Thoughts on same-sex parents - from flirting with disaster to the kids being all right.

After Judge Vaugh Walker handed down his decision that Proposition 8 - the legislation that banned gay marriage in California - was unconstitutional on August 4th, proponents of the legislation promised an immediate appeal. The majority of the arguments being shouted back-and-forth for appeal of the unconstitutionality ruling are primarily based on the grounds of the potential "harm" inflicted from lifting the ban: the harm that would come to the institution of marriage, the harm to tradition and personal morals, and, seemingly, the harm that will be inflicted on the children raised by same-sex couples. Listening to NPR the day that the decision was handed down, I heard callers basing their argument that children would be "harmed" if they were raised by same-sex couples on historical evidence: children have traditionally been raised by one mother and one father, so now why would we want to go around messing with this already functional system?

If tradition dictates that children should be raised by a man and a woman, then over 12 million families in the US are guilty of breaking tradition by functioning as single parent households. If the definition of an "adequate parent" is based on the presence of a man and a woman to raise a child, then women whose spouses have left them, or men whose partners have passed away, or ambitious single women who choose to adopt a child without the financial or emotional support of a life partner do not qualify as "adequate parents." What about families that have several generations living under one roof, families in which aunts and grandparents and siblings share in the parenting responsibilities? Or families in which one of the parents falls ill and can no longer share in the child-rearing responsibilities? Attempting to define the basis for what makes an adequate parent is such an incredibly personal and unique assessment to make. It is so frustrating that more people aren't offended by all of this "tradition" rhetoric that organizations like the National Organization for Marriage are throwing around, especially given the profound ignorance of the feelings of the children involved in this whole discussion.


Seemingly released apropos recent research that supports this notion that children of same-sex couples "are well-adjusted," Lisa Cholodenko's newest dramedy The Kids Are All Right attempts to depict what The New York Times dubbed "a generous, nearly note-perfect portrait of a modern family." If one knows the premise of the film, the title effectively conveys the outcome of the storyline in a fairly clear manner - that children of gay parents, despite popular belief, might just turn out to be pretty okay. Is it possible, in the face of the beliefs of Proposition 8 supporters, that non-traditional family models can actually produce children that can function in a dominantly heteronormative society? Is this film trying to tell us that despite the "abnormal" behavior of their parents, the children of same-sex partners might just be able to function as the normal, well-adjusted human beings that we want to have in society? That, in fact, the kids of lesbian parents might just be totally all right?

Interestingly enough, some affirmation of this notion came in a recent lonely late night with my Netflix Watch Instantly queue, which lead me to revisit the fairly forgotten mid-90s film Flirting with Disaster, a movie that unexpectedly touches - albeit somewhat ironically - on the parenting questions being raised by Prop 8 supporters. This frenetic David O. Russell comedy stars Ben Stiller before he was a male model conducting walk-offs refereed by David Bowie and threatening that "nobody makes me bleed my own blood," and - brief sidebar - reminds the viewer why some audiences fell in love with him in the first place.

The film focuses on the journey of neurotic Mel Coplin (played by Stiller) and his wife Nancy (Patricia Arquette) as they travel the country with their newborn son attempting to find his birth parents with the incompetent-but-flirtatious adoption agency employee Tina (Téa Leoni). Mel's adoptive parents Ed and Pearl Coplin (played to bickering perfection by George Segal and Mary Tyler Moore) are deeply hurt and defensive of his decision, thinking Mel's search for his birth parents is a slight on their skills as parents. The first few scenes of the film set up the audience for the true reasons behind Mel's myriad neuroses and his quest to find out the reasons behind them - his adoptive father Ed is perplexingly afraid of the wheel of cheese sitting on the living room table (Pearl later calls him "food-phobic), and his mother won't let her son finish a sentence without a loud and dramatic interruption.

As the film goes on, Tina brings the young couple to two different people who turn out not to be his parents - the last of whom subsequently enables Mel to back a semi truck into a post office. At the police station, the three run into Nancy's old high school classmate Tony (Josh Brolin) who works in the alcohol, tobacco and firearms division with his partner, Paul (Richard Jenkins). The five of them all go out to an Italian restaurant, where it is slowly and subtly revealed that Paul and Tony are not just partners in the ATF division of the station - they are also romantic partners who are potentially considering adopting a child.

