Veronica:Apathy

The biggest part of this chapter that stood out to me was the Rock the Vote Campaign. A campagin that was put together to protest against sensorship and encourages youth to vote and have a say in their future and the laws that affect them. Youth are considered to be politically inactive unless it is in a extreme matter such as lyrics or protests. Yet that is political activism. The fact that the youth of today are writing songs, or painting pictures or protesting in ways that are considered extreme it is still getting attention. Isn't that the whole point of activism? To gain attention or make public a topic. Any coverage is good coverage when it comes to political activism. Whether it is negative or positive because the whole point is to raise awareness and by coverage that goal is attained. I feel the youth of today are more active due to the simple fact that they were told they'd never see a woman or african american run or be in office in our lifetime. Yet, here we are. To see celebrities and role models speak up on how important voting and getting information and getting involved is, opens the eyes of the youth to want to be involved, reasearch what is going on and participate.

Veronica: Fragmentation

I think it is important that the public sphere include the input and opinion of every person no matter what their backround they come from. That is the only way to create a well rounded view point of opinion on a topic. To obtain any real understanding of any topic one has to explore all realms or sub-categories in that topic. Otherwise i feel an opinon can be bias to one's experiences or morals without allowing themselves to see a full picture. Without the input of people from all walks of life then the public sphere wouldn't and couldn't be called the "public sphere" because it closes off parts of the public.

Veronica: Trivilization

Gender roles in movies are always very typical. The male is always the strong heroic character while the woman is always in distress and needs saving in the end. In watching " Terminator" the female is portrayed as a strong individual who is trying to save her son. She fights against these inconcievable machines who are violent. She embodies this typical male character who is brave and courageous and strong whether it be minded or physically. Yet what really throws off her character role is in the end she is placd in a mental institution while trying to reveal that she was fighting machines who were trying to kill her son and take over. So inevitable the way I see it she was thrown back into the damsel in distress role by being placed in a mental institution. Heaven forbid a woman ever be depicted as a strong, courageous, brave character throughout a story to the end.

Veronica: Flyvjerg

I agree with Habermas. I feel that through discussion that a consensus can be reached on any topic. It doesn't matter what the topic is whether it be abortion or racism to politics, if people are open and willing to hear other sides or stories and take it in and come to a mutual agreement on things then a consensus can be met. But it is unreachable if people are unwilling to discuss a topic to begin with. Flyvjerg feels Habermas is about consensus while Foucault is about conflict and power. I feel through this class I realized I am more Habermasian than Foucaultian. When in the beginning i felt the opposite.

Davey Neubauer: Apathy

the modernist viewpoint is that young people are apathetic tworads "real" political concerns and that protests and rallies "only fail to change the world... seem to be not only misguided but actively dangerous" (184). Modernists in my opinion seem to think that that change is always a bad thing for if these new "internet" outlets are being used instead of the traditional ways of media than this is proof that this alternative way to participate in politics is not valid. How can this be? Just because the youth of today are engaging in political debates in different ways "zines" or other forms of online blogging doesn't mean that their points are any less valid. Who is someone to say my point matters and your point doesn't count because I am constructing my ideas in the traditional sense.

Jared on Apathy

McKee seems to support the legitimacy of today's youth's political approach. McKee says that the youth tend to unconventionally political and they respond more to cultural actions like political protests than to direct political action. Lack of direct political actions would go against modernist theory.

I agree with McKee's assertion that today's youth are political in a different way. I think that it's more important to be pro-active in changing the philosophies of citizens than to be pro-active with direct political actions. In order for change to come, I think there's has to be a transformation in thinking. If the people support a principle, it will become a legislated policy.

However, I think there is a minor snag in the cultural political pattern of thinking. I think a result of modern patterns of politics fosters a general consensus of uninformed citizens. It's definitely more important to change your way of thinking, but if we wait for political information to make it to us via bumper stickers and monumental political events, then we'll only be knowledgeable on the biggest of events, which are only a small percentage of a political occurrences.

