The University Professor Feared by Puritan, Conservative Parents
I’ve wanted to take History of Mass Media since fall quarter my freshman year. I’ve been looking forward to attaining “Junior” status purely to take this class. It technically applies to one of my majors, but I’m really just taking it for fun.
The professor makes this class amazingly fun to listen to. He’s a bleeding-heart liberal, and I mean that in the best possible way possible. He didn’t print out our syllabuses, just told us where we could download them and then encouraged us to read them on our computers and not print. He wants to save paper.
His lectures reflect political viewpoints, as well. I’ll give him credit–he’s honest and up front about his blatant biases, instead of hiding them through layers of self-proclaimed truth. But he’s liberal. He is the liberal university professor feared by Puritan, conservative parents.
I’m usually against extremism. Strike that, always. I’m extremely against extremes–I can get on quite a soap-box about it, but just take my word. I disapprove heartily.
Listening to my professor’s lectures, though, and the comments he interjects is just fun. I was surprised to think so, and yet, it is.
For instance–we discussed media coverage of women during WW2 in America, and he used that example to talk about the dangers of propaganda. He talked about the danger of handing over our civil liberties, the danger of allowing a government to take a paternalist stance–hell, to let the media take a paternalistic viewpoint on what people need to know.
Maybe I’m just so far on the left, but that just makes sense to me. His lectures–his liberal, left-wing spoutings, just make sense. It’s common sense to guard your civil liberties–it’s common sense to not listen blindly to the media and to the government.
I strongly believe in the quote “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people”
That’s not to say I support terrorism, or violent protests, or anything extreme or violent. It’s that I believe governments should respect their citizens, and have a healthy, respectful fear for them. It is people that make a government. Especially, but not exclusively, in democracies–we are the ones who decide our president, who approve initiatives, who elect our voices in almost all branches of government. We have a lot of power over our government, and as a result, our government should have a healthy, respectful fear for that power.
It would work a lot better if more people believed in that power, and utilized it. So many people I know, even fellow students, don’t have faith in their own power–they don’t realize the control they have in their lives, extending as far as politics. They see politics as a dirty, messy frustrating game only because the only time they tune in is during campaign season (which, of course, is when politicians look the worse).
This past election helped build a trust back with a lot of disillusioned voters, I think. Even if your candidate didn’t win, it was still an amazing election to take part of–to take part of and see come to fruition a fair election, where one winner was decided by the people. No confusion, no scandals (I’m talking right now only of the president’s election) to further disillusion people in “the system”.
It was refreshing to take part of this election. It will be exciting to see the next four years.
To the gentleman in the waiting room
I disagree with you. I have a feeling, from a couple of remarks you made, that I would disagree with you on many things, were we to sit and talk. But for now, I know for certain that I disagree with you strongly on one thing.
I don’t believe Caimlo Mejia is a coward for refusing to return to war. I don’t think that makes him a coward. I think, if anything, Mejia is incredibly brave to have the courage to stand up for what he believes is the right thing to do.
That’s not to say I agree with him, or that I disagree with him. I’m not going into my own opinions on his actions in this post, simply that I think he’s brave.
It takes a lot of guts to stand up for what you believe is right. It takes courage to protest things you feel are wrong, especially when the world boos you off the stage.
I think people should feel safe enough to protest. I think citizens in this country should never fear standing up for what they believe is right, and I think calling Mejia a coward for refusing to go back to war is missing the whole point.
I would have told you this, but the nurse called you back too quickly. Oh well.
The importance of art–
The importance of art— Yes, yes, art is very, very, super important. So many people will just give a blanket nod to this statement, move on, and forget the words ever came out of their mouths. And yet, art is important. It’s an incredibly effective tool to reaching people. Especially public, urban art. Graffiti art, street art, poster art, all of these mediums are so much more effective in reaching the common person than newspapers these days. And I extend those terms of artwork to include the online world. With the efficiency of showing all your friends, either through Facebook, MySpace, or even just your blog what you find interesting, and let’s face it, people find art interesting, online art is just as effective a medium to spreading a message as graffiti art. The potential for these mediums is just fascinating, and I love seeing it used in ways that publicize politician’s activities, or certain political events (anyone reading this just has to know how much I love publicizing politics…). I remember being in Rome a few years ago (oh good Lord does that sound uppity snobbish. Bare with me, please?) right after our dear President Bush had visited. Italians weren’t too fond of the President at the time (were they ever? I’m not sure, but I vote no), and everywhere I went, I found graffiti art of Bush (very naturalistic stencils, actually. Impressive quality) and various, Italian slang defacing him and his arrival (I didn’t understand much, but every now and then they would throw in an English “fuck tu” for my comprehension). I think it goes without saying (at least, it should) that all types of art forms are highly effective modes of political criticism.