Tony and Paul serve as comic relief for the remainder of the film, if not just for their sexual orientation: Tony (who admits he's bisexual) attempts to seduce Nancy by licking her armpit, and Paul ends up running half naked through the desert after taking two hits of acid that Mel's vindictive and bitter younger brother meant for him. But, to my surprise for its serendipity, the last few lines of the film turn the joke away from the same-sex relationship and over onto the potential reality of any family situation - that even a child who is raised by a man and a woman in a typically "traditional" household has every chance of being messed up and poorly adjusted.

In the last scene of the film, the whole group gathers outside the jail from which Ed and Pearl Coplin have been bailed out after being caught with hundreds of tabs of acid in their trunk (I'm telling you, just see the movie - this matter of the plot is far too tangential to my main point). Outside the jail, Pearl turns to Ed and, motioning toward Tony and Paul, says "I think those two men are homosexuals." Ed responds that the two are thinking about adopting a child, and expresses how "sick" someone would have to be to do that. Pearl agrees with Ed, adding "can you imagine the neurosis that child will have to deal with?" After an entire movie about a man who can't name his child until he's met his birth parents, who (it's mentioned) has problems performing during oral sex, whose mother exposes her breasts to his wife, and who has awkward and illicit sexual interactions with someone who's effectively his psychiatrist, devoting the last three lines of a film to this ironic comment on the nature of familial relationships struck me as oddly timely to all the yelling and hand-wringing being done by outspoken Prop 8 supporters about the effects on the psyches of the children of gay and lesbian couples.

I cannot describe the surge of feelings brought forth in me that the last minute of a film made 15 years ago managed to pinpoint the exact fear expressed by supporters of traditional marriage values today in 2010. I smiled, feeling like I was a part of some in-joke, when the fear of potential mental harm to the child of a same-sex couple is spoken by a dysfunctional, heterosexual couple that produced an entirely neurotic and idiosyncratic offspring. Sure, one could argue the mere fact that Mel was adopted in some ways makes his family a non-traditional one, but keep in mind that I am going off of the assumption that a traditionally defined family (according to certain supporters of the ban on same-sex marriage) is one that is lead by a man and a woman. One could also argue that, seeing as he is married and has a child and job, Mel is an ipso facto well-adjusted member of society, but I would beg to differ that his issues far outweigh his surface normalcy.

I find that the testimony of the adopted children of same-sex couples is hardly given any credence in this whole discussion, even though they are seemingly the ones who are so negatively effected by their family situation - and who, not surprisingly, tend to express positive feelings about their home life. This issue is so extremely personal, and anyone who attempts to try and dictate what is best for any one child or any one family needs to step back and take a good look at what they are implicating about other non-traditional families in various alternative circumstances. Is it appropriate to turn to a strange family in a crowded restaurant and attempt to scold their child for being messy or consuming their food too loudly? Is it anyone's responsibility but the parent of a child - be it birth or adoptive - to decide what is best for their children? If anything, the laws against gay marriage are what most effect the psyche of a child of a same-sex couple - it can't be anything but devastating to grow up watching your parents be discriminated against for simply loving each other and making some attempt at normalcy.

Some history on Marconi, FDR, and Disruptive Technologies

Throughout the history of mediated communication, beginning with the telegraph and Morse code technology, one finds the trend of disruptive communication technology becoming the eventual mainstay that wins out over the older, antiquated models, but usually not without a fight. Tracing the history of the medium of radio and the individuals involved in its restriction and ultimate essential freeing up of government restriction, one sees a pattern that is eventually initiated and successfully negotiated within the medium of television and the Internet.

If it weren’t for Marconi’s invention of the antenna and the founding of Marconi of America in 1899, the precedent for radio and all subsequent technologies might still have occurred; however, this is difficult to say emphatically. Spontaneous simultaneous invention seems to be the way that this creative world operates as exemplified by photography, film, and other such technologies, so who is to say that without Marconi there would be no antenna? Nikolai Tesla, the credited inventor of the radio, certainly had a huge role in the development of the technology, as did inventers Reginald Fessenden and Lee DeForest, all of who can be recognized as the “fathers of radio”. However, for the purposes of this argument, Marconi will take at least partial imperative responsibility for causing radio to become a popular mainstay in American homes through his invention of the antenna.