From Lorraine: Apathy

Sorry I'm late getting this in...anywho, I think a huge part of apathy--especially political apathy--is the fact that young people don't trust too many people over 30--especially if those people happen to be politicians. The reason young people trust musicians is the fact that musicians haven't necessarily tried to screw them out of their futures and have had a more positive impact than the politicians who have the budgets for education and have cut of social welfare projects from them, such as Head Start and free lunch and have forced their parents to spend most of their days at work, leaving them with little to no supervision and guidance. Beyond that, unless you're of voting age, you have no say in what goes on in the country you live in, and because you can't vote, no one really cares what you have to say.

Let's face it: The government is no longer of, by, and for the people. It of, by, and for the elite to use as their own piggy banks. Young people know this, and that's why they're apathetic.

Fanya Daniels Fragmentation

This is for Fragmentation...

I believe that sub categories if you will is very important to the public Sphere because you should always have a place where you feel comfortable. Fragmentation allows this which is a great idea this is how you can possibly get a better understanding of a person or a group. One must realize that there are different ideas floating around and everyone should be heard if you agree or not it just helps you to get a better understanding. Telveision shows, books, documentaries, even simple conversation in my opinion helps bring different ideas but help you get a understanding of those different understandings.

Fanya Daniels Apathy

Alright reading the chapter Apathy was exciting for me because I love finishing books...lol
Seriously, I felt this chapter was good I thought about the way us young Americans talk about politics and how we are also involved with politics. I don't think it was exactly how it was in the past but politics has changes over the years. Then it was more entertaining and now it's more serious and educational. I think that personally the youth is not involved with the politics as much as we could. For example a lot of people would not have voted if it wasn't for all the hype with Obama and Hillary. I am now twenty years old and it was my first time voting. Most of the youth today are not politically savvy. We pretty much get on the internet and try to jam everything in about politics and we really end up learning nothing. Well I take that back maybe we are just in a different way. I also think it was neat when people in the past fought for their voices to be heard. I just hope are way of learning, expressing, and taking control is effective for this country. I just think its harder for people to go out and do their own research about different political debates, candidates, bills, ect. I just hope that the youth are able to bring are country back and just be aware of whats going on...because when you don't educate yourself thats when your voice is not heard and your left behind.

Kara Schneck: On Apathy

OK, so this chapter on voter apathy struck my interest particularly because in McKee’s section on “Apathetic History” (176-181) we find that things haven’t changed much over the last few centuries, and if anything, voting rates are up and fairly stable over the last century.  What particularly riled me was that the voting rates were the highest in the early to mid-1800s not because of an informed electorate but because of sensationalist and entertainment politics (McKee 179).  The fact that voting rates went down when reformers sought to make politics more educational and informative just made me angry—are people really so lazy and disinterested that they will only respond to immediately gratifying political approaches.  This attitude is obviously one of the causes of such long and overly rhetorical political campaigns.  I was reading in the Parade and in response to the question “is our election process too long?,”  98% of readers said yes.  Their ideas were interesting, and I well agree with them:

“Limit campaigning to three to six months and install the new president in two weeks.  Then he or she can start on our nation’s problems right away.” –J.T., Georgetown, Tex.

“We should have a national one-day primary, then hold the election six weeks later.  Free TV time will be equally provided to the candidates by the federal government, as will equal campaign funds.” –E.D., Carpinteria, Calif.

“Make the candidates pay a 35% tax on the money they raise.  This would shorten their campaigns, and the taxes could be used for things like education or health care.” –T.V., Clifton, Colo.

“Since many of the candidates are Senators who are neglecting their jobs, we should definitely shorten the election season, and officials should also have to go on unpaid leave while they’re campaigning.” –R.R., Fairlawn, Ohio

I tend to agree with these Parade readers that voting has become overly complex, and I would extend this complexity to legislation and citizen involvement as well.  These readers give good, thought provoking suggestions to solve our election process problems, and so I would have to agree with moderns that debate is essential in the public sphere. 

Also, it is sad but true when McKee says that that the Internet’s great potential is for the most part wasted (185).  The Internet could be a wonderful forum for all kinds of essential debate, but instead I see fellow friends and schoolmates in the computer labs surfing ridiculously “pimped out” MySpace pages, where conversations are usually limited to the annoyingly shallow comments like “hey, you look fine in that new pic!” or “The new guitar hero III game is coming out this week” or the ten millionth survey someone posts on the bulletin about themselves and their secret admirers or which Sexy Superhero they are.  I wish that for once people would start talking politics and sharing experiential knowledge that would actually further human evolvement instead of this regression that I see—we will soon be like fashionable, talking apes if things don’t change.

