Filibuster Reform Threatens Senate

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

Boston.com

Washington Post Opinion

Weshington Post

What these three articles are talking about is the nefarious filibuster. A senate tactic that allows the minority party to block legislation, unless there are 60 senators to overturn said filibuster. Currently the Democrats have 53 seats, plus 2 Independents who are expected to caucus with the Democrats, while the Republicans have 45.



It seems obvious that the reason this is being talked about is because the GOP is filibustering much of the Democrats' proposed bills. So is it a good idea?

The Washington Post articles flesh out the story a bit more, and the WP Opinion article -- written by Richard A. Arenberg who apparently worked closely with both the House and the Senate -- in particular is very informative. The best highlights are as follows, first from the last link:

"Republicans say they filibuster legislation because Reid blocks them from offering amendments."

And second, from Arenberg's opinion piece:

"No one should be fooled. Once the majority can change the rules by majority vote, the Senate will soon be like the House, where the majority doesn’t consult the minority but simply controls the process. Gone would be the Senate’s historic protection of the minority’s right to speak and amend. In the House, the majority tightly controls which bills will be considered; what amendments, if any, will be in order; how much time is allotted for debate; and when and under what rules votes occur. Often, no amendments are permitted." 

So what it comes down to: Would it be good for the Senate to operate similarly to the House? That whatever the majority party is would simply have command?

I don't know.

Ideally, both parties would be able to compromise and work bipartisan manner, but it's a far from ideal world. Likewise, it seems that the filibuster is an important -- if frustrating -- tool in the checks-and-balances department from giving one party too much power. Thereby, theoretically, forcing cooperation and compromise. With it gone, and only needing a simple majority, there'd be no incentive.

Romney Cites "Gifts" as Reason He Lost

There are a bunch of articles about this, as well as the responses to this issue, all of which I'll be more or less referring to. They can be found here:

Washington Post Original Report

Washington Post Commentary How GOP Wants Romney Gone

More WP Commentary, re: Latino "Gifts"

Boston.com: Louisiana Gov.'s Response

This action on Mitt Romney's part in itself is pretty interesting if for no other reason than the attention it is garnering. While true that Romney just recently stepped out of the spotlight of the Presidential campaign, usually the losers of those campaigns are rarely heard from much, especially outside of their locality.

The most obvious way this connects to our class is found in the second article, the commentary written by WP's Chris Cillizza, about how the GOP wants Romney to go away. The highlights pertaining to my reasoning are where Cillizza writes:

"What Romney seems most interested in doing at this point is rehashing why he didn’t win — with an emphasis (at least in his comments to donors) on what was wrong with voters, not what was wrong with his campaign.  

That MO, while understandable for someone who has spent the last six-plus years of his life running for president, is tremendously problematic for a party that needs to get away from the stereotype that it is of, by and for white, affluent men even at a time of growing diversity in the country and the electorate... 

...To the latter point: While Democrats have Bill Clinton as their triager-in-chief, using his gravitas to help extend and articulate the Democratic brand, George W. Bush seems perfectly content to spend the rest of his days outside of the public spotlight in Texas. And, while John McCain remains an active force in the Senate, he was never someone that Republicans truly saw as one of their own. Now, in Republicans’ best case scenario, Romney is headed to that same path of obscurity."

From this, it seems obvious that the GOP is lacking any sort of true central figure. Former Presidents are ideal, but as Cillizza points out, Bush II apparently doesn't feel like it. This is something of an opportunity when observing from the perspective of New Media.

I'm sure there are many people who would like to see the GOP go in a more conservative direction. However, as pointed out by Romney's comments, this doesn't seem particularly tenable because the old, white men for this strategy are no longer necessary to produce a viable candidate. This also assumes that only old, white men are pushing for a more conservative GOP.

On the other side, it's probable that many people would like to see a more flexible Republican party. One obvious example is myself. While I consider myself a liberal and a progressive in terms of social issues, I also think of myself as a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately for me, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans completely cover these two issues. Thus, if there are enough people like myself, it wouldn't be unimaginable for a group to come along and push the GOP in this direction. Especially if they're somewhat blinded at the moment, groping in the dark for way to proceed without falling on their political face.

