From January to May

My initial definition of a protest was very broad. Pretty much if anyone had any thought or feeling in his/her mind that was against the status quo, I considered it a protest. Now I believe that this "seed of dissent" must be present to qualify as a protest, but action must also be taken.

As we have seen in class, this action can be something as simple as piercing yourself with safety pins or as complicated as organizing a camp-out in Crawford, Texas. The lines between protest and art have also been blurred in this class...who can say for sure if letting a dog die in a museum is really a protest or the machination of some sick mind? One person's protest is another person's silly grasp for their 15 minutes of fame. But again, I say, as long as it is a protest in that person's mind (and they are more or less sane, not forcing their own miscarriages), then it is a protest. How it is perceived by society is another story.

Effectiveness doesn't make or break a protest either. It would be silly to attribute political or social change to a single protest, for only a few protests in history have shaken the world - Tiananmen Square, for example, or the recent monks protesting in Burma (and now Tibet). Generally speaking, protests serve as a catharsis for the feelings of society's minorities, and while protesters want change in the system, most realize that a single rally will not achieve their goals. Repeated demonstrations, as in the American Civil Rights Movement, can make change, but few would remember Dr. King if he only marched for one day and retired to watch the reaction on his black and white television set.

Also, size really doesn't matter! One person's protest, like Brian Haw's, can become the protest of an entire sect of people. As far as as I know, he didn't have many (or any) people with him outside of Parliament, but he is widely known. Sometimes the protest of a single individual can be even more effective than a protest of the masses. It shows the determination of a single person and gives the movement a strong, effective spokesperson.

Overall, I feel this class has refined my definition of a protest. Before, my feelings were much more scattered. I had a general idea of what I believed a protest was, but I could provide few examples to support my stance. Now I'm really thinking rhetorically...!

Obama/DiFranco '08

I get chills every time I listen to Ani DiFranco's song Self-Evident.  There's something about it...this beatnik attitude and sound that makes my blood boil with my loathing for the current administration.  It starts off with her just talking in beat (I'm sure there's a poetic term for this, but it's been over a year since my creative writing days) about 9/11, about being there in NYC whenever it happened and the nation's reaction.  This is moving enough, but then she also adds her criticism on society during this section...

"...the day that America fell to its knees

after strutting around for a century 

without saying thank you

or please..."

and

"...and every borough looked up when it heard the first blast

and then every dumb action movie was summarily surpassed..."

The second half of the song focuses on all the problems with the Bush administration.  DiFranco, a huge women's rights activist, praises "the nurses and doctors who daily provide women with a choice," and then moves on to tackle issues like the death penalty and the Patriot Act.  The part that really gets me, sends shivers down my spine, is, of course, an attack on Bush.

"...it doesn't take a weatherman to know the weather

Jeb said he'd deliver Florida, folks and boy did he ever

we hold these truths to be self-evident

number one: George W. Bush is not president..."

And, as her strongest section, it gives the song its title.  Another part that I just have to include in this blog combines DiFranco's stance against the war with her tendency to man-hate...

"...so it's time to pick through the rubble, clean the streets, and clear the air

get our government to pull its big dick out of someone else's desert

put it back in its pants..."

This song pretty much hits all of my beliefs head-on (apply directly to the forehead).  It reassures me in my political leanings and let's me know that I'm not alone in my criticism.  You can hear tons of (mainly) women cheering DiFranco on in the background in the version I have, and it makes her points even more palpable.  I don't think this song would recruit others to the liberal "cause," but it just reinvigorates those who already believe the same way.  In this way, I don't think any protest song will suddenly alter someone's opinion, but it can provide a point to rally around to those already convinced.  Also, protest songs let you know that you are being heard, even if only through someone else's song.  That is the beauty of it.

So if you're an angry liberal, definitely listen to Self-Evident.  Or if you just hate Bush, listen to it.  In that case, most of the country would enjoy it.

Fat Guy Takes On Skinny B@#$%

So in case you haven't realized that I'm a diehard liberal yet, let me just remind you - I'm a diehard liberal.  Maybe this influences my judgment on Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, because I believe Michael Moore is a protester and Ann Coulter is a silly goose who writes silly books for money and personal notoriety.  Sure, Michael Moore is a bit rough around the edges at times, especially with his scruffy beard and tubby tummy, but I'm pretty sure any American who seriously values his/her time would rather listen to him than to Coulter.

Moore uses the media in a serious yet comedic way, whereas Coulter uses it to personally bash people she feels are inferior to her.  Not a very good way to make friends (for Moore either...he has his fair share of opponents).  Maybe this is where I am biased again, since I'm an RTF-er and I'm more inclined to defend a movie than I am a book.