Or maybe it shouldn’t go without saying. Maybe it should be said. All types of art forms are highly effective modes of political criticism. (Fair warning, my examples are mostly limited to African artists. It’s just what I know the best. And I know it seems a little off topic from my first few paragraphs, but stick with me. I’m sure it’ll come around full circle. Just have faith.) Wizard Of The Crow, a novel by Ngugi wa Thiong’o (please don’t ever ask me to pronounce that name) is a beautiful book written by a Kenyan author (now exiled) that uses a fictional African country to criticize the politics in his own, as well as others, in Africa. The amount of political criticism is truly impressive for a fictional work, and deserves to be applauded all on its own. Yet all joking aside, the novel is an effective way to reach out to the literate for understanding about what is happening in Thiong’o’s country, as well as a lot of other countries in Africa. And yes, this is the part where I could insert an entire new blog post about the state of African countries post-independence, but there are books written about it that cover the subject far more in-depth and much more interestingly than I can ever hope to manage. If you’re super, super interested (and I’ll be honest—I have my doubts), read Martin Meredith’s The Fate of Africa.
But back to art. As fascinating as I find Thiong’o’s novel, I know that not everyone is like me. Not everyone reads everything they can find, and literature isn’t always the most effective way to reach a large group of people. A lot of people are very visual, though, and absorb pictures much more quickly than they absorb text. Art is a faster, and often times, if less thorough, more effective way of getting a message across. Images like Yinka Shonibare’s Scramble for Africa (2001) convey strong messages about African politics, and the viewer doesn’t even need to be that well versed in the subject. And yet I run into a problem with this promotion of art, similar to that of literature. Scramble for Africa is an elaborate piece, and found in a museum. It won’t be on the streets, for every day viewing to every day people. This is where my fascination with street art comes into play. You could sculpt amazing pieces showing your disgust for President Bush’s visit to Italy and have them seen by the few patrons to the museum, maybe even a bunch of students on a field trip, but by and large, your pieces won’t be noticed by the general public. Not unless there’s a huge controversial stir, and even then, you only reach those who are looking for it. Yet anyone walking the streets of Rome saw the naturalized stencils of Bush, and the captions that went with them. Anyone walking the streets of any major city will undoubtably see a cornucopia (such an ill-fitting word, even if used technically correct, neh?) of rude, frustratingly vulgar graffiti art. And yet there is also a lot of amazing, talented, politically-charged artwork illegally gracing the walls of buildings and the underbellies of tunnels. Graffiti is used in political wars throughout Northern Ireland, using murals to mark territory. Such a straight-forward way to get a message across.
Clinton’s Speech
I’m pretty sure I’m just reiterating everyone on the news and all those silly professionals about, but I really liked Clinton’s speech. I’ve been a tentative Obama supporter from the start (I say tentative because I’m always nervous when there’s such a strong fan base, especially when many of those around me can’t articulate why they support him other than he’s “cool”), but I think Clinton redeemed herself.
She didn’t have any other choice to support Obama, really, but it was still a great speech. She took her only option and ran with it–she created a lot of tag lines for him (No way No how No McCain) and she aimed her supporters at him by giving her reasons. That was the smartest part, I think. She told people why they should support Obama.
It was smart, eloquent, and her only option.
Pondering Voting
Why is it that the “student” age bracket consistently has the lowest voter turnout? It surprises me everytime I think about it.
We’re in the middle of our youth, we’re at a time when it’s right to get fired up and angry and passionate, and yet we don’t vote? Voting is the easiest path towards influence, and yet so many skip it. Why?
I wonder if it’s because after studying civics and political theory and history, do we manage to loose our passion? Do we stat to believe that we can’t change anything, so why even try? That’s how it feels, sometimes. I know I feel discouraged about voting. It feels like it doesn’t matter who you elect for president, the whole cabinet is already decided. it doesn’t matter if you personally approve this particular piece of legislation or not, it’ll get passed regardless if the right people want it passed.