While I'm unsure as to whether this need to adjust one of the two major American political parties is rare, I do know it is an opportunity. Indeed, with the progress of New Media and the apparent need on the GOP's part to appeal to new and different demographics, it seems prime -- kairotic even -- for the Republican Party to fulfill that role.

Will this happen? I doubt it, especially when considering the forces-of-old, fearful of losing any power. Still, the opportunity is obviously there, and I for one am curious to see how the Grand Old Party will react.

Mind Over Mass Media

The article I'll be referring to is found on NYTimes.com. Unfortunately, NYTimes limits the amount of articles you can view in a given month. Thus, the second link provides a copy of the article on a secondary website, if the first -- the NYTimes article -- is unavailable to you.

NYTimes Version

Edge.org Version (same article)

This article in the NYTimes was published June 10, 2010. I found it by simply typing "New Media" into the search box at NYTimes.com on a lark. It stood out because it is written by Steven Pinker, who is a certified badass and a psycholinguist. What does that mean? He's smart and deals with language in addition to psychology. If I remember right, he also teaches at Harvard, and probably has numerous other accomplishments, such as published books.

This book is the reason that Steven Pinker stuck out to me: I was assigned his book on linguistic theory for a first year seminar class at UMass. Boston.

I found it curious that Pinker would be writing about New Media. Though once I thought about his writing, I thought it was a bit less strange. His book is fairly simple, easy to understand, and focuses on how language is more or less an evolutionary trait. That is why all human cultures, regardless of location, have a language. This evolutionary methodology lends itself fairly well to the grand idea of New Media. In his opinion piece, Pinker talks about how popular culture often reacts negatively to evolving methods of consumption and dispersal of information. He also notes that this is whether it be the printing press or Twitter. He also points out that this is merely a product of necessity: that while the amount of knowledge increases, the amount of hours in a day, or a person's given available time to sift through this knowledge, has not.

Thus, Pinker's point that this evolution in media is fairly important. Especially now with the advent of the glorious Information Age. Just how the printing press and the mass production of the Christian Bible helped propagate literacy in the Western world, these new electronic tools are helpful in promoting thought-sharing and knowledge-connectivity.

A final observation that interests me is that Pinker is talking to people who oppose this evolution. In his article (at least the NYTimes one) he cites one article on how Powerpoint is corrupting everyone, then another about how Twitter is the devil and shrinks attention spans. I find it odd and curious that I didn't really notice this before. This kind of opposition to New Media.

Or perhaps I just never took it seriously.

Halo 4 Conspiracy to Stop Youth Vote

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

Fox News

Kotaku

The first article is the original Fox News article referring to how video games are a menace (a commonality in Fox News) and how they're corrupting the youth of America. The second is from Kotaku, a useful if mediocre video game-centered news source.

This is probably best connected to Jenkins' Convergence Culture article in the way that popular culture is being linked with the public sphere. Likewise, the struggle of traditional media (in this case, Fox News) to oppose that swing toward popular culture.

Fox News' approach to this segment is poorly done in the sense that it deals with vague information, instead relying on a pathos-centered approach: Halo 4 is released on election day; Video games are bad for you. Therefore, Halo 4 will make you not vote.

The last line reads: "(and if you live in the US, don't forget to vote!)"

This facet is essentially another chapter in the method that video games serve as an exemplar of one sphere of popular culture being harnessed for use in the public sphere. This is particularly similar to how Xbox Live broadcast all of the Presidential debates. While true that some of the on-air questions posited by Microsoft in an apparently half-assed attempt to involve its users could use some ironing out, the tendency and the attempt are there which can only pave the way for more attempts down the line.

Infrastructure, but no Interest

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://gizmodo.com/5958141/america-people-are-googling-who-is-running-for-president-right-up-to-the-end?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

As the Gizmodo article points out, many voters weren't sure who was running for President until the very last minute. On the one hand, this is a kind of good news in the sense that people are apparently not paying attention to those filthy political ads. On the other hand, perhaps they'll pay attention to them more because they aren't aware of what is going on.

