The Teenage Atheist: A Criticism

Teenage rebellions these days
tend to just get WAY out of hand.

All things considered, I was a pretty typical teenager. I grew up in a middle-class suburban neighborhood with my mother, father, and older sister. I watched movies, played video games, and hung out with my group of friends after school. And, like most preteens, I was kind of confused about religion. When I was in early elementary school, I sometimes wished that I knew exactly what it meant to "not say God's name in vain," and I had no idea what to say when some other kid asked me what religion I was. In middle school, I went through a fairly typical middle school Wicca phase. I don't think I even started to "figure out" religion until I hit my teenage years, when I started to settle on the idea that I might not be religious, and that I might even be Atheist.

But this blog isn't about me. It's about the inconsistencies I've seen in my (and others') experiences in exploring religion and Atheism, and the way the Teenage Atheist is portrayed in pop culture. The Teenage Atheist can be seen in a whole slough of novels, movies, and TV shows about adolescents entering adulthood. Of course, the first that may come to mind is Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye. Fellow fictional atheists include Donnie Darko (Donnie Darko, 2001), Kurt Hummel (Glee, TV Series), Jen Lindley (Dawson's Creek, TV Series), Daria Morgendorffer (Beavis and Butt-head, TV Series), Cassandra Edelstein and Roland (Saved!, 2004), and Liz Warren (Hummingbirds, novel, 2003).

Notice anything similar about all of these characters? I do! They're snarky, hyper-intelligent, weird, trouble-maker teens, and pretty much all... messed up... in one way or another. None of these characters are normal. They have "excuses" for their Atheism. Whether it be a troubled childhood, psychotic episodes, or a tendency towards being awkward and unpopular, nearly all of these characters seems to have a reason for why they turned out as an Atheist.

So, why is this a problem? Tons of other fictional teens struggle with identity in other ways. Teens struggle with sexuality, relationships, pregnancy, authority, and countless other programs quite often on television. These problems are often the main focus of the character's development over the series. In any of these cases, the character has an often clearly negative obstacle to overcome (bullying, struggles with teen pregnancy or the morality of abortion, abuse, etc.); it is clear that these are obstacles to overcome, in which the character must do some soul searching in order to overcome them.

But what about Atheism? It is treated as as a reason why the character is so messed up. Instead of offering up Atheism as a character trait to be explored, Atheism is often the root of the bigger problem. In Saved!, Cassandra Edelstein is an outcast and troublemaker because of her Atheism. In Donnie Darko, the main character struggles with the idea of his thoughts forcing him into being an Atheist (after which, his therapist reassures him that, no, he is not an Atheist). As a whole, Atheism is treated as something that always needs to be struggled over during the teenage years. It is treated as an offshoot of the teenage rebellion phase instead of a sign of maturation or greater understanding of faith.

Don't worry, Donnie. Atheists are people who don't believe in God. You definitely still have a chance, buddy!

This lack of discussion about Atheism as a route of spiritual belief or as a positive or neutral character trait in the shows we broadcast to our children and teens is unhealthy. Although it is sometimes treated as a joke, whether or not Atheism is mocked as a silly system of belief is not actually the issue here. We mock all other kinds of religions, as well as all ethnicity, sexuality, and personality types. The issues is that Atheism is only ever treated as a joke, a phase of rebellion, or an open-ended question. You rarely, if ever, see a teen or young adult fictional character at ease with their Atheism. It is always tied to a history of a troubled, angsty past, or as a fleeting fancy that will pass with age or wisdom.

Free Speech Terrorism

As I am sure many of you newsy types know, there have recently been incredibly violent and emphatic protests outside US Embassy's in predominantly Muslim countries as a result of a film posted on YouTube.

Given the details (or the distinct lack thereof), I have been unable to rationalize this incredible reaction directed specifically at the United States, rather than at the filmmaker. Mostly the problem appears to be that there is NOT a filmmaker. This BBC Article seems to suggest that the maker of the film himself was Egyptian. Indicating that Egyptian religious sects are fighting their battles indirectly through the United States, and the rest of the Arab world is up in arms as a side effect. Whether this is true or not, it does seem to be the case that this film was distinctly meant to upset certain groups and particularly in the direction of the United States.

Before I go any further, I need to define what I mean by terrorism in this instance. I consider terrorism to be the act or acts of deliberately being violent or inflammatory in the name of your own cause, without respect for human life or collateral damage, and possibly with the intention to destroy both.

Given this definition, this film is terrorism. It seems to be deliberately inflammatory, and certainly to it's own ends, without regard for the violence and loss of life it has caused. The fact that it is still unclear who created the film, and that no one has come out and apologized for the film's contents or defended the film in any way seems to indicate that this was either an intended effect or a happy side effect. The maker of this film is obviously complicit with the violence it has caused and is therefore a terrorist by the above definition.