Kristen: Apathy

When it comes to this chapter, I am kind of split in my feelings. While I do believe that we are probably better informed about politics today than they were in the past, I also think that alot of the people, young and old alike, who vote do not know very much about what they are voting for. In that aspect, I guess I agree with the "modern" idea, which is rare. :)

I also do agree with the fact that we (the youth culture) do in fact have a different understanding of politics and that we are more likely to stage a protest than to try to actually become a politician themselves. However, I do not think this makes us less involved in the political public sphere. Actually, I think the youth are very much involved in the political public sphere, but like McKee said, it is jus not in the traditional way. However, I still beleive that the non-traditional, or "postmodern" approach is just as effective as the "modern."

Jill Smith "Apathy"

I enjoyed this chapter because it brings to the forefront the idea that young Americans have their own way of dealing with and practicing politics. I liked the fact that McKee quotes Hartley as saying that "...an April 1994 poll among young people gave between 78 per cent and 93 per cent responses for various negative statements about politicians and showed that a quarter of 18 year olds failed to register to vote...[and that] young people placed greater trust in musicians” (McKee 181). This chapter relates to the spectacle chapter and only reinforces the usefulness of spectacle in the political arena. McKee points out that young people do not engage in politics the same way early Americans did. They tend to find their own medium. He uses the "hippie" movement as an example. The hippies did not take up with political parties, instead they found their voices through protest and music. For example in protesting the draft for the Vietnam war and the war itself, Creedence Clearwater Revival wrote the song "Fortunate Son," a song about how the children of the rich could and did buy their way out of the draft. That was the sixties answer to political activism, they chose to do it through creative arts like music, theater and art. It was the first time in American history that children went against their parents politics by the thousands. They wanted the world to hear that they would not conform. Sometimes I feel like i got left out of this amazing time in history, the music alone breaks my heart that I wasn't there to experience it.

Lyrics to "Fortunate Son"
Creedence Lyrics: Fortunate Son
Some folks are born made to wave the flag,Ooh, they're red, white and blue.And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,Yeah!Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.But when the taxman comes to the door,Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

Shelley: Apathy

Okay, so once again, i am on the fence (i am starting to sound like a broken record). I seem to agree, then disagree-with both the modernists and postmodernists. When i read this chapter , the first thought that came to mind was "oh great its talking about politics-which i know nothing about-i haven't participated in any elections...yet". I do have some opinions on this chapter though--i will probably sound like a hypocrite , or contradict myself somehow, but here i go...
I have to agree that the internet and 'culture jamming' in general is a good thing. The whole idea that the young generation is taking a different approach to changing things in the government, by changing how the average person thinks about things instead of going through the government, is brilliant. What better way to defeat the government than get more and more people to join your side--screw trying to convince the government to join your side.
I don't agree with the modernists' view that "because of this focus on recognition rather than redistribution-they aren't doing real politics" (174). I see the songs and videos on youtube that we discussed as examples of culture jamming, and i think the bands or individuals who sang them are "politically involved"(175)!
However, i think that back in the 60's and stuff, people were a lot more involved in politics. I think the younger generation during that time were much more adamant about getting their voices heard. Myself, my sisters, my friends...we all haven't voted since we turned 18 :( i know, i should vote, but i think there are a lot of young people out there who are non-voters.
I kind of agree that there may be too much information out there (see i think i am contradicting myself here). I think that there is so much on the internet, in the newspapers, on t.v., that it just boggles my brain and i become overwhelmed and don't want to hear any more about politics come summer!!!!
Oh and what the heck does this mean..."changes in culture make political change possible, but are not in themselves political" (192)?????? and I thought i sounded contradicting?!?!?!?
My Conclusion: I think that after reading this book, i have found myself leaning more towards the postmodernists, but i find myself agreeing (sometimes) with the modernists--even Habermas, once in a blue moon :)

Stephanie Velona on Apathy and Conclusion

Apathy
In the chapter on Apathy, McKee introduces the concept of culture jamming which "attempts to change the way that people think about the world by playing with existing culture, and thus introducing new ideas into the public sphere" (172). This idea seems to me t be an old one with a new name. People for a very long time have been trying to influence how other people think about things, and to influence them to change their minds. Maybe it has become more prevalent with mass media and the Internet. I believe that McKee is correct that there is a definite youth culture just as there are other cultures.