Regardless, the article is interesting primarily when observed in tandem with Levy's and Purdy's articles. Specifically, the idea that the infrastructure is already more or less available for people to come together organically. The internet's many user forums are proof of that, and if that's not enough, the 'net is rife with programmers and users just itching for a challenge. In this case, perhaps creating a more efficient or attractive method of coming together, as Purdy and Levy posit in their articles.

The problem is that most people apparently do not care to. For whatever reason, people seem to do the bare minimum when it comes to participation. This is perhaps a result from the traditional methods -- two established parties, the old media practices, etc. -- which evokes uninterest in most people. Despite this apparent phenomenon, there is another in the sense that the voting public is somewhat dissatisfied with with the traditional methods. By this reason alone, it seems fair to say that if it continues to ferment, inevitably some sort of action or reaction will take place to address it.

Though it does not seem to be that time quite yet.

E-Voting

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/could-romney-linked-elect_b_2025490.html

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/tech/web/online-voting/index.html

These two articles cover the concept of electronic voting. One primarily focuses on electronic machines taking votes, where the voter must physically still cast their ballot. The second focuses on the novel idea of casting a ballot completely through the internet.

The reason I highlight these two articles is primarily because of Purdy's observations regarding what he calls "author-users." This is also connected to the advent of publics and the changes to the public sphere mentioned in posts prior.

Purdy's observations, while interesting, inadvertently expose the necessity for an infrastructure for author-users to utilize in their participation. This is distinctly lacking in the Presidential election. Indeed, it is hampered by its very nature.

The idea of the popular vote being equalized across the population requires the easiest method to cast a ballot. This way, the egalitarian nature of voting would be all-accessible. However, this accessibility also gives rise to corruption. The CNN article does well to point out that even those who have no desire to influence the election proper would see the e-ballot as an opportunity to prove one's worth as a hacker.

This is also connected to the aforementioned article that focuses on voter participation per state. As society becomes more inter-connected and plugged in, it seems inevitable that the government would follow suit. And though the possibility is there, the methodology still requires much more work.

Is the Electoral College Out of Touch?

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

NYTimes

The Guardian

The Boston Globe

The commonality shared between the NYTimes, the UK's Guardian, and the Boston Globe is that all three talk about or touch upon the electoral college.

Some interesting preliminary information is that it's somewhat rare for a Presidential candidate to win the national popular vote, yet lose the Presidency because the electoral vote did not match up.

That aside, there has been lots of talk as to whether the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. The primary complaint seems to be that the focus is squarely on the so-called "swing states," whereas other voters are essentially ignored due to their state's electoral vote being already locked in. The article does well to point out that originally, the electoral college was created as a means to even the voting field for all of the states. This way, candidates wouldn't ignore small towns and states, instead merely campaigning in the big cities for the most votes. Ironically, this has happened anyway, only with swing-state cities and towns being the battlegrounds.

Another interesting facet to this developing argument is that several states have signed what is called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact." This basically says that a signing state promises to cast all its electoral votes for whoever wins the national popular vote. It is also important to note that this would only go into effect after the total number of signed states' electoral votes is higher than 270.

(Green = Signed into Law
Yellow = Pending Legislation
Grey = No Bill Pending)

One reason for this apparent behavior is the angry Presidential election of 2000, which is still a point of contention. Another is that due to the inter-connectivity via the internet and popular media, all votes would become equal in terms of worth. Whereas now, it would seem that swing-state votes are more valuable than those who are not swing-staters. Thus, a vote from rural Wyoming would be just as important as a vote from New York City.

This seems to be a bit more evidence toward Warner's concept of publics, in addition to Poster's article regarding "netizenship" and the evolution of the public sphere. People seem to want the ability to participate in government, or at least have the option there if they so choose. Likewise, this would require an evolution political media, so that candidates could reach all voters, rather than just the coveted swing-staters.

The closeness of the 2012 Presidential election is also a factor in the national popular vote outweighing  the electoral college. The 2000 Presidential election again being an example of the pitfalls a close election holds for the electoral college. A final facet that is also somewhat troubling is the concept of a national campaign to harvest the popular vote. Current campaigning practices are already somewhat filthy and prompt disgust. I can only imagine if that occurred on a national level without constraint.