So arrest him,you say! But unfortunately it is not that simple. The creator of this film was completely within his First Amendment rights to free speech. He broke no laws. Inciting violence via free speech is not a crime, and nor should it be. To prevent the strange future dystopia where Americans need assault rifles to fight against the government, we  need free speech. If we give that up, all is lost. Freedom of dissent is necessary and critical to the function of our government and society. It is important that differing opinions be heard and that no one is ever arrested for speaking their mind. An unfortunate byproduct is also the freedom to be incendiary, and to create violence by rhetoric without punishment.

There are many nations that do not permit this kind of behavior. A recent example is Russia, who continues to detain punk band Pussy Riot for their verbal and visual attacks in the government, the type of behavior that passes without comment in the US, as it is very much legal here. China has in the past arrested hundreds of men and women for sending even remotely disloyal e-mails (Amnesty International). This happens almost everywhere but in the US. We are privileged with free speech.

So what can we do here? I urge that we seek the truth about this film. Who made it? What for? If the groups currently protesting understand that they are protesting the acts of a terrorist and not a nation, I believe the tone will change.

-------------------------------------
What do you think? Let us know in the comments!

*I have deliberately not posted the actual film, because I do not think it deserves more views. If you absolutely must see it, Google is your friend. 

They just wanted to go see a movie.

Friday July 20, 2012

Blog Entry

A summer blockbuster premiere is exciting. There is the good weather that makes waiting outside for it to open pleasant and the anticipation builds for at least a year if the movie has credibility or a large fan base. "The Dark Knight Rises" is that kind of film. Little did anyone in Aurora, Colorado realize that a night at the theater would turn into a mass shooting. 

See http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html for the details. 

As you notice the reporting has cell phone video from the theater showing a man walking out of the theater with blood on him. The usual talk of how many injured and how many dead are early in the article. No motive is cited and the 24 year old perp did not put up a fight. He just surrendered to the police. People were evacuated from near his home because bombs or bomb making material was found. As I was reading I thought to myself that it felt like a school shooting, just the location was a theater and not a high school. As someone who was in school only 40 minutes north of Kip Kinkel's 1998 Thurston High school shooting in Springfield, Oregon I tend to pay close attention to the phenomenon. The next year my classmates and I were all shocked and chilled as the Littleton, Colorado Columbine High school shooting unfolded on the news. Terrified that it was happening again after we already became acutely aware that school may not be as safe as it was touted to be. As I finished reading the article I found it interesting that CNN ends with the note that Aurora is only 13 miles from Littleton, Colorado. Location and memory--places holding onto past events of trauma. 

It is the public memory or collective memory that is striking in this article. It was something that I thought of as soon as I saw the headlines about the shooting. But school shootings are something, being in the same state as the first big one, that I pay attention to and am sensitive to. The trauma of a mass shooting, eerily with a similar body count and so close to the site of the 1999 massacre, has to resonate in an even more complex way with that local community. Surely people who survived Columbine are still in the area. Surely that feeds into the trauma of last night. Cathy Caruth (1996) notes that trauma involves a mental wound, one that is not bodily. “Trauma is not locatable in the simple violent or original event in an individual’s past, but rather in the way that its very unassimilated nature--the way it was precisely not known  in the first instance--returns to haunt the survivor” (p. 4). The way that Columbine still haunts Colorado and Thurston still haunts Oregon is the same way that this seemingly irrational, motiveless crime will add to the haunting of those in that community. Likely it will extend and should make all Americans think about our society and what is causing this type of mass violence to occur. Violence can be persuasive and is exercised often to cause change. But what about instances such as these? What can we learn from something that lacks motive? Or do we just learn that we need to be more critically mindful of our interactions, our society norms, and be sure to extend kindness to those we encounter. 

Key words: Aurora, Colorado, The Dark Knight Rises, School Shootings, Columbine, Thurston, Trauma

Context and Fable III

I have something of a thing regarding connections between current world events and the stories told in video games and motion pictures. I am fascinated by them. They are not a particularly rare instance, but when I see one, I tend to get very excited. A few weeks ago, I began playing Fable III (again) and the opening cut scene, to me, bleeds contextual commentary. Here's the clip, from Youtube:

The world of Fable, Albion, has been blessed with the age of industry. But the industrial age has also taken it's toll, and the divide between the rich and poor has become astronomical in size. The middle class is non-existent. The poor hope that one day they too will be able to live as they wish, and not be mired in the muddy halls of manufacturing. But, as the past has shown, hope has been difficult, as the rich grow richer and greedier, and all the more repress the poor who wish to make a name for themselves. Hope has not withstood the beatings, the deaths and the general maltreatment of the lower class.  The government is ruled by a dictator who supports the rich and cares not for the poor. The state of Albion is disastrous. The role of the hero (the player character) is to lead the revolution and usurp the current ruler, his or her sibling, and to thereby restore hope and promise for all. 

