“I’d rather kill the radio and listen to the rain hit.”

If only it were actually possible to finally do away with the radio. Well, not the radio itself, per se, but the vast amount of crap sent from the various stations that marshal their music into our ears and, thus, into our thoughts. That we could do away with.

Nonetheless, my self-deprivation of electronic media was unexpectedly very up and down. I chose Sunday, a day of fittingly, seeing as how I was in bed for most of my day.

Normally, I love the tranquility that comes with rainfall in November. The grey skies create a stark contrast against the changing colors of the leaves which, at this time of year, begin their calm descent to the grounds they’ve, for so long, hung over. Normally, I wouldn’t mind just sitting in a light drizzle, maybe reading, pondering, or writing, even if it’s for a few minutes. But this Sunday was terribly different. Curse Fall for so suddenly making it’s annual metamorphosis to Winter so…sudden.

So because of the unbearable cold rain outside, I spent much of my day inside. I awoke around midday, ate a late breakfast, and automatically got into a rhythm of finding stuff to do that would divert attention away from the electronic media around me. Or right in front me, for I literally had a television, CD stereo, and phone sitting about 10 feet in front of me. I ran some errands for my parents which cut some time away, but I mostly read my day away, reading the likes of Mumia Abu-Jamal (insightful and eloquent, a political prisoner of our corrupt judicial system) and Tupac Shakur (poetry’s simple, yet provides the reader with a look at his own personal depth). There’d be brief intermissions, in which I would just pause and think about what I just read, maybe jot some notes down, and than, once again, doze off in uncontrollable thought. Than right on again to the reading routine.

I stopped several hours later to grab something to eat. I was joined by my four-year old nephew and we conversed for a bit. Afterwards, I went to do some graffiti stenciling. He joined in with some paper and markers. As I began creating a rough stencil for a politically-driven project me and a friend decided to pursue, my nephew began drawing an intense battle between Spider-Man and his nemesis, Venom. Except when it came down to it, it was a page that consisted of purple lines and squiggles. Ahh, how it must feel to be as innocent and non-objective as a 4 year old.

The rest of the day, I spent reading (picked up Fahrenheit 451) until my parents came home. We went to a relative’s birthday party (media-free surprisingly, aside from music playing for little kids, in which turn I walked out for a bit) and came home well into the night. By that time my brother was home. We talked for a little while, he wanted to know how my media fast was going, and afterwards I pretty much went back to reading (this time the Washington Post). I did some schoolwork as well during this time. Eventually, once 12:30 rolled around, I made myself a nice bowl of cereal and snuggled up on my couch, eager to watch the highlights from the days games I missed (I’d heard form my brother that the ‘Skins were quite the disappointment).

Though this is a simple synopsis of how my day went, truth be told, this media fast was a lot more difficult to manage than what I previously thought. To do away with television, the internet, and phones were easy: I’ve pretty much been without all at one point in my life or another. What I dreaded most and what definitely made my day that much more unbearable was the fact that I had to suppress feelings of popping in three CDs into my three-disc stereo changer. On most weekends I usually start my day and end my day that way, allowing the CDs freedom of rotation and expression. Kweli and Cannibal Ox are what makes the sun rise and sun set in my world. But for a 24-hour period my music was made obsolete. And so I had to find other ways to entertain and subtly educate myself with reading. In actuality, that wasn’t difficult. It was just every fleeting moment when my mind was caught out of loop, it would automatically turn it’s attention to the echoes of the music I most sorely missed. And so more so than anything, I caught myself rapping aloud at the most random of moments.

What also made this day so hellish was the fact that I was practically alone for much of the day. My grandmother and nephew were home, but neither can really hold a conversation. So while I occasionally stopped with one of them to chat it up, the majority of my day was spent in solitary loneliness. While reading, writing, and stenciling kept me busy for much of the day, I couldn’t help but feel eager to have some kind substantial human interaction to divert my attention away from the ills of media.