List of US States by Percentage of Those Who Vote

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://cnnchangethelist.tumblr.com/post/31526477522/heres-the-list-hawaii-has-the-lowest-voter-turnout

This article is great because it gives you raw data. This list shows the voter turnout in the 2008 election.

That aforementioned public from the previous post, the one that tunes into Comedy Central for alternate news or browses The Onion for laughs, also doesn't seem to like to vote. This is best observed by all those "Get The Vote Out!" campaigns to try and motivate younger people to vote and actually care about politics.

What this list seems to evoke the most however, is that one reason that public seems to not really care to vote is because the methodology of voting is still so traditional. Even outdated, some would argue.

Greater Prevalence of Author-Users

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/increased-negative-campaigning-reveals-previously,30182/?ref=auto

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-october-8-2012-mark-kelly

These two articles are interesting primarily because they are alternate "news" sources. Likewise, they share a commonality in the sense that they use humor to disseminate information.

The first, from The Onion, is a quick, sarcastic remark of how campaigning is generally done via ill will and vicious attacks from one candidate to another. The second, an episode of The Colbert Report, highlights other sarcastic elements. Specifically, Colbert himself is a sarcastic representation of the popular (specifically right-wing) media.

Curiously, these two sources do not necessarily spew any new information. They merely spotlight and make fun of aspects of popular media. This is somewhat related to Finnegan's Recognizing Lincoln article, specifically the portion on enthymemes. Both mediums assume that the viewer has at least some understanding of the topics they are discussing. In the case of The Onion, it makes the assumption that its reader knows that political campaigning is an inherently filthy business. The Colbert Report assumes a bit more of its viewer, in that it covers a wider range of topics with much more detail.

This also can be linked to Warner's article on publics and counterpublics. The public that is highlighted by observing both of these mediums is that of one who is more or less politically informed, yet tired with the traditional news mediums. Thus, they turn to these alternate news "sources." This is a distinct shift from the traditional method of the news disseminator giving out information to be consumed, and nothing more.

This public is perhaps best evoked by its relative youth and probable liberalism. Yet, these concepts can be spread across a wide spectrum of people, thereby fulfilling Warner's requirements for a non-institutional group.

In addition to merely existing as a public, the group's behavior consists of consuming alternate news sources. We can observe this because The Onion and The Colbert Report are both popular enough to still be economically viable. The behavioral trend thus presents the idea that there is a demand for such alternative news sources. However, by the very nature of the sarcastic comedy used by these two mediums, the audience themselves become participants in the medium of their choice: they either laugh, or they don't.

This participation is an apparently growing trend that is very interesting and worth following.

Hurricane Sandy Evokes Bipartisanship

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/us/politics/obama-tours-storm-ravaged-new-jersey-with-gov-chris-christie.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9644299/Sandy-Barack-Obama-to-tour-New-Jersey-with-Romney-ally-Christie.html

These two articles (one from the NYTimes, the other from a UK newspaper The Telegraph) highlight the effects of a natural disaster on the close 2012 Presidential race. The biggest highlight is the irony of President Obama touring a ruined New Jersey with a political adversary: Governor Chris Christie.

Interestingly, the Hurricane Sandy disaster hasn't really been harnessed by either candidate for President. The most that seems to have come from the disaster with regard to the two candidates is the apparent (and necessary) bipartisanship on President Obama's part, and further analysis of Romney's remarks during one of the debates where he spoke of FEMA in a not-very-nice manner.

This distinct lack of political play is in itself a play. It is apparent that Romney is distancing himself from appearing inappropriate during a time of crisis, similar to when he made remarks immediately after the attacks on the US consulate in Libya.

Downtown Scotty Brown

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/2012/10/23/bdc-scott-brown-the-model-gallery/hxcGNdX5JulyXJuZoFo9YN/gallery.html?pg=1&t=150&cp=1

The reason I chose this article -- hilarity aside -- is that it fits fairly well with our recent focus on attention and the economics thereof.