In the initial years, the possibility of obtaining a license to broadcast over the airways was not blocked by any substantial hurtles; nearly everyone interested in transmitting could obtain a permit to do so. With the help of other aforementioned innovators, along with many parallel advancements and inventions in India and Europe, the amateur radio transmission trend was sweeping the world. This presented problems for copyright issues: many private residences and infrastructures began to broadcast music recordings over the airwaves without first obtaining permission from the artists or from the recording companies. It was for this reason, and with the country being on the brink of WWI, that FDR deemed radio a disruptive technology and made the decision to coordinate and effectively control the radio airways.

Under the banner of national security, the Navy set aside all patent claims to radio. All amateurs had to go off the air, and all antennas were taken over by the government. Essentially, the US government shut down all civilian transmissions in order to allow the US Navy full control over all transmissions and airwaves. This was a political move on the part of FDR, but this raised a question: Does the government have the right to turn off or take away technology? This was a direct violation of 1st Amendment rights in that it “abridge[d] the freedom of speech [and] of the press”, but in times of war the Navy and the President felt that it was their responsibility to monopolize the airwaves for the sake (and under the guise) of national safety.

This military-mandated ownership of the medium of radio continued until the end of World War I in 1919, when the Navy announced they wanted to introduce the radio to everyone; however, they wanted to still maintain ultimate control over the medium. The government completely disagreed with this concept, and thus the home-grown monopoly of the RCA (Radio Corporation of America) was born (a natural monopoly because there were no other competitors, much like the successive situation with AT&T). This technology was initially seen as a threat to national security, but odds are this “disruptive” technology instilled notions of fear in the military, hence FDR’s move to suspend all civilian access. With the creation of the RCA, however, this once disruptive and seemingly threatening technology became a mainstay, including regulatory laws, the foundation of the first public radio stations, and the eventual domestication of the medium as a part of the fabric of everyday American life.

Oh wow, I can't wait to read this!

So it seems as though Sarah Palin has picked a collaborator to help her write (read: completely construct the text for) her memoirs. Ohhhh, goodie! I can't wait to read this book that will obviously be a truthful, accurate, non-fictional account of this horrible, winking, worst-thing-to-recently-snub-progressive-sexual-equality woman's life. From the AP:

Palin has selected Lynn Vincent, an author and features editor for World magazine, a conservative Christian publication. Palin's book, currently untitled, is scheduled for release next year by HarperCollins.

No surprise in her pick for collaborator, right?

I say we all go shoot some wolves to celebrate.

Happy Birthday, Dear Bloggie...

...Happy Birthday to You!


Today marks exactly one year since I posted my first blog entry as You Ain't Heard Nothin' Yet!, and look at the forms it's taken as it's grown up to a walking, talking, free wheelin' space for my thoughts, rants, observations, and musings. What began as a place to document reviews of music shows (my first entry is a reflection on Coachella 2008) and films slowly morphed into a space where nothing I post is not somehow media-related, stretching the boundaries of what I originally intended into a far less restrictive arena of new media, advertising, television, audience studies, etc (the most recent entry is on the evolving nature of YouTube's social networking capabilities). Sure, there are other themes that I've incorporated throughout this weblog's first year, including but not limited to politics, gender issues, a series entitled "Things Grad Students Love" (that I hope to continue as an on-going contribution...ideas for Part 6, anyone?), and reviews of art exhibits, but I try, sometimes in vain, to always dovetail the issues I discuss with media studies and analysis.

While I certainly maintain this space for my personal benefit as a portfolio, as a way for family and friends who don't live in my city to keep up with my life and interests, and as my own contribution to the on-going meta-dialogue on the media, I have also gotten recognition for my work here from professors, administrators within my Masters program, fellow Media Studies students, and non-Media Studies friends, as well as some comments from a few strangers. While this certainly boosts my ego and restores faith in my abilities, this is not why I am writing. I want my writing and ideas to be public to inspire conversation within the Media Studies community and the Internet community at large and hopefully cause someone, even one individual, to think a bit differently about the way they interact with the visual environment surrounding them.