It feels pointless, and yet it is the majority of citizens’ only method of communication and influence. Take it, no matter how potentially flawed it is?
I feel sometimes like a puppet, one that all the little CEOs of all the huge corporations just pat on the head for doing a good job and being discouraged, instead of actually caring and trying to do something.
Any recommendations for civic action? For how to not feel discouraged by ‘the system’? For how to feel like my voice counts in the political world?
For the history books
Granted, it would have been history regardless (I think the Democratic campaign as it is), but still…
It’s pretty cool. Now it’s time for Hillary to gracefully step down and work at keeping the Democratic party together and quite trying to divide it.
Go Fags, Go!
We had a debate in class last Friday. I was to present, with the fellow members of my group, a con side to the question “Are civil unions democratic and just?”
Acknowledging that there are many ways to argue a con to that question, the gay/gay supporting among us chose to argue that civil unions were undemocratic and unjust because they institutional segregation–their existence serves as the excuse to keep gay men and women from marrying, from the term “marriage”, as well as deny them the rights at both a federal and state level that accompany such “married” status.
After some back and forth, “marriage” was defined as having both a political definition and a religious definition, and the religious one should have no bearing on the political.
And yet it does. The debate continued, and since neither side was against gay rights, it mostly consisted of how to achieve those rights. Yet the Q&A from the audience raised some points* about when the people will be “ready” for such action, and asked how we respond to those who argued that progress is a slow-moving, yet steady process.
That was were my hurt lays, where the point of this whole entry lays. I couldn’t help but feel tempted to respond to them “it doesn’t fucking matter how long it takes YOU to feel comfortable with ME having equal rights!”. It hurts that people, time after time, feel that they have the right to use their emotional and religious beliefs to justify withholding rights to others. Yes, on an emotional level, I feel gay people should have the right to a political marriage. I feel that it is unfair that I can marry a man but not a woman. I don’t like it, and it hurts.
That said, For a debate, to actually try to convince an opponent that I’m right, I rely on facts. I rely on logic. I don’t say DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) is wrong because it is biased and judgemental and full of bigotry, I argue that DOMA violates certain constitutional rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Act, and acts with blatant disregard for the rights that are supposed to be protected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art IV, Sect I of the Constitution).**
What bothers me is that it’s not enough. It’s not enough that I, with NO legal training, can point out what is wrong with civil unions being the only option available to gay couples, with DOMA, as they are used today. Certain rights are denied to a certain group of people for no reason other than the bigotry in a majority, despite the protection of the Constitution, and that bothers me. It’s really frustrating that institutional segregation exists even today.
It’s frustrating, and it hurts.
___________________________________________
* It should be noted that those who asked the questions were all very respectful, and were not anti-gay rights. They were simply posing hypotheticals, and pointing out the arguments of others. They were a really nice audience.
**I assume it goes without saying that this is a more personal complaint that an argument against DOMA or civil unions as they are used today. If you want to hear that argument, or participate in a civil debate with me about it, feel free to engage. But don’t think that this is all I’ve got.
Anti-Life
Who is ever, honestly, going to admit to being anti-life? No. You always have to be “pro” something.
That is my biggest pet-peeve in debates. You have to make it sound horrible to be against you. You can’t win that way! Even if I don’t want to call myself “anti-life”, I’m not changing my opinion. I’ll stick with the friendlier sound of “pro-choice”. Who doesn’t want choice? I know I do. What? You mean you’re against CHOICE? What kind of fascist are you? Yeah. You can’t argue because I’m using the word fascist.
I guess the abortion debate is a highly emotional one, though, so it makes a little bit of sense that it becomes such a charged issue.
Still. If you ever start a formal debate with the words “Raise your hand if you like freedom. Yeah? You do? Well, then you’ll know I’m right. I’m for freedom”, I will have the urge to hit you in the face. I’m pro-peace, though, so I won’t actually do it.
I’ll just think it really loudly…..
But seriously. Present facts. Present logical statements. Present arguments with a point–not some meaningless drivel that makes me feel emotionally guilty if I don’t agree with everything that comes out of your mouth. Do you really want people to agree with you only out of guilt of saying no? Even if they’re really passionate about the other side of the argument? Wouldn’t it be a better feeling if you won a person over to your side of the debate because you had a stronger logical argument, as opposed to them simply being afraid of calling themselves “anti-life” or “anti-choice”?
I think so… I think it’s a much better feeling.