Fable III was  released on the Xbox 360 in summer of 2010, when the United States faced some of the same problems as Albion. The parallels are undeniable. The United States has been, in the recent past, blessed with great prosperity, though it may not feel like it, as much of this prosperity has been poured into the coffers of rich businessmen. Like in Albion, our rich grow richer as our poor grow poorer. Our middle class is disappearing, forced down by the government's lack of regard for them. In 2008, many in the United States were given new hope, with Barack Obama's campaign and eventual win of the presidential elections. One of his buzzwords was hope, and it spread. By the time Fable III was released however, that hope had waned. The metaphor of the chicken hopefully in flight and freedom, then dragged down again by gravity, rings true with the state of the American psyche. Hope itself is difficult, in times like these. Here is where things become a little interesting. Fable III was released before the elections in November of 2010, when those whose policies support the rich were put into power in congress. However, now that that time has passed, the situation in Albion is even more reminiscent of the situation in America. The connections grew stronger, as if the writers of Fable III had been prescient of what was to come. 


These parallels, between the narrative of Albion and the narrative of the United States, have deep persuasive meaning. They help the player draw a connection between the happenings in the game and their real life. This does several things. The first is that it gives the player more of a reason to play, because they contextually understand the basics of the situation, as it resembles their own. The second is that the action in the game affects the way the player addresses their situation in the real world. The story of the game makes the argument that in this day and age, when all seems lost, you, the player, are the one who is destined to help change it. You are the force to be reckoned with and the hero of your own time. Lead a revolution, bring back hope, restore your world, as you have done for Albion. 


Fable III, by contextually connecting itself to real world events, makes the argument that the world can be changed, and that each individual can help change it. 

                                                                                                                                                                     

As always, we invite you all to share your thoughts in the comments below.

Kiersten hangs out on Twitter and would love your company.
She also has another blog.

USADA vs. Armstrong, Part 2

The USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency, a non-profit  that acts as the enforcing body for anti-doping rules and regulations in professional sports) has levied official charges against Lance Armstrong, seven time winner of the Tour de France (1999-2005), for blood doping during several of his past competitions and races. If Armstrong sufficiently loses the case, he could lose all of his titles. If you want a recap on what's been happening, here is a link to a New York Times article describing the issue. Responding to this, Kiersten and Dani will take a look at whether the USADA should be focusing on this past occurrence, or whether focus should be on the present and future of cycling.

Please go here to read Kiersten's post first!

It should be noted, however, that this article does not argue the possibility of the allegations themselves. The point of this post is not to prove or disprove whether Lance Armstrong is guilty of blood doping, but instead discusses whether the repercussions of a guilty verdict (having titles revoked) are appropriate or not.

The argument for USADA litigation
Dani


Although I have been acquainted with many people who earnestly remember Lance Armstrong's victories, struggle with cancer, and charity work, I have never been deeply invested in or knowledgeable about Lance Armstrong or the sport of cycling itself. As such, I have no strong personal feelings towards or against Lance Armstrong, and could not speak to whether I believe he is guilty of using illegal drugs to secure victories. That being said, I am playing devil's advocate to Kiersten's argument, and am arguing in this article that, assuming Armstrong is (correctly and fairly) charged with blood doping, the post factum removal of his titles is the correct decision.

From a rhetorical standpoint (as I am want to take), I argue that the USADA is attempting to send a clear message to former dopers, current users, and individuals who may be tempted or looking to use dope to enhance their athletic ability in the future. By stripping Lance of his former titles, the USADA is taking a no-nonsense approach to a situation that cannot be handled any less seriously.

The first point I am going to address is the effect that the revocation will have on both fans and on professional cyclists (the peers and competition of Lance Armstrong). It seems clear that stripping Armstrong of his former titles would send a powerful message to cyclists: doping is illegal, and even users who "got away with it" in the past can get caught--and punished--in the future. Although it is too soon to tell, I can imagine that a revocation of Armstrong's titles will have a strong effect on whether cyclists (especially those tempted to or who are currently using blood doping techniques) decide to use performance enhancing drugs or not.

The effect that the revocation of Armstrong's titles will have on fans is also an important point to consider when deciding if this decision is appropriate or not. According to several polls [LA Times, Business Insider], a majority of those surveyed believe that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs, and according the the LA Times poll, nearly 75% of those who believed that he used blood doping techniques have altered their opinions about him. These statistics lead me to believe that fans are more concerned with solving the allegations of Armstrong's drug use (and sufficiently punishing dope users) than keeping the world of cycling static and constant.

This leads me into my second point, which is that it is important for the USADA to tackle allegations of performance enhancing drugs without discriminating against what point in time they occurred. In an allegation as serious as using illegal drugs to help win such an esteemed title as the Tour de France, it is crucial to condemn these acts, no matter when they occurred. In a case like this, the only way to properly denounce this act is to strip Armstrong of his titles. It would not be affective for the USADA to simply give a slap on the wrists--this would not send a serious enough message to cyclists who may be considering drugs, nor does it create an atmosphere of authority for the USADA. To put it in perspective: would you think it right of the court system to simply state that an embezzlement or theft commited five years ago is "unacceptable," instead of pressing charges against the offendor, even though the crime was committed in the past and evidence of the crime was found years later? Absolutely not. Drug use is illegal, and punishments should be the same whether the crime happened in the present or the past.