I'm unsure if it's because I live in a primarily blue state, but it seems the GOP is somewhat rife with these sorts of faux pas. Earlier, we had the Paul Ryan gym photoshoot, and now this has cropped up. Granted, Brown's former modelling career is fairly well-known, but with the Senate election coming up, it's been referenced to more and more.

It's obvious that the media are using the economics of attention to their benefit. In this sense, they are bombarding their chosen public with sensational images, such as a scantily clad Brown. This then grabs peoples' attention and makes them buy newspapers or look at websites or however they choose to consume this news.

Likewise, this operates on a level of attention-grabbing to the benefit of the Democratic party. While one could argue that Brown's photo shoots might instead benefit him -- perhaps displaying him as an attractive man-beast or some such -- I doubt this will be the outcome. Instead, peoples' attention are focused on the ridiculousness of the photos taken, thereby removing their attention from anything Brown's opponent might be doing wrong.

Colin Powell is pro-Obama

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/10/25/powell-standing-obama-presidential-race/D2YV4L3IUfLjtQrXehWhMN/story.html

The Boston Globe (among others) report that former Secretary of State Colin Powell will vote for Obama in 2012.

This by itself is somewhat interesting, but not exactly a bombshell. Indeed, having anyone from the Bush administration publicly favor your campaign might have the opposite effect.

Regardless, the way this connects to the recently discussed idea of economies of attention is somewhat simple. It's often you hear politicians -- both Republican and Democrat -- claim they work "across the aisle." Indicating that the politician doing the talking is able to work in a bipartisan manner. Because politicians -- aka Important and Famous People -- keep referencing it, it has become a new buzzword, or buzz-topic, that the media love to report on.

In this case, Powell's endorsement or admittance to voting for Obama this election centers the attention on that concept. This then provides the reporting medium -- in this case, the Globe -- with readers which then buy its newspaper.

Obama Says No-No Words

This is merely a humorous youtube clip of excerpts from President Obama's book, Dreams from My Father.

An audiobook was also released, in which Obama himself narrates. This is great because we get to hear the 44th President of the United States drop f-bombs.

http://youtu.be/DTdyMklPv3g

Jenkins and Memes -- BBC

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19973271

The BBC article is  great because it highlights the aspects of what a meme is. Still, some would argue that this is horrible, because it centralizes a decentralized concept for those who aren't in the loop. Defying the very viral nature of a meme. But we'll ignore the latter opinion for now.

The initial concept the BBC introduces is the amount of remediation the meme is subjected to. There is an original image, or icon, that then becomes wildly popular. The internet is the most common repository for such icons. Which then is spread from audience to audience until it becomes an even greater icon, garnering enough attention for popular media to comment on it, as in the case of Romney's comment regarding binders and women.

Moving forward, the BBC article touches upon what Jenkins was talking about in his article, where popular culture is creating much greater access to politics and political interpretation than ever before. The Romney-binder example may be a bit limiting. The Hillary Clinton meme where she is seen texting on her phone is a better one.

Why is it a better example? The main reason is that it was used by both parties, Republican and Democrat. This creates an essence of egalitarianism due to equal access to the image, and by default, the meme itself. Jenkins perhaps puts it best where he writes:

...we may be able tot alk across our differences, if we find commonalities through our fantasies. This is in the end another reason why popular culture matters politically -- because it doesn't seem to be about politics at all (239).

XBox Live Trying to Get Out the Vote

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

Gamespot:
XBox Live Election Overview

Various Kotaku Articles:
40% XBL Voters Don't Know Who To Vote For

XBL Debate Coverage Craps Out

Awful Questions During Second Debate

These articles are all fairly short, and sort of interesting. If you're like me. And if you like video games and find them fun.

Chances are, you've heard of Microsoft's Xbox 360 console, played a game on it, or at least seen what it looks like. Likewise, because it is the most popular console in the United States at the moment, it seems appropriate that Microsoft would try to capitalize on that popularity and their console's ubiquity.

I should mention that although I enjoy video games, I have not used this feature on my own console. Indeed, I don't trust Microsoft enough to not screw it up. Also, if the dashboard is any indicator (this is the main screen for the XBox 360) then it'll be covered with advertisements and information about how great Kinect is.