I expected to accomplish this assignment and I did, even though time seemed endless. The absence of people and music in my day made for some grand obstacles. Our reliance on media only exists if we allow it to. For me, this experience was calming in a lot of ways. I accomplished a lot in terms of reading, writing, and artistic work. I had nothing to do, except everything opened itself up to me, including my own thoughts. Of course there will be instances where we need T.V. to escape our lives for the trivial nothingness embellished by television corporations. But to surrender our time and lives, religiously, causes you to lose your sense of self. Sometimes you just have to sit back, relax, and smell the roses.

Postman and Paglia create very enticing arguments in “Two Cultures”, Postman obviously an advocate for print and its importance to logic while Paglia argues for television and its aesthetic appeal in today’s culture. Both scholars definitely deserve credit for their breadth of knowledge into their subject, but when all was said and done Paglia won me over, not necessarily for her argument in supporting television, but rather in her argument for supporting the image, and how it is important not to forget the print in understanding the image
First off, Postman made several good points, many of which I agree with, and many of which, I feel, have a grander importance over some of the television arguments made by Paglia. Literacy from print is vital in areas of knowledge Postman described as “logic, rhetoric, and literary criticism”, all of which are important to gain a well-rounded intellectual standpoint of anything. Similarly, Postman justifies that literate education can help control what we feel about what we see. In the greater context, he feels it is essential to have these foundations of logic and reason, built from literacy (i.e. print), in order to clearly understand the meanings behind the images we see in everyday life, including what we see on the television. To this point, I agree whole-heartedly. Education is key to understanding the outside world around us. Without any substantial base of knowledge, we would be forced to indiscriminately believe everything we see, hear, feel. What literacy does for us is that it creates our sense of logic, our sense of problem solving, our sense of thinking outside the box to create ideas that are entirely our own, not subjective to what is thrown at us. Perhaps a bit extreme, but we’d be walking aimlessly with no sense of self if we have no logic to create our own thoughts and feelings, and our own thoughts about our feelings. Not to say that all images on television or in everyday life are dangerous, but logic is necessary in order to allow us to structure our own ideas about the world we envision today. Postman also goes into how since symbols and images are repeated so often in today’s society that they begin to lose their primary significance, their original meaning. He states that we are in an age where the image is commercialized, and because of that, images have become secularized from their meaning. In some regards, I agree. But everything depends on how the image is used. And, of course, everything is also up for personal interpretation. Again, this is where education is key. We need to have the knowledge and sense to separate the true meaning of a symbol from it’s commercial uses. We cannot deter away from symbols just because they have found a profound prevalence in today’s society unlike seen before. We must embrace every façade of images in our lives and understand their many uses, and discriminate the positive uses from the negative ones.
Where Paglia won me over was more in her advocacy for images in society rather than in her support of television over print. To me, print is justifiably much more important, not just to logic, but to building imagination and creativity. The television subjects the watcher to what the programmers want them to see, and so thus there is no uniqueness from television, except when it comes to how one interprets a show or broadcast. What literature does for us is remarkably beautiful, for it forces us to create our own worlds and ideas to better understand what we are reading. And usually there is a greater context, for great literature reflects on society and the world. So by sparking this creative wildfire, literature is a great teacher, in moralistic beliefs and in global understanding. But Paglia argues for images because our society has shifted from a society once all divulged in print to one that has now been accustomed to pictures and images, whether in television or through other media and mediums. This new age makes it possible for an imagistic world. To her, advertisements reinforce images rather than what Postman argued was secularization. Paglia instead sees that Western culture is going through a repaganization, where beauty and aesthetics are beginning to take prominence over the lessons instilled by text. And she argues that this is especially important when developing a good sensorium. To this extent, I agree, although not from the television standpoint. Images and symbols, whether seen in art galleries or advertisements on a murky subway wall, are essential in creating a concrete sense of creativity. Where the text is king is in supporting creative thinking, but images go further than that, giving a practical and tangible way to show this creative spirit sparked by print. When we have images, we create a visual reality of what goes on in our heads, so with that concrete evidence we can better understand not only our inner thoughts and feelings, but how those apply to the greater scheme of things in our lives in and in society. Paglia also won me over in her understanding of education as being logocentric (very much like how Postman argued how text was essential in creating a base of knowledge). She talks about how we as individuals should have a control over what we see and how we interpret what we see, which is something I agree entirely with. To her, television should reside somewhere in education, that is, our understanding of the television should be based on a firm education so that we control what we see and not take everything we see as truth. For it would be a sad, sad day to substitute our own reality for those realities seen in a box perched beneath the fireplace.