To conclude, I agree that the USADA should continue to focus on the prevention of drug usage in American athletes. It is of utmost importance that future incidents of doping are small in number (if not entirely absent), but the course of action that the USADA is pursuing is a step towards this goal. Institutions cannot hope to pursue a goal without addressing past issues or struggles with that goal. If the USADA allowed past incidents of doping to go unpunished, it would not send a strong of a message to both fans and athletes that doping is a serious crime. By threatening Armstrong with this punishment, they can confidently state "getting away with it" is no longer a possibility.

---

As usual, we always love to hear opinions on what the readers think! What are your thoughts on the allegations that Armstrong used blood doping techniques, and what do you think about the USADA's decision to revoke his titles if these allegations turn out to be true?

USADA vs. Armstrong, Part 1

The USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency, a non-profit  that acts as the enforcing body for anti-doping rules and regulations in professional sports) has levied official charges against Lance Armstrong, seven time winner of the Tour de France (1999-2005), for blood doping during several of his past competitions and races. If Armstrong sufficiently loses the case, he could lose all of his titles. If you want a recap on what's been happening, here is a link to a New York Times article describing the issue. Responding to this, Kiersten and Dani will take a look at whether the USADA should be focusing on this past occurrence, or whether focus should be on the present and future of cycling.

It should be noted, however, that this article does not argue the possibility of the allegations themselves. The point of this post is not to prove or disprove whether Lance Armstrong is guilty of blood doping, but instead discusses whether the repercussions of a guilty verdict (having titles revoked) are appropriate or not.

The argument against USADA litigation
Kiersten

Take this with a grain of salt, because I grew up watching Lance win. It was a big deal in my house, and it was exciting when he took charge and flattened the competition. I hold Lance in relatively high esteem, especially given Livestrong (his cancer awareness foundation). However, I do realize that it is not implausible he doped to win. It's possible, though greatly disappointing, that he did dope. The question at stake here is not whether he did or not, it's if he should be prosecuted for it. I'm going to argue that he should not be.

There are several factors to take into account here. The first is Armstrong's incredibly high profile. Obviously this would be something the USADA wants to grab onto, to give themselves a boost into the awareness spotlight. That would be a reason for them to litigate. However, along with his high profile comes a lot of people who truly consider him a hero, an amazing athlete and a champion of their cause. Livestrong is one of the most prominent and most widely recognized cancer foundations. If Lance loses this case, Livestrong will go down with him. Considering the percentage amount of donations likely garnered by Livestrong alone for all kinds of cancer, this would be an unnecessary blow to a good cause.  Another point here is that Lance is a symbol of American cycling like no other. If he goes down (like so many others recently), any faith in the sport of cycling will disappear. Nothing good will come of this. 

With that unhappy result in mind, the second part here is how long ago it was. Seven years is a very long time in sports. The drug rules in the sport of cycling alone have changed a dozen times since Armstrong was winning. Short term doping punishment I understand, as in revoking of the title within a couple months of the evidence. But years?? No one remembers who came in second. They won't suddenly find themselves with a title now, because that title is meaningless. Taking away titles years later makes the original event pointless, and therefore future events pointless, what is a contest without a winner? It's also important to note that any testing at the time (and he WAS tested) would have been done using older procedures. Is it fair to apply new technology to old drug test samples? You wouldn't bother for just anyone, it's a lot of extra work, and you have to go hunting for the maybe-still-existing samples. So, if you wouldn't go hunting for everyone's samples to retest, is it fair just to test the winners? The losers could be doing it too. Also, remember that doping has been a part of cycling since 1900 [See this wiki]. It is not new, and cycling itself has become an increasingly difficult sport because of it. The sport itself transcends anything an athlete can do to cheat. There is still so much more that has to be done than just giving yourself extra blood cells. They help, but they aren't even half the battle. Armstrong won those Tours with skill and amazing athleticism, cheating or not. No blood test from 5 years ago can disprove that. This is why instead of trying to prove this point, the USADA should put their resources into stopping doping at current and future events. Otherwise this cycle will never end, but cycling as a sport will. 

I understand that punishing Armstrong will pose as an example for the rest of the possible dopers of the world that they could lose their titles even years afterwards as technology progresses. And that's a legitimate argument, but dopers know the consequences, and there's a whole lot of fame they can reap in between the time they win and the time they are found out. Not to mention that they still, for all intents and purposes, go down as the person who won whatever competition. Any verdict does not retroactively change the history of the sport. The fact remains that Armstrong won those races, and he did so by cycling well, blood doping or no. Plus, as the records indicate, everyone was doing it at the time. My father, who has been watching the tour religiously since 1985, has said that if they take away Lance's 7 titles it will be the last straw and he will stop watching. He says, "What's the point if two years later, the person who won has their title revoked?" A recent tour, on the record books, belongs to the person who finished in at least 5th, because of the titles revoked due to doping admissions or discoveries. No one knows who that was, and no one cares. In the end, taking down Lance Armstrong is like tearing down the last remaining pillar of the sport of cycling, and the strongest supporter of cancer research at the same time. Everything will come crashing down on your head, and no one will be happy.