That said, how does this connect to the stuff we've gone over in class? Probably the most obvious is Poster's article about new public spheres. In this case, XBox Live's target audience is adults over the age of 18. Traditionally, the younger the voter, the more unlikely they are to vote. This in itself is a public sphere. A sphere populated by possible voters who simply don't care to. This also opposes the public sphere of traditional voters.

This attempt by Microsoft also touches upon Jenkins' article about Convergence Culture. People in the age group I described (young, 18+ voters) don't seem to watch traditional news programs and consume news through the usual methods. They like alternative news, such as the Daily Show or the Onion. Therefore, this highlights the importance that Jenkins posited regarding how popular culture is becoming important to citizens.

XBox Live is attempting to provide easy access to an apparently less accessible medium for its target demographic.

Second Presidential Debate

The version of the Presidential debate I watched can be found here:

http://youtu.be/Vd_0THGPe6Q

Yet another Presidential debate between candidate Romney and President Obama. At least this one was much more entertaining than the first. That part where Romney and Obama were toe-to-toe is great. And, start a fist fight (much to my disappointment), I still had a good time watching them try to bark over each other.

I suppose the debate proper can become much more interesting to observe when you look deeper than just what the two candidates are spewing. Originally, I argued that there isn't anything deeper. They're both either lying or misleading the audience in a performance meant to garner votes. While I still believe that to be true, I also believe that the Presidential debate is a great exemplar of the Lanham article and how economics of attention work. At least in the sense of the Presidential election.

The Big Reason the Lanham article fits so well with the debate is because "truth," as we would understand it, is fairly meaningless. The facts are play-things to both Romney and Obama. Indeed, they use information to try and focus attention on themselves. Likewise, the machine-gun rhythm of switching topics, buffering one's accomplishments, and finally attacking the opposition acts as attention traps -- as described by Lanham -- that keep people from looking deeper into the argument the speaker is making.

This really grinds my gears.

After observing that triumvirate  of logos, pathos, and ethos, I liked the idea of focusing on logos. For myself, logic trumps blind belief any day. The President and candidate Romney do not subscribe to this idea however.

Interestingly, it seems as though the media is perhaps picking up the slack. Fact-checking has become much more popular and ubiquitous than what I've seen thus far. Though, admittedly, my experience with politicians and their fact-checkers is limited, at best. Fact-checking in itself operates similar to those art critics and gangrenous professors Lanham mentioned. They try to "look through" that which is being displayed.

The candidates however, only want the public to "look at" what they're saying. Of course, this isn't really the candidates' fault. It is the nature of the beast, the beast being Democracy in this case, that essentially makes it a giant popularity contest. It's like an exploded version of the archetypal Prom King and Queen. The football team captain and the most popular cheerleader (do cheerleaders have captains?) winning both positions, not because they deserve it, but because a majority of students like them.

Is that bad? Probably. Is there a better alternative? Doubtful. At least, one that works well and that we can all agree upon.

I don't think my idea of the candidates wrestling each other during the debate would go over very well.

Vice Presidential Debate

The version of the Vice Presidential debate that I watched was provided by the New York Times and can be found here:

http://youtu.be/j3roG09O6T4

My reaction to the Vice Presidential debate is relatively similar to the the first Presidential debate of 2012: uninterest, bordering on revulsion.

To the debate's credit however, there was one part that did amaze me quite a bit. The portion where Vice President Biden referred to Paul Ryan's two letters requesting stimulus funds for some businesses in his home state of Wisconsin. Biden mentioned it, and Ryan confirmed it, therefore it probably, could be, may be, true.

Of the recent debates I've watched or heard -- Obama/Romney, Biden/Ryan, and Brown/Warren -- I don't know that I've heard any blatant agreement such as the one featured there. What that meant -- that Paul Ryan did send those letters -- was somewhat irrelevant to me. I could see what Biden was trying to imply, but that's all it was: implication. I'd have to look it up and decide for myself to have a real opinion.

Also, it was pretty obvious throughout that Biden was determined not to repeat Obama's mistakes during the first Presidential debate. Both he and Ryan were concerned with the image they were projecting. It was smiles, frowns, and eye-contact throughout.