Debate Numero Uno

Friday night’s presidential showcased plenty on both of the candidates. From their responses to the issues to outward demeanor, ultimately the edge went to Obama. Being his calm and collective self, Obama maintained his familiar air of confidence, spoke coherently and concisely, and appeared to be much more…“presidential” and capable than McCain. All too often, McCain looked clearly flustered, hardly countering effectively if at all to any arguments pinned against him. I don’t blame him either. It’d be extremely difficult to rebuttal his already well-publicized support of the Bush administration (i.e. voting 90 percent of the time).
The arguments came and went, ideas were bounced around, and I’m sure we all made our assumptions on responses. While incoherent and sluggish at times with his thoughts, McCain showed some signs of life near the end of the debate. Of course, his trump card has always been and always will be his “experience” in foreign affairs, the main reason why near the end of debate the clarity of his ideas began to show through a little bit more when the issue at the time turned over to the Georgia-Russian conflict and Iran. When the debate focused on Iraq, though, Obama showcased some prowess I’m sure McCain wasn’t expecting.
Definitely where Obama, won the debate. He bashed McCain repeatedly on the lessons learned in the situation in Iraq. Referring to how McCain though the war in Iraq would be quick, how McCain knew where the weapons of mass destruction were, and how McCain ignored the history of violence that’s been immersed in the region for quite some time, Obama really made a convincing argument arguing against McCain’s judgment, with regards to Iraq. The implications derived are supposed to put into question whether McCain’s judgment can be trusted when entrusted with a seat of power as high as the presidency of the United States. And in stride, Obama proved claims that he was not against the recent surge in Iraq, but rather felt convinced that while, in the short term, these surges would reduce violence in certain areas and neighborhoods, the fact of the matter it there needs to be change enforced at the political level to truly quell any and all post-surge violence. McCain hardly had any response.
While I could not find an article on my blog, crooksandliars.com, entirely summarizing and dissecting the debate, the article I did find focused on the above mentioned edge Obama received when the Iraq war came up, reinforcing his position, putting down past claims put by the McCain campaign, and crushing his rival on a vital issue. The author is obviously in favor of Obama, and so in supporting Obama’s argument, she makes the implication that Obama won the debate. I’m in agreement whole heartedly, but I feel like Obama potentially could’ve done a lot better. At times he seemed to continue straddling on the generalities he’s always been focused around. He could’ve taken a huge step to move away from that approach during this debate. While, yes he did specifically target certain issues, he seemed alright with complacently taking his usual approach. Hopefully he’ll focus more on specifics for his next debates.



http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/26/presidential-debate-obama-calls-out-mccains-judgment/#more-33201