The USADA should turn its focus towards the future, and fostering studies to prevent whatever new kind of undetectable doping they'll come up with, rather than digging up old evidence to bring down the old greats. It's a waste of time and money, and will do nothing but make a great number of people unhappy. Sure, justice may be served in the end, but it will have been a waste of resources and achieved nothing. I support the USADA's existence. I think they're a worth-while institution, but I also think they have a worthless vendetta and that they need to get the hell over it.

---

The second side of the argument, written by Dani, will be posted in a few days. The link will be posted here when it is available.

As usual, we always love to hear opinions on what the readers think! What are your thoughts on the allegations that Armstrong used blood doping techniques, and what do you think about the USADA's decision to revoke his titles if these allegations turn out to be true?

"ZOMBIES, RUN!" or "Why do we not feel so fat?"

About a year ago, Six to Start and Naomi Alderman decided to launch a Kickstarter campaign to create a unique iPhone/Android application that combines a fitness tracking app with a unique audio-adventure video game. Developers described the game to be "about making the thrill of runing even better with a game and a story delivered through your headphones."

"Zombies, Run! is an ultra-immersive game for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and Android where you help rebuild civilisation after a zombie apocalypse. By going out and running in the real world, you can collect medicine, ammo, batteries, and spare parts that you can use to build up and expand your base - all while getting orders, clues, and story through your headphones." - Kickstarter

The game, titled "ZOMBIES, RUN!" received immense support within months of launching the funding campaign, and to date, has received 581% of its requested funds (June 23, 2012). More than 3,400 people have backed this project, and (according to Google Play on my Android phone) it has been downloaded over 5,000 times on Android phones alone.

So... what is it about this game that has garnered such attention? Obviously, people are pretty psyched about having an app that not only tracks your running/walking/biking progress (overweight moms, tech-savvy bodybuilders, and self-conscious teenage girls are all jumping on the tech+fitness bandwagon), but there's something else going on here. It's not just that the app lets you track your fitness progress, and it's not just that you get to allocate resources to your virtual base play a video game after you run. I argue that this app, aside from combining gaming with fitness, convinces the public of its "playablility" more than any fitness app ever before. Why? Because it's semi-immersive, and grabs at narrative structure like we haven't seen ever before.

This is kind of a big claim. There are several extremely popular tech+fitness games out there (Dance Central, Just Dance, Dance Dance Revolution, YourShape Fitness Evolved, WiiFit/Sports, Fruit Ninja Kinect, and the list goes on). But out of any of the games I just listed, did you feel attached, sympathetic, or angry towards any of the characters? Did you want to come back and play because you wanted to know what's next in the story? Did you truly become the protagonist? I doubt it.

ZOMBIES, RUN! is semi-immersive. I will define immersion as a decreased awareness of the physical self by being surrounded in an engrossing total environment. That is, ZOMBIES places the user in an environment where their own identity is lost, and replaced by someone elses' (the character "Runner Five"). As they run through their seemingly familiar neighborhood, a story unfolds through headphones that contradicts what they are seeing around them: "". This is something unheard of with tech+fitness games before now. In nearly all of the games listed above, your identity is solidified: you see your shadow representing you or a trainer in front of you on the screen.


I believe that users are drawn to this immersion because it further displaces the concept of fitness from gaming while simultaneously pushing the user to come back for more. The concept of objective self-awareness is hard at work, here. In short, private self-awareness refers to what we think about ourselves when we must reflect on our image (e.g.: seeing oneself in a mirror). Generally, when there is a perceived difference between "ideal" self and actual self, we react negatively (Phillips and Silvia, 2005). In several studies conducted to show the impact of exercising in a mirrored environment, it was found that sedentary people are less motivated to exercise in a mirrored environment, presumably because mirrors "evoke... negative affect[s] during exercises" (Song et. al, 3) due to high body image dissatisfaction. In many fitness video games, "most of them either include avatars to represent the players in the virtual exercise environments (e.g., Wii Fit) or enable them to see their virtual selves on the screen (e.g., EyeToy)" ( Song et. al, 5).


However, we don't see that in ZOMBIES. This game allows the user to ignore preconceptions about themselves and their self-image. Their body (or an idyllized form of their body) isn't getting projected on a screen. They have become Runner Five. In this pretend world, they not only are allowed to neglect viewing themselves in a negative light, but they are assigned a role that attributes positive qualities to their self-image. THIS is why I believe ZOMBIES, RUN has taken off and achieved such popularity in less than a year.


Sources:
1. Phillips, A.G., & Silvia, P.J. (2005). Self-awareness and the emotional consequences of self-discrepancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 703-713.
2.Song, H., Peng, Wei, & Lee, Kwan (2009). Promoting exercise self-efficacy with an exergame: The effect of seeing oneself on screen among individuals with high vs. low body image dissatisfaction. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Meeting.

--------

Note from the Writer: I have totally played this game. I have been using it rather obsessively for the last week. I love it dearly. Forgive me for sounding like I'm being paid to write this, but you should seriously check it out if you enjoy running, walking, jogging, or zombies. In the future, I will try not to sound as much like a scumbag advertising fiend. Forgive me!

