Yep, it’s definitely election time of year. Kant gets mud slang all over his metaphysics in this political parody:
Kant: Wrong for America
Reply
Category Archives: Law & Politics
Painting the White House Pink
In a rare move, I’m going to keep quiet and let this one speak for itself.
Ad from John McCain:
Response from Paris Hilton:
This exchange has Harlot written all over it.
ABBA, McCain, and Rhetorica all walk up to a jukebox . . .
Your post on musical choice as rhetorical choice has me thinking, Kaitlin. I’m thinking about all the times I’m sitting in a car with a varied group of friends and I go to pick from the iPod: I consider everyone’s choice, some more than others (because they might be more discerning, more difficult to please, etc.), their backgrounds, what I know they like, what I think they might like and so on.
Hmm.
Yep. That there is a classic rhetorical situation. Conscious choice of communication based on the variables of a situation, all for a desired end.
Now mull on this: Obama and McCain were asked by Blender Magazine to pick their favorite Top Ten songs. I can’t wait to hear people’s musings on this doozey of a list . . .
John Mccain’s Top Ten
1. Dancing Queen ABBA
2. Blue Bayou Roy Orbison
3. Take a Chance On Me ABBA
4. If We Make It Through December Merle Haggard
5. As Time Goes By Dooley Wilson
6. Good Vibrations The Beach Boys
7. What A Wonderful World Louis Armstrong
8. I’ve Got You Under My Skin Frank Sinatra
9. Sweet Caroline Neil Diamond
10. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes The Platter
Barack Obama’s Top Ten
1. Ready or Not Fugees
2. What’s Going On Marvin Gaye
3. I’m On Fire Bruce Spingsteen
4. Gimme Shelter Rolling Stones
5. Sinnerman Nina Simone
6. Touch the Sky Kanye West
7. You’d Be So Easy to Love Frank Sinatra
8. Think Aretha Franklin
9. City of Blinding Lights U2
10. Yes We Can will.i.am
cards on the table
I am so tried of hearing the phrase “playing the race card.” First of all, exactly what game (not to mention teams, rules, and trophies) are we talking about? As far as I can tell, the “race card” is generally treated like an underhanded and potentially unethical strategy (not simply an acknowledgement of identity politics) that someone who is “raced” (Obama) can turn to in a pinch — but not what someone who is white, which apparently translates to “non-raced” (McCain), can ever be accused of.
The problem with that, of course, is that it perpetuates the invisibility of whiteness, the privelege and power that come not just with being “dominant” or in the “majority” but with the refusal to acknowledge the artifical nature of this position. Because if white people are not raced (what does that make them?), then race is not really their concern — it can remain always the concern of the other, a special interest issue rather than a complex web of historical, social, and cultural constructions that impacts all of us.
This simplisitic version of reality is what Steven Colbert satirizes with his insistence that he is “color blind” — as if white men/white media can “solve” the racial tensions in the U.S. and beyond by simply refusing to see them. Willful blindness at the expense of critical consciousness is the name of that game.
And this is exactly what McCain’s team is banking on — that American audiences are too blind to see the white power he exploits and exemplifies. Now, I’m not calling McCain a white supremacist. But I am pointing out that his own race card has already been and will continue to be played — by cynical, opportunistic campaign managers, racist voters, fearful Christians, and everyday, well-meaning citizens who unconsciously support what they are familiar with… and/or who rely (blindly) on counterproductive binaries perpetuated by the bear-baiting circus we call “the news.”
Thoughts?
thought of the day
“[D]emocracy can be sustained only by the active participation of the members of a community in the process of judging every statement that addresses their common concerns and making those judgments public in response.”
-Gregory Clark, from Dialogue, Dialectic, and Conversation: A Social Perspective on the Function of Writing
In other words, enter the conversation…. perhaps in a forum like Harlot?
In Self Preservation
On Monday, former Bosnian Serb political leader, Radovan Karadzic, one of the world’s most wanted men, was found and arrested for war crimes. Although the 63-year-old man is fighting extradition to the Hague (Netherlands), he will likely be sent away by early next week and face charges from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). He was captured after 13 years on the run.
. . . except he wasn’t really running. He hid in plain view.
Three parts to this story (so far, anyway) fascinate me: (1) the way Karadzic disguised himself, (2) what he has chosen as his post-arrest identity, and (3) what impact his decision to represent himself will have on his defense at the UN tribunal.
1. Many news reports are offering the same story. Karadzic practiced alternative medicine, published articles, and made professional appearances. He had a mistress, a photo of a fake family, and frequented a bar that proudly displayed photos of him and another war crimes fugitive. That he lived so freely was probably his best disguise. That he turned into a loveable “grandpa” and alternative medicine guru is second. It’s close, but it doesn’t beat the idea of a man of his former stature riding the bus.