Speech vs. Writing

The arts of speech and writing are the two essential forms of communication vital towards ensuring stability in society. Through these communication forms we grasp everything from information to entertainment, education to leisure, all of which we need to function through life and love it. To choose which one is more important in today’s society is difficult to understand seeing how the two coincide and reflect one another so fittingly. But when it comes down to it, it is definitely writing which takes precedence over speech in terms of importance to today’s society.
Speech has been carried out throughout history as the most fundamental manner in communication, the base for which all other communications can exist. It is the only form of primary orality ever to or that ever will exist, simply for the fact that there is nothing else on it’s plane. It is in it’s own right unique because of the way it functions and the way it influences. The incorporation of sound with speech attributes to this uniqueness. And from that sound, speech becomes universal. We all essentially hear the same sounds, more or less, and so we all attain the same knowledge being emitted from the speech. The only thing different is how we choose to interpret that knowledge. Speech is indiscriminate to any and all, the only difference is how we choose to cause that speech to influence. It is the fundamental manner of communicating, universal in every sense, the base for humans to communicate in our society. But since it’s origins we have long evolved from that basic form and have, since, extended our communications reach far beyond that anticipated. Which is why writing has now taken precedence over speech in our society.
Although a secondary orality, writing has become the superior form of communication in today’s imperfect world. Where speech lay the foundation for communication, writing carried it to higher echelons. From literature to the internet, writing is literally in every façade of today’s society, and without it communicating would still consist only of speech. Innovations in technology, such as the invention of the printing press and our present-day internet, would not function at all without writing. Everything would be oral and, while that isn’t all negative, it is detrimental in a lot of ways. Writing allows for communication to be available in virtually any location. Although the invention of the radio made it so that speech could be heard over larger distances, writing and its implementation through the internet and other means gives it a sense of concrete concision that can be accessed anywhere at any given moment, something speech has always lacked seeing as how speech and it’s relationship to sound makes it so that it dies just as it comes into existence. Both forms foster a “communal sense”, making each universal in their own regard. But the universality derived from writing, again, gives us that concrete record, something we can go back to over and over again, now more effectively than ever because of the internet. And what writing offers that speech cannot do is impose literacy on a society now seemingly deteriorating in that sector. While there will be many who will argue that technology is dragging down literacy and our standards of intellectualism, there is no denial that writing has mad literacy more possible in today’s society more so than in any other society. Now we have literature, we have film (which depends on writing to make it work), we have music, and we have the internet, all of which depend extensively on writing. Our society is now structured in a way which literacy needs to flourish or, at the very least, needs to remain relevant, Speech can get you so far. And where it can’t writing compounds the effectiveness of speech in forms that can be translated and, thus understood in ways that, perhaps, speech could not achieve.
Writing is essential above any other form of communication in today’s society. It’s vital to the spread of literacy in our society. The question is whether or not we allow our society to become more literate, whether or not we choose to use the tools placed before us to lift our intellectual beings beyond what we are now. In today’s society, we do not realize just how great we have it in terms of all of the knowledge and ways of attaining it we now possess. While writing is important in today’s society, it does have it’s flaws, but only because we develop these flaws, only because we allow ourselves to become more introverted or because we allow our communication to be more impersonal. As with every new technology, we have to ensure that we do not become too dependent nor become too ignorant of what they have to offer. We have to find the grey area in between, so that we may reap the benefits of writing and other technologies, while not succumbing to the dangers of technological advancement.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/25/mccain-reverses-course-on-immigration-reform-again-drawing-far-right-rebuke/#more-29509