Some may think that my quiet voice in a sea of millions of others may not make an impact, and I don't expect it to. But it does instill a sense of purpose in the work that I am doing, and has even allowed me to chart my growth and decline of interest on certain issues and topics, guiding me in (god, hopefully) the right direction for future areas of study. I started this blog wanting to be a film critic. But because I have been given a space to air out my ideas that is communal and includes much-welcomed comments, questions, and discourse, I have decided that writing solely about film would be selling myself short, as the Internet is quickly replacing film as the most influential visual media in the world. I will never give up my passion for film and what it means to me as an art form, as a social commentary, and as a form of entertainment, escapism and fantasy, and I will continue to write about film when the mood strikes. However, I will also never again pigeonhole myself into such a narrow category.

So, for all of you who have been with me from the beginning and for those of you who have just started participating in the discourse I offer here, thank you. Your readership, comments, participation, kind praise and constructive criticism are more important to me that you may ever know.

Police Raid The New School

In response to the student body's disappointment with the leadership choices (among other decisions) made by New School President Bob Kerrey, a student group called the New School in Exile threatened to shut down and occupy the school on April 1st, an action that never came to fruition but was certainly made known to the public.

Below is a letter from President Bob Kerry about the 60-student protest and building occupation that resulted in a massive police raid incleuding alleged tear gas and violence. An article on the incident can be found here, which cites the fact that 19 of the 60 participants were actually arrested. I kind of wish I hadn't missed out on the mayhem, although while I certainly understand their motives I'm very thankful I'm not involved in this mess.

"A Note to the Community

"On December 15, 2008, an unofficial student organization calling themselves the New School in Exile occupied the cafeteria at 65 Fifth Avenue, barricaded themselves into the room, and issued a set of demands. Early on the morning of December 16, a group of students and non-students broke through a fire exit on 14th street and entered the building.

"Although the occupants had violated a number of important security rules, the university made the judgment they were neither an operational or a security risk. Accordingly, we did not file a complaint with the New York Police Department to have the occupants removed. Instead we entered into a process of negotiations with our students and reached agreement on a list of demands including amnesty for all involved early on the morning of December 17. The students left peacefully at that time.

"In January, this same unofficial student organization issued a public threat to forcefully shut down the university on April 1 unless the President and Chief Operating Officer were removed. Following this they were caught stealing an entire edition of the student newspaper on account of a story they regarded as unfavorable to them; and subsequently they vandalized the university's presidential residence.

"During this time the university has allowed and accommodated every peaceful protest, teach-in, and demonstration. We have enforced our rules governing such events in such a way as to permit protests, so long as they don't endanger the safety of other members of the community or destruction of property.

"This morning's illegal occupation of 65 Fifth Avenue was joined by a number of New School in Exile students as well as individuals without any affiliation to The New School. Their claim that this was a simple political protest is false. Their entry into this building was forced, they removed a man who was cleaning the building, took his phone, injured a security officer, and did physical damage to the building.

"Accordingly, in this case the university asked the New York Police Department to remove and arrest those who were trespassing on our property. We suspended, pending administrative review, all New School students who were a part of this action.

"The New School prides itself on civic engagement. We have been and will continue to be a refuge for open and critical political debate. Students and faculty who choose to peacefully and passionately oppose the policies of the university will have their rights to do so protected as strongly as we protect our right to safely and securely operate our university."

President Bob Kerrey

Evoking Lincoln: President Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech

On the afternoon of January 20th, 2009, the 44th President of the United States was sworn in at the Capitol in Washington, DC, and began his service to a nation in the crux of an economic downturn, in the brunt of a war overseas, and in a time of polarizing and crippling bipartisanship in politics and between fellow citizens. Barack Hussein Obama was now the first African-American man to hold this highest of office, and after taking the oath on the same bible used in 1861 by President Lincoln, President Obama stepped up to the podium to deliver his inauguration speech, arguably one of the more historically significant inauguration speeches ever delivered. As millions all over the world watched from television sets and Internet streaming videos and listened in on radios, President Obama went about “holding an inauguration that celebrate[d] America’s unity”[1], keeping the lessons and ethos of former president Lincoln in the back of his mind. With his modesty, his call to action of all citizens, and his stoic grace, President Obama sought to usher in a new era for the United States. I will explore Obama’s inauguration speech through the lens of neo-Aristotelian criticism in comparison to President Lincoln’s second inaugural addresses in the hopes of further exemplifying the validity, appropriateness and power behind his chosen Lincoln-esque rhetoric.