Still, I don't agree with some of the methods Moore uses.  I'm sure he has some twisted facts in his films (and books)...and that Patriot Act thing in Fahrenheit 9/11 was really obnoxious.  Otherwise I feel that my "Very Liberal" political views on Facebook prevent me from sinking my teeth into Moore's chubby flesh.  I'm a vegetarian, after all.

People like Michael Moore because he appeals to the masses for support.  Ann Coulter prefers to bash dead soldiers' parents, whereas Moore honors them (though some would say he uses them instead).  Moore also plays off everyone's subconscious biases - I mean, come on, who doesn't associate Bush with honky-tonk bluegrass and cowboy hats?  He's humorous, although at some people's expense, but it helps him spread his protest.

And do people actually like Ann Coulter?  I really don't translate book sales into a personal following.  Sure, there was that obnoxious kid at my church back home who read Godless more times than he read the Bible, but he doesn't count.  I'm actually pretty sure that Coulter's books sell so well because liberals want justification for their hatred of the right.  I guess this accounts for some of the sales of Moore's movies and books as well, although conservatives buy them to reaffirm their stances.

My theory - there is always a need for the extreme liberal and the extreme conservative.  Their true followings are small, their opposition larger.  Conservatives are just a bit more caustic than liberals.

Look Who's Godless Now

So just when we all thought we couldn't listen to anyone more annoying than Cindy Sheehan, here comes along Ann Coulter! I would honestly rather listen to Cindy Sheehan for an hour than listen to Ann Coulter for five minutes. This week's clips were nearly unbearable...I seriously considered skimping on the videos (but for the record, I didn't).

I have always loathed Coulter. She represents that "skinny bitch" that everyone loves to hate (I use that terminology only in an allusion to another new and ridiculous diet book with the same title...really!). To steal a phrase from my paper, I lean so far left that it's remarkable that I can stand at all, so obviously my reaction to Coulter is negative. But my distaste extends much further than that. I never understood why until I read the fallacies section in our packet and now everything seems much clearer.

Coulter reeks of fallacies. Any serious reader would find her arguments illogical and unpersuasive (my apologies if you're a conservative diehard who wants to father Ann's babies).

Coulter's arguments thrive on personal attacks. In the clip with Mrs. Edwards, it was obvious that Coulter's reasons against electing John Edwards were so weak that she had to resort to childish name calling. Furthermore, even if it's true that Hillary has chubby legs (she probably does), it has no place in an argument on policy. I'm more keen on trusting someone who eats a cookie every once in a while rather than someone who thinks eating should be done sparingly. (I'm definitely not endorsing Clinton, but...you know how it goes.)

I absolutely loved it when Matt Lauer asked her difficult questions and she just sat there stumbling over her words. I think she might have actually been trying to formulate a real answer without personal attacks and just couldn't. How sad that she's written, what was it, five New York Times bestsellers? I thought the Times had more pride than to include her in their list!

I especially refute her attack that liberalism is opposition to God. That's either/or reasoning. Either you're conservative and love God or you're a liberal and you have a tattoo of a pentagram across your forehead.

Besides being a shameless liar (as Franken pointed out), Coulter is also a poor debater. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it unacceptable to refuse to allow your opponent to speak? For the love of all that is good and holy, Ann, take a breath!

So I feel like I've been attacking her personally...but maybe she deserves it. No, not maybe. Definitely.

Jesus Christ!

I grew up in the Church of Christ, a small and extremely conservative denomination, and I believed in all of its teachings until the age of seventeen, when I strayed from the "straight and narrow" in pursuit of something else, something more. When I describe my previous church to those unfamiliar with it, I call it "just a little less conservative than the Amish." There are no musical instruments, no female leaders, no salvation without baptism. The only thing worse than being a fornicator is being a homosexual fornicator, and the only thing worse than killing your neighbor and three kids is killing a microscopic fetus. I am harsh on my previous beliefs, I know, but I still believe religion can be a good thing. The Church of Christ, I hope and believe, is about to undergo a fundamental change with the leaders of my generation - my friends who stayed in the church are surely more secular and understanding than the seventy year-old generation before us. The same can probably be said of any major religion within the United States.

For nearly ten years I attended summer camp with my church in a forgotten crook of Texas countryside outside of Bandera. It was week of Bible lessons and competitions, where "mixed bathing" in the river was forbidden and the watermelon was always ripe. Emotional sermons were a daily tradition, and it was in response to one of those sermons that I was baptized at the age of 11 in the murky river that has since run nearly dry.