When focusing on the upcoming election, alot of Americans tend to overlook the pressing issue of immigration reform, a touchy subject that has implications for, both, our internal security and international standing. To give a brief synopsis on the above article, Steve Benen focuses his argument on McCain's stance on immigration reform, and how the Republican Senator has flip-flopped on the issue a number of times, at first pushing for comprehensive immigration reform and then shying away from it, coincidentally enough around the time after he received the Republican nomination. This is a prime example of how indecisive McCain can be, and how he, like so many other politicians, will attempt to please whatever audience for the sake of attaining and consolidating power, even at the cost of his integrity. Just the fact that he would flip-flop on, arguably, one of the most important issues of our time showcases his weakness as a leader, and puts into question whether we as the people can ever fully trust him. If you're going to have a stance, stick to that stance with your head held high, regardless of whatever adversity you'll face.
After reading the article, I realized how little I actually know of McCain's stance on immigration reform, so I decided to look into it a bit. From what I've read, straight from John McCain's website, he plans to finish "securing" the border through physical and virtual, protect the rights of American workers, and, overall, just seems to plan to implement and enforce what we already have in place. The citizenship process will be just as difficult, time-consuming, and costly for immigrants coming here who, in all reality, have dismal amounts of time and money when they get here. American workers will get top priority and immigrants will be forced to learn English, pass a citizenship course, and pay back any taxes they've passed on. The wall on the Mexican-American border will most likely continue to be constructed. To me, this all seems like it's the same old song and dance. McCain just seems to be reinforcing what Bush has already started in regards to immigration reform. These plans just prove to be unnecessarily costly in so many regards. The wall being built on the border is costing millions in federal spending and the position it puts American in as an international power will prove to be even more catastrophic. The physical prescence of there being a division between us and the rest of our North America neighbors demonstrates to the rest of the world our selfishness, how we are willing to sacrifice international unity with our own neighbors for the sake "national security". What's more telling is how we place so much emphasis on national security and how it pertains to immigration reform, as if the two go hand-in-hand. Immigrants are stigmatized to the furthest degree in society as a group of individuals who will do nothing, but the jobs nobody wants to do and who will contribute only crime to this land. While many politicians will argue against that view, that they do value the immigrants who come here, the fact of the matter is that the immigrant populace hardly ever harbors any real respect and dignity in America, something seriously flawed with the system.
So what are a people supposed to do with no firm foundation to work off of? What are they supposed to do without any actually respect, time, or money once they're here? They try to make ends meet with the cards they are dealt. I come from a family of immigrants as I'm sure alot of you do as well. And for as far as I've known every immigrant who I've known has tried their hardest to work to make the future brighter for those who will follow in their paths. The immigrants who come here are some of the most genuine, good-hearted, hard-working human beings, only trying to attain the type of peace and prosperity scarcely found in their homelands. The least this country can do is make the citizenship process that much easier, something I'm hoping will be addressed and actually happen in the upcoming election.

First Post

Our society has made it so that the media is omnipresent in our day-to-day lives. Whether or not we like to admit, it is an integral part of all of our lives, whether it shows itself in the obvious forms of print and television or whether the information is relayed more subtly, such as through music. The question, when it comes to media, is how far do we allow it to control our lives? How much reliance do we have on it? And is it safe to depend on it too heavily? Personally, I feel as if we shouldn’t rely on it as heavily as some of us do. We can’t trust the media to always act responsibly, for personal responsibility, when it comes to media, is the most vital. We need to understand that the media (the news channels, editorials, the radio broadcasts, etc.) is just there to relay information. And so it is up for the individual, each one of us, to take and gather this information and to dissect it and process it in our own mentalities to formulate our own opinions, our own ways of thinking. Far too many of us succumb to believing exactly what the media outlets tell us, which is the wrong way to go about it. I try my best to keep up with current events. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. Most of the information I receive is from the internet, for I seldom watch television and hardly ever listen to the radio. I despise the media sometimes. Some of the headlines given, for example, on late-night news, to me seem completely irrelevant and ignorant. So many issues pertaining to the larger world around us and these media outlets choose instead to ignore relaying us that information for some “local news headlines”. That’s the problem with the media sometimes. Real news hardly gets out. Global news gets cast aside because we remain to self-indulgent, only concerned with what affects us, when we should really be more encompassing towards a universal perspective to try and do and learn what is right for the world around us. That’s not to say that there aren’t media outlets which actually relay this type of message, but for the most part few of us try to seek any other perspective except the ones thrown in our faces. So this is where personal responsibility is key. Each individual must make the effort to learn the greater scheme of things and not copy the views of those around them. A machine shouldn’t speak for men, nor should no man speak for any other man. The media will always have it’s respective bias, but it is up to us to decide what we do once we pick up that ball. Do we run with it? Or do we even pick it up at all?


http://www.crooksandliars.com/