In regards to public apathy in politics due to the "mass media turning politics into a spectator sport or a consumable commodity" (175), I am not sure I agree. Can we really blame the media or are we not, as individuals, taking responsibility and doing our part. Are we not making ourselves aware of the issues and deciding what we need to do. America has a very low voting rate because people do not care to take responsibility and stand for what they believe is right. It is easy to blame the President for the troubles in the US when you sit at home and watch the news, but did not participate in the election process. There is no way to make people vote or to become responsible enough to take an interest in our countries political well being, but I do think that blaming the media for our lack of interest and lack of motivation to research the issues ourselves rather ridiculous. I guess another area where I am between Habermas and Foucault is that I think that "consuming the media (is) itself a political act" (198), yet that is not where it ends, in consuming the media we need to research and find out what the facts are not just what the media's slant on the facts are.

Conclusion
In the conclusion it feels like McKee is defending his perspective or at the very least why he has the perspectives that he does. In presenting his perspective McKee believes that 'modern' voices are responsible for silencing marginal cultures, in the same respect marginal cultures are speaking out in an attempt to silence the dominant cultures while having their voices heard. So is there ever a way for true equality to happen? Is there ever a way for all voices to be heard?

I have to admit that I do think that McKee is a bit arrogant when he says that Haber mas and modernists when writing about other forms of culture seem to be coming from a place of ignorance. Just because I don't agree with a certain culture or cultural perspective does not mean I am ignorant it just means that I do not agree, and that it is ok for me to have my own beliefs. Again though I think, like McKee that true equality will be elusive.

Ruby Valdez on Apathy

This week's reading was on apathy. This chapter deals with the effects that technology has on the public sphere. For example, the Internet has affected the younger public a lot and is considered to be a massive way to communicate with the youngsters. The modernists view this impact that technology has as (surprise, surprise) a negative thing. They believe that things such as the media have made the younger public passive. Things such as this bring out trivial issues and distract from the important issues. The modernists believe that young generations are important and the way they communicate is also important. Mckee mentions how through the use of things like the Internet young people get politically involved (which is left up to interpretation of whether or not this is political involvement.) Mckee also gives examples from the 60's and the Merry Pranksters who elected a pig as a candidate to be the next president of the U.S. Which by the way I loved.

I really enjoyed this reading because I am part of this younger generation who is believed to be apathetic. However, I am politically knowledgeable and I do have an interest in what is happening or what is going to happen to my generation. I believe being involved in issues is important because a lot of the time young people are ignored. I'm not saying I think everyone should be like me, but I do think that people should try to at least know what's going on around them. However, if the time called for it I would act to protect my rights (in a very non-violent way of course.) I really enjoyed this reading and it's been a very awesome class. I learned a lot and about people who think differently than me too. Good luck too all of you in whatever you choose to do:)

Michelle Peterson: Apathy

This chapter is mainly concerned with the varying views of how to bring about change. Postmodernists believe that through "culture jamming" people have the ability to bring about political change by changing the way people think about things (173). Spectacle would be a good example of how this can work. Through spectacle, people can appeal to other's emotions and get people to think about change. Other examples would be demonstrations and marches. In fact, there was recently a demonstration in which people dressed up as sharks and picketed in order to raise awareness about the mortgage crisis. I agree that "culture jamming" is used mainly by younger crowds. I think that that could either be a shift in politics, perhaps the traditional form of politicizing will not be around much longer. Or, it could be that younger people are less familiar with politics, so a more radical way of politicizing is necessary in order to reach young crowds. Anyway, modernists disagree saying that "changing how people think is a waste of time" (176). Modernists believe that "traditional forms of politics are more real than cultural politics" (187). I think traditional forms and cultural forms are equally important but I agree with the modernists that the media doesn't really deal with what's really important. Too much of what's on the news is trivial. I don't really think that there's a news channel that balances trivial (Britney Spears) with actual news (primaries). I think they are both important, but not equally important. Anyways, I think that postmodernists and modernists both have good ideas. I agree more so with postmodern ideals, but in the case of "Apathy" I think a mixture of the two is necessary.