Lions, Tigers, and --Zombies?!?! Oh my!

Conspiracy rhetoric and Zombies from me to you:

So we all know that the popularity of zombies in our media-television shows, movies, and books-is prominent. There have recently been a rash of stories about people eating people or gnawing the face off of a homeless man.

The following are some links to these stories to get you up to speed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/cannibalism-addiction-karen-hylen-psychopaths_n_1570470.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/bath-salts-health-cannibal-rudy-eugene_n_1555493.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/alexander-kinyua-cannibal-mental-hospital_n_1609056.html

But what got people extra riled up was the fact that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) showed up. This occurrence is a common marker of a zombie film. The military and the CDC are generally mentioned as having been ineffective or attempted to cover up what was really happening in the initial scenes of the outbreak. These institutions are even mentioned in how the Government will cover up a Zombie outbreak in Max Brooks' book The Zombie Survival Guide. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/cdc-denies-zombies-existence_n_1562141.html

So this, and having read the Zombie Survival Guide recently, got me thinking: Do people really believe in the possibility or happenings of prior Zombie outbreaks? Is this simply mistaken cannibalism?  

Google the phrase "The Lawson Tapes" and you'll find this link:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=138506

There seems to be some debate out there on the inter webs at least and there are a slew of [what I'd call] fake, low budget "authentic" zombie footage reels on the You Tubes. There are debates about authenticity in the comment sections of a few of the videos I checked out there. 

Richard Hofstadter argues that mass media has influenced and aided in the success of paranoid style discourse, which I believe is at the root of what is happening here in the internet forum (6).He says, "It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant" (Hofstadter, p. 1). I am intrigued by the anxieties exemplified in the zombie culture and suspicions. Especially the suspicions that the Government is hiding something from the American people. Instead of preparing them or allowing them to know the truth so they could better prepare for the inevitable zombie outbreak, the American people are being left in the dark. 

So we have stories about zombies instead of preparedness. Walter Fisher call humans "homos narrans" and claims that "Humans are essentially story tellers" (p. 6). What story are we telling with these zombie tales from Hollywood and from amateur film makers on line? Are they the same stories? In a post-9/11 world these anxieties may be a way to fixate on something. A buoy to attach our fears to in the storm and chaos of an unsure destiny amidst the War on Terror. 

Tiara has bias too! So much...

Here is my list of biases that I know I will exhibit in my writing and comments on rhetoric i see. I am a perspectival creature and have many quirks. My list of why I have these particular biases is too long so hang with me. Patience please but do feel free to alert me if I am incorrect or have said something out of turn.

1) I have mixed political views and I am rather naive about proper terms. My education is lightly political so I know a tiny fraction of what a politics major would know. I will certainly misspeak about this at some point but I try to look terms up before commenting/using them.

2) I am not religious and, like the political stuff, I try to look things up before I comment. I may not be sensitive about it so apologies in advance. Also, I may miss references in the text or shiny rhetorical thing I am commenting on. Please feel free to point them out if I leave them unnoticed as they are culturally relevant and assist in deeper understanding. 

3) I was raised from humble beginnings and as a grad student I am still not even remotely affluent. I will likely rail against really rich politicians making out of touch statements with almost no grounds but my own boot straps. 

4) Morally flexible-you'll find me taking the side of the opposition on things to feel out their arguments and "walk a mile in their shoes," if you'll allow me the expression. I am not hard and fast about "good" or "evil" because I realize that most of my leanings are arbitrarily based and rooted more in my socialization rather than any deeply pondered and/or committed stance. 

5) As a side note: I have made up words that I put into practice from time to time. They tend to be hyperbolic or completely made up so I will try to add a definition or a feel for what it means if used. 

I am a rhetoric nerd through and through. I hope I can say something that will make you think or at least make you believe that rhetoric is cool. 'Cause it is my bread and butter.

Cheers!

Hi, there. I'm Dani. And this is why I'm biased.

Why, hello there. First of all, I'm going to gush about how excited I am to blog about rhetoric. I've been a serious rhetoric student for going on three years, and am about to write my thesis in a couple of months. So, I'm brimming with ideas and thoughts on rhetoric, and can't wait to share them with you all.

However, before I even start posting, I should probably introduce myself and explain what sort of background I come from. I'm Dani, and I'm a senior at Willamette University. My degree is in Rhetoric & Media Studies (surprise?), and my minor is in Economics.

This post is mainly going to be about why I talk about the things I talk about, and why they might be occasionally skewed, biased, or (even more infrequently, I hope) incorrect. So, I'mma lay down a beat for you. Or a list of potential biases that could appear in my writing. Probably a list:

1) For the most part, I am a social determinist (of technology). This boils down to meaning that I tend to think that society determines how technology is used, NOT that technology determines it's own use. This is a little awkward to explain here--I'll probably end up doing a related post about it.

