Last Thoughts on Mass Comm.

I always had an inkling. It is tough to be unable to express certain thoughts and ideas because there is not the words to do so. I feel that through this class I have found the words. Being guided through these familiar, yet foreign, concepts opened my mind. It is not just learning these theories that makes this world new to me, it is seeing real-life application every single day. This is a weird, and wonderful time that we live in. Embracing the new. I was reminded by this class how important it is to know where we came from before sprinting into the future. Stressing understanding before action. I feel surrounded but not in a hostile way. I am wrapped in a rich history that can change depending on who you ask. That is the challenge, and the beauty of this world. I'm glad to be in it.

Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers Ever, or who sucked out the feeling?

Rolling Stone loves to make lists that they feel are definitive. 100 best songs, 100 best albums, and now, the 100 best singers. It is great to look through the list reading the little blurbs by various artists about the greatness of the person that is being honored. I am always transfixed by these lists. Growing up, Rolling Stone was the renegade music magazine that had articles that swore, pictures of barely dressed artists, and reviews of music that was important to me. This was in the 90's, way past the heyday of Rolling Stone's renegade status. Though this too is hard for me to claim. Rolling Stone has been an establishment since well before I was born. Still, in my teens, it was something important. It didn't matter that poptart princesses often graced the cover, at the time, it was a good thing. Now, I look at Rolling Stone with a more critical eye. I see the big companies all up in it. It is tough to see. Ads for multiple pages, and bands that are only in the magazine being hyped as the next big thing because they are in half the ads in the magazine. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but the leap from "breaking new artist" to mcdonalds ad fodder is growing smaller.

It is the reality of the times. Artists are more accessible now than they have ever been through myspace, the internet, and various other forms of media. It is interesting to look through the top 100 singers and notice that very few of them are from the modern era. The nearly all the singers in the top 25 had their peak in the 50's, 60's, or 70's. At number 25, Michael Jackson is the first crack the "classic artists". Why is this? Part of it could be attributed to the fact that Rolling Stone was coming into being during that time. So while I am more attached to indie rock and the music of the 90's-2000's, Rolling Stone editors are attached to what is now defined as "classic rock". The term "classic rock" suggests a bias for the music of that time anyways. Anyways, as I stated before, access to rockstars is now nearly complete. There is no mystique anymore. No separation between audience and performer. Warts and all, these people can be stuck in the constant spotlight of audience appreciation and revulsion.

The new artists are mass media products. It is not their fault. It is what the system always was. Now, the technology is more demanding than it was in the past. Record labels want their artists to post blogs and be in web videos because it is free advertising for the label. A self-propulsive blur smashing into the collective mainstream's mind as fast as it can burn out the other side. Artists are only as relevant as their last single. It is the perspective of the record companies. Why should the consuming masses feel any different?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/24161972/page/103

Anyways, it's a good read. It is absolutely biased, but some of the blurbs are interesting. I suppose this type of writing just makes me a little depressed. The glory days are past for those who love truly classic music according to Rolling Stone. Long live this era...whatever it is.

Communication and Charity

A old man who didn't know any English was gently and affectionately patting a young boy on top of his head when he would pass by. I am sitting in a restaurant, and this scene is unfolding at the table next to mine. The boy started to complain to his parents after it happened two or three times. The parent explained to the child that no one can touch you if you don't want them to. The child was upset and the parents, I hope, partially understood that the man did not understand English.

The old man patted the child's head one last time and the father forcibly asked the man to not touch the son anymore in a voice that I found too strong for the situation. It was clear the man didn't understand, so the father said it again only louder this time. The man obviously was from a different culture where this type of touching is appropriate. The scolding tone of the father agitated me, and the lack of communication depressed me. I know that it is good practice for a parent to warn their children of adults who may violate them, but where is the line? This man meant no harm, and it was a controlled situation. This wasn't some random man in the streets.

I feel that the failure is the father's. He did not communicate to the son that the culture was different, or he did not ask another employee to translate to the old man that the son was uncomfortable. This was a learning moment for the boy, but it was wasted.

What is good for a person? Does a person even know?

I was waiting for the bus on Snelling and University. Two men walked ahead of me, and one man (nicely dressed, business-type) asked if he could go ahead because he was giving his transfer to the other man (homeless). I obliged them. The man scanned his transfer and handed it back out the door to the other man. I entered the bus, and the business man was in the back explaining to no one in particular the other man's situation, "I asked him if he wanted a dollar or a transfer. He took the transfer because he sleeps under a bridge in west Minneapolis." He continued talking, but it blurred into the background noise.

I began to think about the choices he offered the man. Both were inconsequential to him, and both would make him feel better about himself. Is it easy to give as long as there is no consequence, or exertion for the giver. It bummed me out to be part of the discussion today, but the point wasn't that charity is bad, my (our, Americans) behavior is the problem. The consumer culture that prevades this country is not just ruining our lives. What is right and what happens depends on the choices that everyone makes. Recycling, charity, and good-will are in the hands of indivduals, but choices made are not often for the greater good.

Matt Taibbi on Sarah Palin and the state of american politics

I have tried to spread this article around as much as I possibly can because I feel that it speaks deeply to the horrible situation this country is in right now. I'm not talking about the recession, the war, or racism. I'm talking about apathy. This country has an uncanny ability right now to be completely spoon-fed fear tactics and swallow it with a smile.

The ascension to possible V.P. is, as Taibbi puts it, "a complete fraud" one that "this country will eat up" is a symptom of just how malleable this nation is. I share this sentiment. It is insanely obvious that this was a pandering move made by McCain. By picking this woman that represents so many abstract mainstream ideas (religion, small-town appeal, youth), McCain knew he could win with her using her as a wedge to draw sides and point fingers. If you don't want "victory" in Iraq, you are waving a "flag of surrender". If you aren't strong enough of a Christian, you're Muslim ,and thus, a terrorist. Even though she falters in interviews, people in this nation feel sympathy, not terror or outrage of the fact that this woman could be leading this country if McCain kicks the bucket.

I highlight this article is because out of everything I have read recently this is one of pure outrage, but focused outrage. Matt Taibbi doesn't pull any punches. He tries to expose the propaganda tactics that McCain is employing. He doesn't directly state it but I made the observation that Palin represents at least 6 of the 7 propaganda techniques used by everyone from the catholic church to hitler.

Bandwagon: If you are not, as Taibbi puts it "a raging baby-making furnace of middle-class ambition" you are probably a terrorist, or at least un-american.
Card-stacking: How many times has Palin stated at rallys that Obama will raise taxes when it says in his economic plan that he actually won't for 95% of americans?
Generalities: She is adored because she is "like my neighbor". I agree, she is a culmination of all that is mainstream america including everything that is wrong with it.
Name calling: She has done this well throughout her run, but my favorite was during her RNC speech where she used the word "evil" 4 or 5 times in reference to Middle-Eastern people. Muslim, terrrorist, evil, un-american...I could go on, but it kind of makes me sick to my stomach.
Plain-folks: um...well. I think this has been covered.
Transfer: Hockey moms = Palin. Hockey is good, and american. So is Sarah Palin.
Testimonials: She's had experience cleaning up Alaska, and regulating energy is what she says. How come no one else is saying that?

These are just a few examples. I couple probably think of more but I feel this post has gone on long enough. I cannot post the article for fear of failing this assignment due to some profanity and vivid metaphors, but if you want to check it out go to www.rollingstone.com and search for Matt Taibbi's blog. The article is under "Mad Dog Palin." But please, if you are easily offended don't read it. The article makes some important comments on american culture, but it is a vivid statement. Approach with caution.