Do read...From Freddie

I found this article on the arts and letters daily website and I found it very interesting. Its about the current trend in academics to apply the word "complicate" to some theory or another as though it were a positive thing. In terms of our class and text, I fond that McKee somewhat simplifies the concepts of "postmodern" and "modern" by placing these terms in a simple binary...however talk to many academics and they'll scoff at binaries. This article discusses just that....that scholars are so resistant to simplifying that new catch words/phrases out there are "problematize" and "let me just complicate X or Y". I like McKee's approach because although I'll admit modernism and postmodernism are perhaps more complex than our discussion of it, I think McKee does a terrific job of putting forward some complex ideas and making them understandable. Once we've mastered the "binaries" then we can "problematize" them...but I say lets walk before we start jogging.

Have a read...I'd be interested to know what you folks think.

Oh and by the by...our blog is officially public. Some one responded to one of Davey's posts...some one not in 240!!!!!

Jill Smith "Fragmentation"

Once again I find myself on the side of the post modernists on this issue. I believe that all people have the right to speak in the public sphere no matter what their background, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. I feel that it is very important for the public sphere to hear what everyone has to say. I like the idea that there are sub categories of the public sphere also. I think that it is important for instance for homosexuals to have a safe space in which they feel comfortable to discuss whatever they want. I also like the idea that theses sites normally do not discriminate against who is learning from their sites. My niece is a lesbian and my sister has gone on sites to learn more about her world. It has seemed to help their relationship and has helped her shatter her ideal of the perfect daughter. Fragmentation in the public sphere can be a great thing because it allows more diversity in the public sphere.

Janet Payne - Fragmentation

McKee was clear in equating a shift in a one's thinking to a religious belief system. It is difficult to see someone elses point of view without a paradigm shift, an epiphany, if you will. You may be too young to remember that old saying, "free your mind and your ___ will follow." Communication is an important tool to accomplish this logically. He notes that feminist public spheres as well as Black and Queer public spheres always try to talk to other public spheres, as well as members of their own groups to form cross-demographic communication. I think this practice is essential in developing true understanding and tolerance.

Jared on Fragmentation

It seems as though McKee seems to support the idea of different groups having their own fragmented public spheres and I'd tend to agree with him on their relevence. For those who identify themselves in some sort of sub-cultural social group, I think fragmentation is a good means of strengthening solidarity with the groups' own public spheres. However, I think there is also some importance in having an unbiased (if that's even possible), homogenous public sphere that relates to all groups. I support a multi-faceted public sphere that is able to accomodate the fragmented spheres of specific group audiences (i.e. black, queer, women) and adds a more universal sphere to unite the groups. Maybe that's a bit too ambitious.

I liked what McKee mentioned in the chapter about the importance of TV programming regarding the issue of fragmentation. He discussed the seperations of social groups in programming and added that the TV was a good venue for exploring other cultures without putting yourself or your values at too much risk.

Fragmentation: Davey Neubauer

I really found myself getting into this chapter more than others this week. I think this is for one simple reason i actually understood what was going on and i didn't have to re read everything a billion times (sorry this is the end of my disclaimer)

I thought it was really interesting that Mckee again defends Habermas on the aspect of keeping certain cultures out of the public sphere. For Mckee says that Habermas doesn't believe that people don't have the right to formulate their own opionions but in fact it is because they formulate their own opinions that they should not be allowed to join into the public sphere. Basically Habermas believes (and I am paraphrasing here) that people in the public sphere need to speek the same language and for that reason more people being allowed to compete in the public sphere only cause confusion. His reasoning for this is that there is only one truth and if we are speaking different languages there will never be one truth, only multiple truths.