2) I am relatively uninformed about scripture and religion. I was raised without any strong religious push in my household, and eventually decided to label myself as an apathetic atheist. I will admit that I'm fairly biased against organized religion, and tend to rant about it when I feel like religion gets in the way of rational thought.

3) I'm an awkward mix of political views. I am liberal on many social issues, but have a couple of sticking points that make hardcore liberals look at me a little weird. I tend to view political polarization as a bad thing, and (like the Portland hipster I unavoidably have to be) tend to think twice about a view if "everyone is doing/thinking it." For example, I love the idea of socialism in healthcare, but am a loose advocate of the death penalty. See? Kind of weird.

4) I tend to take on big projects, which leads me to over-generalize at times. I try to compensate for this as much as I can, but I get really excited about some subjects and want to analyze it all. It sucks, because I can't do that. But if you can tell me an efficient yet complete way of analyzing apocalypse rhetoric in pop culture, PLEASE let me know. I would pay you back in amusing pterodactyl noises.

On Social Networks and How Marketers Don't Get Them

I regularly receive free ebooks and webinar invites from a company called Hubspot. Hubspot is an online social media marketing platform and marketing consulting agency. Generally speaking, I find their stuff interesting and educational (I would say useful, but I honestly have no use for it right now).

This morning, however, I received an ebook whose title alone was enough to make me believe that they really don't know anything about social networks and how the average person interacts with them. The title was, "Google+ vs. Pinterest: Battle of the New Social Networks." Now, most people wouldn't necessarily see this as problematic. So lets follow my logic here.

How many social networks do you have profiles on? More than one right?
I have a profile on pretty much all of them.So, lets say I have 6, just for the sake of simplicity.

How many do you actually use?
Well, I spend the most time on Facebook, but I also use Twitter, G+ and Pinterest regularly.

If the assumption the above entitled ebook makes is correct (That all social networks provide exactly the same service and are in exact competition with one another) then why would I use all of these? Everyone I know uses Facebook, why do I need the others?

The answer is that I use them all for different things. Each does one thing better than another or is designed to fucntion in a certain way that the others do not. They have carved their own niches. People go to Pinterest AND Google +, not one over the other. Pinterest, for one, isn't as socially heavy. Google + is this weird blend between Facebook and Twitter that I haven't yet mastered, Pinterest is tumblr with less 13 year old and more housewife, less blog and more content. You go to pinterest to find cool things on the internet. You go to G+ to see if anyone posted anything interesting there that isn't on Facebook or Twitter already, and because that's where your friend's blog posts to. I use G+ because it's integrated with the rest of my Google things, and I can one click a post, while posting to Facebook from Google can sometimes be a hassle.These reasons, for Pinterest and G+, are not the same. They have no similarities in fact. So, G+ and Pinterest are not in a "Battle" of any sort.

And this is why I think I want to go into internet marketing. Clearly, these people need some advice from some digital natives.

Same-sex couples should be able to get married.

That's what he said!

The LGBT community has been waiting for Obama to say that for years. Everyone knew he would someday, it was just a matter of when and how. I imagine many hoped for something louder and stronger than this, a statement of policy. A speech not unlike his race speech. Instead they got this, which is, in my opinion, a whole lot more interesting.

There is a lot of tossing around of the idea that this was in response to a supposed gaff made by Biden. Here's the "gaff":



I see the stumbling, but I don't see the mistake. Biden doesn't say it anywhere near as straight as Obama does, though the sentiment does get across. Even if this was a gaff (which is a stupid word anyway), it's not really the kind that Obama should have to respond to. It's just not blatent enough. Plus, he could just write it off as another "Oh, Joe..." moment and ignore it entirely. No one would really blame him, except the LGBT community who have wanted him to just-say-it-already for years. But most of them will vote for him in November regardless. So why on earth did Obama and his strategy team choose now? And why have him do it the way he did?

These, my friends, are my favorite questions to ponder, and I think I have come up with an answer. Doesn't matter if it's the actual reason why, that's the fun part of rhetorical study! Everyone's opinion counts as long as you can back it up. There isn't a "right" answer. It's pretty sweet like that.

Anyway. The first question. Why now?

I've read a lot of comments from people posing the idea that Obama chose now because of all the bigoted noise coming from the GOP. The idea being to show that Obama is equalist, not bigoted and LURVES E'RYBODY, unlike those big rich meanies over there. To some degree this seems right to me, but at the same time it seems too limited in scope. It's not as if the GOP doesn't make a habit of being racist, sexist, and gay-hating (in case my negatives confuse you, they do make a habit of that). It's not like their behavior is something new or irregular. So, why wait until now to show how Obama is a more accepting person than them? Sure the general election just started, but really? No. This cannot simply be an "I'm a better person than you" contest.