The transcript and videos of Obama’s speech can be found on a number of websites, but I chose to reference The New York Times online transcription as well as the accompanying 19 minute- and 23 second-long video of the speech. Through the canons of invention and style I hope to illustrate the effectiveness and necessity for Obama’s chosen rhetoric as modeled after The Great Unifier himself.

President Obama’s speechwriters relied on invention in the form of the internal proofs, primarily employing pathos. Through the use of simplistic language to which men and women of any educational background can relate, President Obama used many of his words to reiterate the concepts that helped found our nation while evoking Lincoln’s unification pathos: by employing inclusive phrases such as “all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance”, and “we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off” [2], Obama was not just talking to the Democrats who elected him in to office; he was indeed addressing an entire people, an entire nations of citizens, including himself. Much like when Lincoln asserted, “with charity toward all…let us strive on to finish the work we are in”[3], Obama used inclusive language to evoke emotions and oneness within the American people. And utilizing juxtaposing language such as “still waters of peace” next to “gathering clouds and raging storms”[4], Obama created stirring metaphors in the mind of his audience, images that clearly personify the fluctuating state of our nation over the past 8 years, and indeed its entire short history.

President Obama also employed ethos by remaining dignified and true of character throughout his speech, graciously thanking former President Bush “for his service to our nation” and his “cooperation…throughout this transition” [5]. He also made subtle attacks at the previous administration, citing a “consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some” but also acknowledging that everyone in Washington has been responsible for this “collective failure to make hard choices”, never entirely laying all the blame on the former president’s actions[6]. Much like when Lincoln stated that “both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish”[7], President Obama focused on the actions and faults of both parties when it came to making difficult decisions in the past.

The style of language employed by President Obama was not as poetic as some may have expected: Frank Rich, an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, noted that he “did not offer his patented poetry” [8] while the Associated Press encouraged Obama days before his speech “Enough with the inspiration already. Now it’s time to get down to work.” [9] While several have stated that Lincoln’s second inaugural speech was in fact quite floral – American writer and editor Carl Sandburg called it “the great American poem” [10] – it was also far shorter than his first address and immediately commented on the current state of the nation. Obama approached the podium on the day of his inauguration with the same objective, knowing well that the country needed to hear “just the facts” [11]. With references to the economic condition, the housing crisis, the wars overseas, and the threat of a warming planet, President Obama did not resort to dusty inspirational campaign rhetoric but instead employed the language of a motivator, the strong language of someone who will indeed complete this new task. As Obama set his sights on “those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents”, he strongly reminded our enemies they “cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you” [12], emphasizing his somber approach to the change that needs to occur in this country.

Insistent on speaking to every single American, President Obama’s inauguration speech addressed prevailing international tensions and socioeconomic conditions on the home front, drawing some parallels from the style, ethos and pathos of Lincoln’s second inaugural address. Effective even on its own, without the comparison to Lincoln, President Obama was able to employ emotional significance while also addressing the necessary steps it will take for the United States to rise to greatness once more. Calling his audience of millions to action while assuring them all that change, progress and unity is a possibility, President Obama summed up his speech by evoking the father of our nation, George Washington, effectively incorporating a remembrance of the past, a nod to the present, and a foresight into the future.

Works Cited
[1] President Inaugural Committee Executive Director Emmett Beliveau quoted in Weiner, Rachel, “Obama: Lincoln Bible for Inauguration,” The Huffington Post, 23 December 2008, Politics Section, huffingtonpost.com.
[2] Obama, Barack H. “Presidential Inauguration Speech.” The Lincoln Memorial, The National Mall, Washington, DC, 20 January 2009. (Italics added by author for emphasis).
[3] Lincoln, Abraham. “Second Presidential Inauguration Speech.” The Capitol Grounds, Washinton, DC, 4 March 1865. (Italics added by author for emphasis).
[4] Obama.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Lincoln.
[8] Rich, Frank, “No Time for Poetry,” The New York Times, 24 January 2009, Editorial Section, nytimes.com.
[9] Daniel, Douglass K., “Speech advice for Obama,” Associated Press, 16 January 2009, The Edge.
[10] Byrd, Max, “The Great American Sermon,” The New York Times, 10 February 2002, Books Section, nytimes.com.
[11] Daniel.
[12] Obama.