One of the most poignant aspects of the debate that I noticed was how entertaining it was. I should be fair and reveal that I am basically pro-Obama. Therefore, it may be possible that I enjoyed this debate more because there was a more animated Democratic candidate. Regardless, watching both Biden and Ryan writhe and struggle in the ring of honor was fun.

It felt akin to how the former WWF would put on wrestling. It opened with a good amount of smack-talk, followed with references and counter-references to "facts" on both sides -- this would constitute the debate's version of DDTs and pile drivers. Indeed, both candidates -- wrestlers -- dropped a zinger each: Biden's "You're no Kennedy" line, and Ryan's "...things don't always come out of your mouth the way you want them to" line. I pictured these instances as equivalent to a chokeslam, or perhaps even the dreaded Stone Cold stunner, delivered in verbal form.

Unfortunately, Biden didn't end the match by headbutting an effigy of Romney, nor Ryan by physically assaulting Biden and stealing his motorcycle.

Accentuate Candidates, Eliminate Moderator

The Boston Globe article I'll be referring to can be found here:

Accentuate Candidates, Eliminate Moderator, by Kevin Cullen

http://articles.boston.com/2012-10-14/metro/34432897_1_moderator-commission-on-presidential-debates-lincoln-douglas-debates

This article is particularly interesting because it focuses not on either of the candidates, but on the debates' moderators. Specifically, Cullen mentions the recent Vice Presidential debate, in addition to the Massachusetts Senate debate between Warren and Brown.

Upon first reading this article, I thought Cullen's references to the Lincoln-Douglas debates was great. Likewise, I agreed that getting rid of the moderators might be a good idea. After watching the Vice Presidential debate however, I've changed my tune.

Another aspect I disagreed with that Cullen purports is that both candidates are (allegedly) adults. And therefore, both can presumably converse civilly as adults should. I posit that both candidates are not adults, but are tools by their respective parties to get votes. To be fair, I believe that once either candidates steps off stage, the tool analogy no longer applies. They only behave like that because they know America is watching.

That said, it seems that without a moderator to provide a semblance of topics or framework for the debate that both candidates would just huff and puff until one of them has a stress-induced aneurysm. The reason, is that there is a constant of that bickering and no-you-didn't-yes-I-did pseudo-arguments.

Shakespeare and Us

In this blog post, I'll be referring to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Probably the primary reason for this is because Julius Caesar is an utterly badass play, and everyone should reference it more often.

I've transcribed the portion of Caesar that I plan to focus on for this post here:

Act III, Scene ii

Enter Brutus and Cassius with the plebeians.

Plebeians. We will be satisfied! Let us be satisfied! 

Bru. Then follow me, and give me audience, friends.
Cassius, go you into the other street,
And part the numbers.
Those that will hear me speak, let 'em stay here;
Those that will follow Cassius, go with him;
And public reasons shall be rendered
Of Caesar's death 

1. Pleb. I will hear Brutus speak.
2. Pleb. I will hear Cassius, and compare their reasons,
When severally we hear them rendered.

[Exit Cassius with some of the Plebeians. Brutus goes into the pulpit.]

3. Pleb. The noble Brutus is ascended; silence! 

Bru. Be patient till the last.
Romans, countrymen, and lovers, hear me for my cause,
and be silent, that you may hear. Believe me for mine
honor, and have respect to mine honor, that you
may believe. Censure me in your wisdom, and awake
your senses, that you may the better judge. If there
be any in this assembly, and dear friend of Caesar's, to
him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than
his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose
against Caesar, this is my answer: Not that I lov'd
Caesar less, but that I lov'd Rome more. had you
rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that
Caesar were dead, to live all freemen? As Caesar lov'd
me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice
at it; as he was valiant, I honor him; but, as he was
ambitious, I slew him. There is tears for his love; joy
for his fortune; honor for his valor; and death for his
ambition Who is here so base that would be a bond-
man? If any, speak, for him have I offended. Who
is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If any,
speak, for him have I offended. Who is here so vile
that will not love his country? if any, speak, for him
have I offended. I pause for a reply. 