I think that to some degree it's because of this. That's a link to a New York Times article citing the newest poll numbers on same-sex marriage. There are more Americans in favor of same-sex marriage than there are in opposition. This first changed a year ago. So why didn't Obama say anything then? He had no reason to. It would have been essentially purposeless, and would probably have hurt his chances of convincing congress to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell. In case you haven't noticed, House Republicans are very contrary. Many of those who voted to get rid of DADT would have voted otherwise, just because the POTUS had real opinions upon which he was basing such a policy choice. A policy choice alone is just policy. There could be a million reasons, stated or not, that a policy is bad. But a policy choice with an ethical opinion behind it? An ethical opinion that you disagree with? Them's fightin' words. The repeal of DADT would not have passed if Obama had openly supported same-sex marriage, just because congress is contrary. Now, with the new polls having just come out, Obama can make his announcement. But again, this is a little too small to be the ONLY reason.

Last week, our favorite person in the House of Representatives, John Boehner chose to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. For those of you who don't know, DOMA is the federal law banning recognition of same sex marriages by states aside from the one they occurred in and federal agencies. It also covers a whole lot of other minor details involving the prevention of same-sex marriage. So, under DOMA, a lesbian couple could be married in DC, but they have no married privileges in any other state, and they have to file their federal taxes as if single. DOMA was passed in 1996. In February 2011, the Obama Administration announced it found the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it in court. A case has, of course, come up, and despite the administrations decision, Boehner has chosen to spend tax dollars defending the law. House Republicans also quietly enacted a few other measures last week that also infringe on the rights of same-sex couples.

The last couple weeks have therefore been full of legal activity on the same-sex marriage front. There have also been a number of announcements of support from high ups on the Democratic side of Congress, among them Harry Reid (D, NV), Majority Leader in the Senate. So, Obama's announcement is timely, based on actions by his opponents and by his allies.

So, why did Obama choose now? Because support for same-sex marriage is growing, and the opposition is becoming a louder, less reasoned minority. Has anyone else noticed how the right becomes even more crazy when you back them into corners? They seem to think this works, I am not sure why.

Well, that question has been answered. Next! Why did he do it that way?

Obama's announcement to me sounds a whole lot more like a confession. It's a solid stance, backed with his usual stories, but he notes that it's personal. It's a sort of quiet note, that yeah, he supports gay marriage, but not a statement that you should too. While that might be disappointing to some LGBT rights activists, I think it's a brilliant strategic move.

Obama is not a gay rights leader, as much as we may want him to be. He isn't one and he can't be. Despite the fact that yes, more Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage than oppose it, it is still a political risk for him to stand up on a podium and shout to the world about gay rights. The LGBT political movement has been pinned as radical, and a lot of people still think of it that way. If he were to  stand up and say HEY YOU SHOULD SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, like so many wish he would, he would lose a lot of independent voters, simply because the stance made him seem radical. This calm quiet method of conveying his personal views is a whole lot less scary and a whole lot less offensive to the middle group that Obama needs to win the election.

Plus, it works just as well on everyone else. Those of us who support gay marriage are relieved and excited to hear his views, his real views, finally. Obama absolutely has the LGBT vote now. Hand and foot. Not to mention any other socially liberal Democrat who was maybe a little bit on the ropes.  Also, his base is now pepped to support him, because he has just done a wonderful thing that we've wanted from him for years.

That's why he didn't shout it from the rooftops: He didn't have to, and it was better if he didn't. Shouting and rooftops scare voters.

Another thing that has also been noted is the rhetoric of the word "marriage." Obama has supported full civil unions forever. The only difference was name, pomp and circumstance. Now he's said the word marriage, and as he notes, it's the meaning of the word that matters and makes the difference for the LGBT couples involved. It means a lot to say you're married, it doesn't convey the same if you say you're "civilly united." Sounds sort of like the end to a war to me, rather than the merging of 2 households. And so, marriage it is and marriage it should be, Mr. President.

On bias and how I have it

Before I begin to write this blog, I thought I would make a post to note what my particular biases are. That way, if anyone ever calls me out on something that's clearly an opinion stated as fact, I can send them here. Welcome, person who found an opinion.

I have several biases and though I will try to be as objective as possible regarding my analysis of rhetorical pieces, they're going to show. Especially because I will usually choose to write on things that I have opinions about. I will attempt to list them here.

1) I bleed liberal blue. I was raised in the San Francisco Bay Area and I went to college in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. I am an environmentalist, peace loving hippy. I do not deny this.

2) I am a socialist republican. I don't mean republican as in GOP, but republican as in I believe the best kind of government is a socialist representative democracy. As the US already has a representative democracy (technically) I do lean severely on the side of socialist policy.

3) I freaking love Obama. It's actually kind of a problem. I am a total Obama fangirl. I have plenty of reasons why I like him so much, and I consider most of them to be quite good. However, I do have a slight tendency to overlook his mistakes and flaws. That said, take things I write about him with a small grain of salt. I think what he does is awesome and skillful, and often the right thing. I will admit that it isn't always.

4) I grew up without religion. Most of the things I know about various religions came from study, and therefore I know a whole lot more about Islam than I do Christianity. I have only read very small portions of the Bible. 9 times out of 10 I will miss a religious reference that's blaringly obvious to everyone else in the room. Keep this in mind, and if you see something, let me know. I will only learn if I am taught.

I am sure I will add to this as I go along and things come up. Welcome to rhetor I see!