Newspaper Covers from Around the World

It's encouraging to know that the rest of the world is just as excited/interested in Obama's presidency as I am.

Here is a link to The Guardian's photo archive of worldwide media outlets' front pages Wednesday morning. On the left you can navigate through the 48 different newspapers that put Obams on their cover. What a refreshing site to see.

Above is from a Belgian news source called De Morgen. Although probably extremely altered in Photoshop, I still think visually the colors are pleasing.

Gobama!

New School Provost to Serve on Obama's Department of Defense Transition Team

My faculty kicks ass.

All New School students received this email from President Bob Kerrey today:

It is with some sadness and some pleasure that I tell you that Joseph Westphal has joined President-Elect Obama’s Transition Team for the Department of Defense. His work will require that he spend significant time in Washington and, as such, we have agreed that he cannot do both this historic mission and devote the time necessary to the Provost’s office.

So, the pleasure I feel is pride in my friend Joe and his being singled out by the new administration for this important work.

So proud of my school...

St. Mark's Place Celebrates Obama's Victory (with photos and video)

Last night, around 11 PM Eastern Standard Time, Barack Obama was decidedly declared the 44th President of the United States as McCain conceded defeat on national television.

Watching in a bar off Avenue A between 2nd Street and Houston called Kelly's, I sat stunned, not quite ready to celebrate. This is what our system has done to me: turned me into even more of a skeptic than usual, doubting that anything CNN tells me could possibly be completely true, not yet ready to celebrate for fear that we would have another incident like in 2000. But looking down in the corner at the electoral votes, glancing around at the elated faces of my friends and fellow beer drinkers, hearing shouts of exuberance and the sound of horns honking flowing incessantly in from the streets, I knew it had to be true. And I couldn't help it, but tears came to my eyes.

Our nation had elected its first African-American President. And I had voted for him. And he was now MY president.

This night was, indeed, an historic event. Not only will Obama's be the first black family to live in the White House, but this marks the end of one of the longest presidential races in the history of our country, and an election with one of the largest voter turn outs to date.

Everyone can easily recount for a friend where they were when they first heard about 9/11. My mother's generation can tell us youngsters what their living room smelled like when they found out Kennedy had been shot. I will never forget listening to Obama's acceptance speech, which, not surprisingly, brought tears to my eyes again. Perched on the end of a pool table shifting my eyes back and forth from any of the 8 different TVs in the bar, I applauded. I nodded. I repeated "Yes, we can" after he said it. And for the first time in a long time, I felt that I was a part of something. That my generation can actually do something.

Yes, we can.

This phrase will no doubt go down in history books next to Four score and seven years ago and I have a dream. And the things this man could do for our country are virtually endless. He will change the face of this nation. I have hope; after tonight, I really believe. As a friend of mine said tonight, "optimism is certainly contagious."

After Kelly's Bar I walked with some friends up Avenue A in the direction of home just to see where the night would take us. After only 6 blocks, we hit St. Mark's Place (also called 8th Street for all you Angelinos out there). I couldn't have asked for a better situation to stumble upon:
Along with hearing Obama's speech as I sat on that pool table, I will never in my life forget dancing in the middle of the street like a lawless heathen as police attempted to clear the road for cars. The photo above was taken from atop a dumpster on the south side of St. Marks before infiltrating the street with my friend Arthur.

Obviously, the police attempts to clear the streets were fruitless. I got pushed to the side by one slightly, but as soon as the officer would pass someone would break out of the squished line, and suddenly everyone was blocking traffic again. A few cabs tried to make it down the street, and we moved aside to let them through. None of the cabbies seemed too upset; they understood the implications this election held, and had no problem allowing us to go ahead with our celebration.

The cops eventually gave up, and what ensued afterward was dancing, chanting, singing and hugging the likes of which I've never before poured my entire heart into. If you look at the video I've posted at the end of this entry, you can see the balcony on which several people were leading the crowd in a sing along, also where all the music was coming from (Hot Chip, MIA, Queen, Biggie, MGMT, and some 60's hits that I can't remember exactly at this moment).

I don't think I've ever danced like such an idiot, and felt so free about doing so. My friends brought up how un-American this was, how this is what countries do when their team wins the World Cup, what Third World countries do when their leader of choice is elected to office. Do you remember stories of people running, dancing, cheering through the streets when Clinton was elected?