I believe this theory has many faults because how is this a true representation of a public sphere if we are excluding certain people from the discussion just because they have different world views from our own. It seems to me Habermas comes off as a person who doesn't want to hear what others have to say if it goes against what he believes in.

Megan Aragon: Fragmentation

In this chapter, McKee gives us a question to think about throughout the chapter, whether it would be good or not for our society if our public sphere was divided in each culture due to their differences. McKee, just like in the previous chapters, shows the readers two different views. McKee points out there are those who do not believe in spliting the public sphere due to the culture differences, because then we wouldnt be working together as a group in a nation of democracy. There would be too many differences and beliefes that it would lead to democracy being unsuccessful. Those who believe that it would be good to have different public spheres accordingly to different cultures, they believe we would have access to different public spheres in each cultures, then we would have access to different ideas and teaches each individuals to think for themselves.

i think we should have one public sphere, because if we dont, then it would be pulling everyonoe away frome ach other and we would not have a nation of democracy. I believe it is healthy for us to work together, and we are allowed to express our ideas and thoughts as we work together. For example, in our English 240 class, is our public sphere, and we work together understand McKee's book. Yet, we still are able to express our opinions about what McKee's book. Our public sphere is created by 16 people we have in this class with 16 different, unique minds and that is what makes our public sphere the way it is. Then we also have our private sphere and every person has that right to have a private sphere and I believe there are things that should remain private, such our cultural methods. If we choose to live in a certain cultural method, then we should have that right to have that private choice and not have to hear anyone else tell us how to culturally live.

K Schneck: Political Spectacle

I think this song is pretty powerful, because I find that despite the efforts of the government to justify their wars, it seems that all war is fundamentally about what our country can get out of a situation. While I sometimes feel that we're doing what's right to protect our nations, I at other times feel the obvious wrongs that are perpetrated by our nation:

COPS OF THE WORLD
By Phil Ochs

Come, get out of the way, boys
Quick, get out of the way
You'd better watch what you say, boys
Better watch what you say
We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port
And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short
So bring your daughters around to the port
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

We pick and choose as please, boys
Pick and choose as please
You'd best get down on your knees, boys
Best get down on your knees
We're hairy and horny and ready to shack
We don't care if you're yellow or black
Just take off your clothes and lie down on your back
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Our boots are needing a shine, boys
Boots are needing a shine
But our Coca-cola is fine, boys
Coca-cola is fine
We've got to protect all our citizens fair
So we'll send a battalion for everyone there
And maybe we'll leave in a couple of years
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Dump the reds in a pile, boys
Dump the reds in a pile
You'd better wipe of that smile, boys
Better wipe off that smile
We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck
We'll find you a leader that you can't elect
Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Clean the johns with a rag, boys
Clean the johns with a rag
If you like you can use your flag, boys
If you like you can use your flag
We've got too much money we're looking for toys
And guns will be guns and boys will be boys
But we'll gladly pay for all we destroy
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Please stay off of the grass, boys
Please stay off of the grass
Here's a kick in the ass, boys
Here's a kick in the ass
We'll smash down your doors, we don't bother to knock
We've done it before, so why all the shock?
We're the biggest and toughest kids on the block
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

When we butchered your son, boys
When we butchered your son
Have a stick of our gum, boys
Have a stick of our buble-gum
We own half the world, oh say can you see
The name for our profits is democracy
So, like it or not, you will have to be free
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World.

Karalynn Schneck: On Fragmentation

Well, I was eager to read McKee’s solution or resolution on the subject of fragmentation, but I came out a little disappointed. Upon examining my reactions I decided that one of the main reasons I struggled with the chapter was because of my attitudinal differences with the examples from the Queer Sphere. Hey, I am just being honest here, so don’t automatically label me a prejudiced bigot (remember, I said it was an attitudinal difference).

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with McKee that Habermas’ vision of the public sphere was extremely limited and that whether or not he would like to admit it, “the public sphere has always been fragmented” (McKee 142). Habermas realizes that white propertied men were the only official public sphere and thinks this was a good thing—he “doesn’t want [other] citizens to bring their distinct cultures and identities with them, for he thinks this works against equality” (McKee 145). What Habermas fails to understand is that plurality is inevitable and withholding from people the right to express their voice is ultimately wrong. A ruling class of educated white men know nothing of other spheres but their own.

