Speech Wars

My new favorite website has a rather enigmatic title: Speech Wars. It contains a plethora of information just begging to be used by rhetoricians, political scientists, and other word-crazy individuals like myself. 

Pick State of the Union, Inaugural Addresses or Election 2008 campaign speeches. Type in a word. Choose percentages or counts. Click go. All of a sudden, you can see exactly how many times presidents have used the word 'government' in their state of the union addresses since 1790. 7,036 times.

• The word 'government' was in much higher demand in the 1800s, peaked around 1945, and then again around 1985. Since then, although government is once again growing, presidents are much less likely to use the word. 
• 'Freedom' is another fun case study. Since 1942, the numbers rose considerably, went through a low point in the 70s, then swooped in the 1980s and again in the 2000s. Total: 695 usages.
• 'Genocide' on the other hand, has been mentioned only three times: 1950, 2006, and 2008.
• 'Abortion'? Five times. Not one since 1988.
• 'Consumerism'? Zero.
• 'Mistake'? 32 times.
• Teddy Roosevelt used 'wrong,' 'moral,' and 'sin' more times than any other president. 'Sin' has not been mentioned since 1911.
  

I could go on all day. Needless to say, you should check out the site. Now I want to go back to political science class. This would have helped my course link paper on political rhetoric in state of the union addresses IMMENSELY.  Hindsight. Good stuff. Check it out.

(Giving credit where it's due, I came across this site via Freakonomics). 

Hail to the Chief

At approximately 12:05 p.m. EST yesterday, America welcomed its 44th president, Barack Obama. 

In the speech that followed, Obama outlined a new agenda for America, one that requires us all to "pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America," willingly taking on "the price and the promise of citizenship."

As a relatively young citizen, it was exciting to watch history unfold and to be reminded of the great potential of America. At the same time, it is a sobering reminder that the efforts of individuals like me, God willing, power that potential. 

My hope and prayer is that the "new era of responsibility" will not only inspire us to consider with respect all the people with whom we come in contact, but will also drive us again to the knowledge that without God's grace upon us, our nation is as lost in 2009 as it has been in all preceding years.

You can read the text of President Obama's inaugural address here.

For a truly insightful commentary on the American presidency, you should check out my sister's Nov. 5, 2008 post "Hail to the Lord," on her blog.

What Americans are Reading

USA Today just released its list of the top 150 best-selling books in the last 15 years. 

I have read 36, including 11 of the top 20.

How about you?

I find it fascinating that the three most popular non-fiction topics are God, self-help, and food and weight loss. What an interesting commentary on American culture.

Presidential Jewelry Debates

After the first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, we may not know much, but we can be assured that both presidential candidates will not fail us in the realm of fashion.  Both are savvy to the most important issue of all: jewelry.*

McCain: And I'll tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, "Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet..." And I said, "I will -- I will wear his bracelet..."

Obama: Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too...

Sorry.  This is out of my usual topic range by a lot, but I couldn't resist. Somehow, everything seems funnier in a transcripted version.  

*Note: taken completely out of context for satirical purposes...

Two Million Minutes

While researching for my job, I came across a recent documentary (2007) called "2 Million Minutes" that compares high school experiences in the United States, China, and India. The results, according to a recent Business Week article by one of the American interviewees, are not encouraging.

Out of curiosity, I took the documentary website's "Third World Challenge," a series of tests that tenth graders in India must pass to progress to eleventh grade (the title is in mockery of a Harvard professor who dismissed the documentary on the grounds of the "third world" countries it compared).

I achieved a poor score in geography; average scores on math, history, chemistry, and physics; a good score in biology; and an excellent score in English grammar (whew!). I'm not sure what the test really demonstrated, other than my inability to retain the formulas and facts I once learned.

However, an earlier Business Week article reached a different conclusion: we need to "compete on our strengths, not theirs." Our strengths apparently include our "well-balanced" and "well-rounded" students. I wonder if that's a valid substitute for "well-educated"...

Reform, according to this writer, involves creating a culture in which science and technology are valued. In other words, replace "computer geek" and "science nerd" with more complimentary terms.

The question he was appropriately led to ask--but not answer--was, why are we not excited about academics, especially technology and science? Why are these career fields unpopular among teens?

I think the answer has a lot to do with the American "celebrity complex." Movie stars, American Idol winners, athletes, and even a few politicians are the glamorous in our society. These are the ones we want to emulate.

Until we tone down our obsession with Hollywood and its counterparts, it will be difficult to supplant the sorority with the academic honor society.

This still leaves a bigger question: can this be changed? If so, how?

Because after all, surely our strengths are closer to the broad-based flexibility of a liberal arts education than to the ability to stand in line for three days to appear on a reality show.


...I think I am a columnist at heart.