So, remember the car nestled amongst the sea of people from the first image? Well, several people decided to stand on it to take photographs, and...
killed it.

Besides that, I didn't see any other damage. It wasn't a dangerous, angry riot; more like a free-loving spiritual demonstration, which is why I think the cops eventually laid off and resorted to instead setting up barricades at First Ave. to keep cars away from the situation.

It's now almost 5 in the morning as I sit with legs that just couldn't walk any further, a throat sore and hoarse from chanting, yelling and excitedly talking, a body that knows it has to be up for class tomorrow, but somehow none of this matters. Somehow, in the course of a single day, optimism has filled my brain, my emotions, my outlook on the future. And I will either sleep soundly with that thought, or possibly stay up all night from the excitement, a kid before their first trip to Disneyland, a citizen who is just as anxious for 1.20.09 as I am for visiting California in December, an American who can say her country has made her proud for the first time in her adult life.

The Obama brand

I agree wholeheartedly that Obama is indeed a brand: see the above photo. He even has a logo. His image and his message of "change" is one that hits home with people; this word represents a step away from the past 8 years, which market research-driven tactics like polls and surveys have proven to hold very negative feelings and thoughts (as of a recent Gallop poll, President Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low of 27%, whereas the percentage of American's who express satisfaction with the state of the country is a meager 7%). In this sense, Frank Luntz is correct when he says that when choosing language to use, in both commercial and political advertising, "it doesn't matter what you want to tell the public; what matters is what they want to hear".

Do any of us remember seeing Kerry or Gore's face on t-shirts worn by the young and old alike? I certainly don't, at least not in the proliferation that Obama shirts and hats and buttons are seen in this city (granted, New York is decidedly more liberal than conservative). The same thing, however, is happening with Palin. "Hockey Moms for Palin" or "Lipstick Republican" shirts are also seen in proliferation, maybe not in New York but certainly at Palin rallies and events across the nation. These images that the candidates present to us SELL, which undoubtedly equates the candidates to a brand name for each respective party.

Douglas Atkin, one of the persons interviewed during the "Emotional Branding" segment of The Persuaders (which you can watch online at pbs.org here), spoke to the idea of the cult-like devotion that some people have with brand names (think of Mac users, Harley riders, WWE fans, etc.), that being in a cult was like "belonging to the tribe". There is a need to belong to something that some could argue is inherent in us. Therefore, the goal of the emotional marketing campaigns of the 1990s were focused around this idea of cult-like devotion, which still works in the realm of political advertising. This is similar to what Benjamin speaks of when he mentions the "cult of the movie star", which raps the public with the "phony spell of [the] commodity" of the actor or actress in a film (27); really, these politicians we see in the election process are no more than commodities being sold to us by a political party.

I have spoken with friends about how much it disturbs me that I myself have fallen victim to the wordage and persuasion of the Obama campaign, that I support him and really stand behind who he is unlike any other candidate I've ever voted for (well, this will be true in about 3 days) and that I know I have been blinded by his advertising, by the promises that his brand name will (so they say) deliver.

And of course, I know that if all goes horribly awry, it could very well be that I, like the rest of us Obama supporters, have been fooled. Fooled into thinking change is actually a possibility, fooled into supporting a candidate that won't get anything done, fooled into thinking that he's going to stand by his ideas and promises like every other politician swears they will...Because in the end, Obama is still a part of the political machine. He's still there on Capitol Hill, still a part of "the problem in Washington". Much like belonging to "the Saturn family" (which, before I moved to New York, I also was a "part" of, only insomuch as I owned a Saturn and would defend the honor of that car against all reason...really, it was a great, 30 MPG, safe vehicle!), Obama has created a brand name that is synonymous with hope and change, and I've definitely bought what he's selling.

The Abuse of the Soundbite

I recently read an article (or was it on NPR?...) stating that nowadays, the majority of political candidates really abuse the soundbite. Long gone are the days of in depth speeches that reach out to the masses; most modern political pundits are very guilty of relying on short, to the point, and succinct statements that can easily be bundled in a brief video, easily replayed on news stations or quoted within texts of newspapers, magazines, and web articles. These soundbites are chock full of emotion, intended to stir the viewer or reader into a heated frenzy either for or against the speaker in question. They also represent a certain clarity, a message that sums up the politician in question's views in a short, concise sentence. The report I referred to also stated that as technology has increased (i.e. the prevalence of the internet), the average length of the soundbite has decreased to almost half of what it was before. I believe it states that the average soundbite is now only 7 seconds in length. This also relates to current society's focus on immediacy of information.