All. None, Brutus, none. 

Bru. Then none have I offended. I have done no
more to Caesar than you shall do to Brutus. The
question of his death is enroll'd in the Capitol: his glory
not extenuated, wherein he was worthy; nor his
offenses enforc'd, for which he suffer'd death.

Enter Mark Antony [and others] with Caesar's body.

Here comes his body, mourned by Mark Antony, who,
though he had no hand in his death, shall receive the
benefit of his dying, a place in the commonwealth, as
which of you shall not? With this I depart, that, as I
slew my best lover for the good of Rome, I have the
same dagger for myself, when it shall please my
country to need my death. 

All. Live, Brutus, live, live! 

1. Pleb. Bring him with triumph home unto his house.
2. Pleb. Give him a statue with his ancestors. 

3. Pleb. Let him be Caesar. 

4. Pleb. Caesar's better parts
shall be crown'd in Brutus.
1. Pleb. We'll bring him to his house
With shouts and clamors. 

Bru. My countrymen-- 

2. Pleb. Peace, silence! Brutus speaks.
1. Pleb. Peace ho!

The portion after this is fairly important to the play as well, but I'll just summarize it:

Mark Antony rolls in and essentially incites the crowd (in an extremely clever manner via rhetoric) to violence. Also, he manages to turn the Roman public against the conspirators who slew Julius Caesar. Mark Antony's speech is that famous one with the often-cited line, "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!"

The reason I've chosen Shakespeare to observe in this post (aside from the aforementioned badassery) is that it's interesting how Shakespeare's own observations can be linked to some of the readings we've done in class. The more obvious one is perhaps Habermas' argument regarding the public and private sphere and their evolution through time.

Shakespeare -- and by extension, his play -- is great for this argument because he and it touches all three portions of Habermas' argument. First, we have the ancient world's version of the public and private spheres. Then Shakespeare's own time (basically the dawn of the 17th century), which features the step from the second style of public v. private -- with Kings/Queens personifying the public sphere -- into the third style of public v. private spheres found in the Renaissance.

The second, and probably less obvious reference to our readings, is where Stracham & Kendall posit how peoples' preconceived notions are notoriously difficult to crack.

Just for reference, a quick synopsis of Brutus' speech to the Roman public:
Brutus approaches the crowd, who are pretty pissed that the conspirators killed off Caesar. Brutus explains that it had to be done, and that him and Caesar were bros, therefore it hurt him to do this. Indeed, this is true, as seen in Brutus' struggle with conscience featured earlier in the play, during a soliloquy.

He goes on to say that Caesar's transforming Rome from a Republic to an Empire (or Monarchy) was a dick move. And that it couldn't stand. Eventually, the crowd is won over and exclaim that they'll honor Brutus. The part I highlighted in red is perhaps the most poignant. The crowd wants Brutus to take Caesar's place!

The irony of this is unbelievable. The crowd wants Brutus to become the very thing he fought so hard against. I thought it immensely interesting that Shakespeare's observations of peoples' preconceived notions (made in the very early 17th century) echo that of an argument and studies done in the 21st century.

Five Things You Need to Know About the Election -- BBC

I found this article on the BBC website. I can be found here:

Five Things You Need to Know About the Election, by Tom Geohegan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19729802

This is a fairly small article that touches upon those public spheres mentioned by Poster. Specifically, these are public spheres that are outside the United States.

Geohegan perhaps puts it best when he writes that:

There is huge international interest in who occupies the White House because the actions of a US president have a global impact.

 As an American citizen, it is easy to forget the amount of influence the United States government wields. Thus, it makes sense that people of other nations are going to be watching the Presidential election process. Likewise, the article as a whole is interesting merely because I find any sort of geographically outside perspective supremely fun to look at.

Another great excerpt is the audience (in millions) that Obama's inauguration had:

US: 38m
Germany: 11m
France: 7m
UK: 5m

Germany's viewership by itself is incredible. It outnumbers the entire population of Massachusetts (around 6.5 million).

Finally, the article by itself could probably be of use to many Americans who might feel a bit lost about where to start in looking at the election.