2. Apparently, Karadzic has cleaned himself up a bit since his arrest. Says his lawyer, “He’s looking good. He had a haircut. He shaved himself and is in great shape. He now looks just like before.” But is it great that he looks just like before? Granted, some Serbian nationalists continue to revere him, but many others see him as a calculated slaughterer. Is it really in his favor to shed the “grandpa” look and re-identify himself with the image many associate with evil? This move is surprising considering the savvy he showed in his everyday maneuvering. Just because he’s no longer in hiding doesn’t mean a new appearance is of no further benefit. Is his ego winning here or does he have another agenda?
3. Last, in a nod to his predecessor at the Hague, former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Karadzic has chosen to defend himself with the aid of a team of lawyers. According to several news reports, this approach was what allowed Milosevic to prolong his trial (perhaps the OJ Simpson approach of exhausting decision makers into submission is a now popular plan of attack), but, again, what does Karadzic gain by aligning himself with such an image? The moves he is making seem to be more like one of a martyr – in this case of someone sacrificing himself only to thumb his nose at Western political forces and give hope to waning Serbian nationalists – rather than the actions of a person who seriously expects to fight for the sake of winning his freedom. Am I reading too much into his actions? Perhaps. But I can’t help but think that the downturns in his rhetorical judgment mean a downturn in his treatment of the UN legal system as well.
(On a side note, I’ve noticed how news writers are tiptoeing around certain issues. Half of the articles I read referred to “ethnic cleansing” only in quotation marks and often preceded it with “so-called.” It is still a contested term, and arguments against it include that it is vague and can imply either too much or too little. “Genocide” is an unpopular term because its usage, so the argument goes, would make post-World War II ethnic slaughters comparable to the Jewish Holocaust. “Crimes against humanity” is a moral claim that says a lot, but yet it doesn’t capture the motives or intentions in the same way as the other two terms do.)
“Where is Barack Obama coming from?”
Kelly, it looks like you’re not the only one feeling uncomfortable with the New Yorker cover. Here’s an article discussing the controversy, and here is a link to the New Yorker feature article online, entitled “The Conciliator: Where is Barack Obama Coming From?”
For an idea of some of the possibilities presented of where Obama might be “coming from,” I have pasted the image below. (Are they fist-pumping?) A little further down, I have pasted another image featured by the New Yorker online. Two very different portraits!
packaging obama
Personally, I’ve always been a fan of the New Yorker cover. One of the greatest visual forms of satire of American culture, I find it funny and smart, always saying a mouthful.
But the latest cover of the New Yorker is, for many, hard to swallow. Its depiction of Barak and Michelle Obama, New Yorker defenders say, is meant to satirize how the Obamas are being portrayed, not who they really are. Take a gander at the cover, and see what YOU think. As for myself . . . I’m still chewin’ on it.
Rhetorical regret
In Germany this week, President Bush was asked if he regrets starting the war in Iraq. His answer was that no, he only regretted that he hadn’t employed “better rhetoric.” It’s not that he didn’t want to warmonger, mind you, just that he didn’t want the ethos of a warmonger. “Awesome.”
Language Alerts
I’ve been reading up on the topic of security and open source software for an upcoming presentation, and I came to a news story a friend of mine forwarded. I’ll be the first to admit I need more practice with tech speak, and some of the language used in this news story really gave me pause. Oddly enough, though, I stopped because of their familiarity. Here’s the first paragraph of the article, “Debian, Ubuntu SSH Under Attack“:
OpenSSH (define) is one of the most common mechanisms in use for providing secure remote access to servers. A flaw in a key part of how Debian-based Linux distributions like Ubuntu secure OpenSSH has put potentially millions of servers at risk from a brute force attack. The attack could have major implications for the Internet.
Brute force attack? The violence in this lead paragraph is really surprising. I thought for a moment the author was adding a bit of drama for effect, but, no. A couple paragraphs later, he quotes someone from the “Internet Storm Center” who raised a “yellow alert” because this flaw would allow secure systems to be “very easily brute forced.”
I suppose we should be accustomed to this type of language at this time in our history. How long now have we been fighting wars on poverty, drugs, illiteracy? And our terrorist alert seems to be more-or-less permanently settled at . . . well let’s see. Here’s the National Terror Alert Response System’s embeddable “live alert,” already featured, they say, on over 50,000 Web sites:
Now it’s at least 50,001. But before we get too serious about security in various facets of our lives, let’s not forget to add a little bit of humor. Here’s a link to one of my favorite videos by Ze Frank called “Red Alert.” It cracks me up every time.