My camp was certainly conservative, but it was nothing in comparison with the church in Jesus Camp. Well, first of all, we don't believe in speaking in tongues, but we also didn't pray over a cheap cardboard cut-out of W. We had those sermons against abortion and even some counselors who forbid Harry Potter in their cabins (and a girl who was ridiculed and called a sinner for having a thong and a push-up bra in her suitcase). We were told we were living in a wicked generation, and we girls were also told to return to our cabins to change if we were wearing anything "suggestive," meaning shorts that didn't go to our knees or spaghetti strap tops.

Now that I'm writing about this, I'm realizing how little different my camp was (and is) from the camp in the film. This scares me. Perhaps such Christian fundamentalism is more widespread than we believe.

I really do salute Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady for their film. It exposes the dangerous close-minded way many of America's religious leaders are leading. I see nothing different between Reverend Wright's ill-advised statements and Becky Fisher's sermons. There is always a way to take an idea to an extreme that hurts society.

Some parts of the film especially moved me. I really appreciated (though I didn't enjoy) the scenes that interspersed Fischer's sermon with the cries of the children. It was an excellent montage that heightened the tension and highlighted Fischer's immorality. It was a good filmmaking move to keep the diagetic music (with that woman kind of crying or yelling or singing or whatnot), and in other sequences the music choice was point on with the mood.

I believe Becky Fischer is wrong, yet I believe her branch of extremism will live on for centuries to come, just as any other kind of fundamentalism will. I do believe that she thinks that she is doing what is right, just as I believe that everyone in my previous church thinks the same. However, this does not make either of them right. Anyways, who is in charge of determining right and wrong in the first place?

Writing About Writing

I pretty much just wing it every time I write, or at least it feels that way.  Typically I listen to some music, usually something mellow along the lines of Jack Johnson, Damien Rice, or Broken Social Scene, or just anything that is subtle enough to enjoy but not distract me.  As you can see, I think the music I listen to is the most important part of my writing process as it changes my mood and helps me focus on the paper.

Other than my music choice, I really don't put much thought into my writing process.  I've been writing since I was a kid so now it all comes naturally to me.  Occasionally before I write I'll consider the points I need to hit, but sometimes these points change as I write so I don't usually take much stock in them.  As I write, I naturally try to pace myself so that I hit the page requirement or word count.

I guess my biggest problem with writing for other people is that sometimes I find it difficult to ensure that others can follow my thought process.  My writing can tend to be a bit choppy (as evident in this blog) and I can jump from idea to idea without considering my reader.  I also tend to write a bit less formally than is sometimes desired, but at the same time I consider that to be my voice as a writer instead of a crux.

FYI: I've written this blog without listening to any music and I feel that it is my weakest.  I'll be back on the music next week.

The Shape of Punk to Come

When I was a freshman in high school I probably wore black every other day and wore my hair in my eyes (which were covered in black eyeliner and heavy mascara). I was filled with angst against my parents, my religion, my school, even my friends at times, and bands like the Swedish group Refused used the political rhetoric I espoused.

Looking back at pictures of myself, I must admit that I am a bit embarrassed about my fashion sense in those early days of high school. I was also able to travel to Sweden this summer and tried to listen to Refused as I rode the train to Stockholm, but the scenery did not match the music. Sweden is one of the most beautiful countries I have ever seen and such a grungy, discontent sound described my hometown more than it did the Swedish countryside. I listened to Sigur Ros instead.

However, during high school I believed my fashion sense to be a form of protest. It thrilled me to wonder what the older people at church thought when they saw me clad in only black (after all, they had watched me grow up). I'm sure not many even gave me an extra thought, but it satisfied me nevertheless.

Punk and its many offshoots serve as a method of contentment for the wearer; they do not necessarily serve as expression to others. This may have been different in the early days of punk, when it was fresh and the mainstream hadn't realized the market potential it had. But today, when stores like Hot Topic specialize in non-leather dominatrix outfits, punk, in general, has become yet another example of groupthink and adherence to social norms. Some punks may believe in the rhetoric they spout, but most are probably just drawn into it because of its association with social deviance, or "coolness."

This is really a difficult issue to tackle without taking both sides. Punk can be what you want it to be. Punk can be everything or nothing. Punk, really, just is.

I'll end this with some lyrics from the song "Refused Are Fucking Dead" that I think capture the punk spirit.
A naive, young secret for the new romantics
We express ourselves in loud and fashionable ways