Think of the buzzwords and phrases that McCain and Obama have been employing in their respective campaigns: "Change you can believe in", "Barack Obama: More empty words" (from a McCain attack video), etc. These soundbites are easily quotable, easy to remember, and easy on the ears. This goes along with the concept that rhetoric is employed as a means to persuade, a way to convince the masses that they are making the right choice by supporting this individual. While the soundbite isn't inherently evil or good, it certainly says something, at the very least, about current society's attention spans.

Palin makes me want to vomit.

Palin's speech at the RNC was such a feeble attempt at stirring anti-Obama emotions, I can't even believe it was attempted. Not only is this woman trying to play in to the image of being just a small town "hockey mom" who is strictly against elitism in Washington, the fact is that she IS a part of the political machine. I mean, she is a GOVERNER, after all. The sad thing is that this rhetoric might just work, seeing as it's along the same lines as Bush's attempt to appear to be the candidate everyone just wants to have a beer with. I feel the chunks rising...gahh...

There was a woman holding up a sign at the Convention reading "Hockey Moms Unite for Palin", and in the BBC article I read there were images of women holding up buttons stating "Hottest VP from the Coolest State" and others with "Sarah Palin" in a big pink heart. Aww, maybe once she's elected you can all sip your lo-cal caramel mocha frappuccinos and conduct a heated debate over the best place to get a manicure! And I’m not saying this simply because she’s a woman; I say this because she is a vapid, slimy, image-conscious candidate attempting to win a title that is, in the end, about intelligence, compromise, and experience. I only begrudgingly credit her with intelligence; she was able to woo an entire room of stiff old guys into laughter and several onslaughts of booing, much like one would see at a comedy show or a celebrity roast.

And basically, that’s what her speech was; an evil, smirking attack on Obama, calling him a tree-hugging hippie (essentially) for caring about saving our planet that we are slowly destroying while also calling him a quitter for not talking about victory when it comes to the war in which we’re currently engulfed. I’m paraphrasing here, but on the whole she stated ‘Obama doesn’t mention victory once unless it’s referring to his own campaign’. The lovely media then decided to make a quick cut-away to a stoic veteran sitting unwaveringly in the audience. Gahh, I’m gagging again…

It's practically insulting that the Right felt Palin was a worthy Vice Presidential candidate after reaming Hillary for being “cold” and “elitist”. Hillary has more sense of how to run a country in her little finger than Palin has in her entire body. Remember, PALIN IS A GOVERNER. Foreign policy experience be damned, she says! But I guess that’s what McCain is there for. He's been around long enough, right?

The last thing this country needs in another woman in power who is anti-choice telling other women that the state should have control over their bodies. The last thing this country needs is a candidate who not only supports off-shore drilling, but essentially organized it in her state of Alaska. I could give a rat’s ass that she’s a member of the NRA (do whatever you want with that antiquated Amendment, folks) but making part of your reform for the state HUNTING WOLVES FROM HELICOPTERS seems a bit, I dunno, INSANE.

Among others in attendance at the convention were an elderly woman (presumably Giuliani's mother) sitting and clapping inconsistently while looking about ready to keel over. There could have been a cartoon thought bubble coming out of her head reading "I am just so lost. Actually, I think I may have wet myself" while people on both sides hugged their trophy wives and waved their cowboy hats.

Obama picks Joe Biden as Veep Running Mate

Obama has chosen Delaware senator Joe Biden as his running mate for the 2008 presidential race. Possibly a good choice, since Biden has far more foreign policy experience than Obama, therefore evening out the playing field for the Dem team. However, if the democratic nominee wishes to continue with this theme of CHANGE, choosing an elderly white male senator who has been in the Senate since the 70s may not be the best choice. Add to the fact that Obama has been making some serious mistakes lately (appearing at the church event in Orange County, for example, which did NOTHING for him) and that Biden is known for being someone who speaks his mind, and we've got a potential disaster on our hands. The media is painting him as a "loose cannon" figure, someone who could go off at the drop of a hat. Let's hope this doesn't prove to be the case.