If I were to pinpoint a couple of things about the Queer Sphere that turned me off, I would probably focus on the representation of their culture—if it is in fact an accurate representation. I was firstly offended that queers try to label all others for our “‘heteronormativity’—the impulse of the ‘straight’ culture to try to make everybody fit into the same norms of behaviour—not just sexually, but culturally” (McKee 148). If this is a staple of queer philosophy, then I find they are a lost culture—they think that boundaries are constrictive, when they could in fact be set down for seriously important reasons—i.e. criminal prevention, unity, etc. McKee also cited a couple of times that queer folk think that straight culture is boring. Well, yee-hah—what a reason to be gay, to be exciting and creative. I find these philosophies extremely shortsighted and immature, and I am entitled to my attitudes.

What I found interesting about this article is McKee’s return to the power of persuasion over reason and rationality. I think McKee’s insistence on the use and worth of the one and disregard of the other is at best closed-minded, however empirically proven methods of persuasion are. Should we all just resort to being emotional beings with little or no thought to logical and long-term decision making, flowing with the tides of the best and most appealing leaders and persuasive figureheads? Oh, I forgot—that’s what we Americans are: mindless drones of a very manipulative media…or at least that’s what we’re becoming and I think McKee is leading us there by the hand.

Ruby Valdez on Fragmentation

Hey guys this will be short because I need time to focus on the other project. I believe it's the modernists who believe that the public sphere is being fragmented because of all of these emerging race and sex groups. The post modernists believe they are a vital part of the public sphere because they allow quieted groups to build their own public opinion. I have to say that I am very upset with Habermas' view! It feels like he lives in his own pretend land excluded from any real cultural experiences. I personally am offended. That is all for now, but my attention is needed elsewhere. Goodnight.

FOLKS...from freddie

Funny thing... the "spectacular" world is often at odds with the academic... We are, in English 240, sitting firmly in the academic realm and I find myself in a quandary. I really appreciate your specta-political posts (of the music vid variety) and they all have important socio-political messages. Now for the quandary...as your professor, I ask that you keep it PG...in other words carefully assess your audience. Does this "mute" certain voices... perhaps. Its something I'd like to discuss in class....that is that weird mixture of the "academy" and some potent political music videos...lets talk tomorrow.
I have therefore, as your professor, taken it upon myself to edit certain posts...not because the message is not worthwhile but because I am in this weird and wonderful place whereby I have to mediate between my students' voices and the conventions of the academy...As I said...lets talk

Kristen Reagan: Fragmentation

This chapter questions whether it is a good thing for there to be be separate public spheres for different cultures. Of course, McKee references both points of view. Those who not believe that there should be different public spheres say it is because it leads to too much choice and that we need a single public sphere for democracy to work. On the other hand, those in favor of separate spheres believe this is important because it allows different communities a way to develop their own ideas. I believe that we should have access to separate public spheres. I guess we can consider the dominant public sphere is that of the "white, educated male." Therefore, when it comes to communities that do not fall under this category (women, gays, blacks, etc.) is might not be acceptable to talk about things that would be important to the minorities in the dominant sphere. Therefore, I think it is a good thing to have a place for these people to be able to express their opinions without being judged.

Veronica

Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up

Born in the U.S.A.I was born in the U.S.A
I was born in the U.S.A.Born in the U.S.A.

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"
Went down to see my V.A. man
He said "Son, don't you understand"
I had a brother at Khe Sahn fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone
He had a woman he loved in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms now
Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.

Shelley: Fragmentation

To answer the question that Mckee asks in the beginning of this chapter "Is it a good thing that different cultures have their own public spaces, or is it rather another sign of degeneration of the public sphere?"(140). I would have to say that i believe it is helpful to the public sphere. I agree that "it is an opportunity to allow more people to develop their ideas in public, before going on to access the official public sphere" (171). When you are asked to define who you are, there is not just one thing on your list. You can be an African American, woman, lesbian, teacher, and a mother of three. There are so many spheres that each and every one of us can belong to, and to say that just because one might see the queer community as their main community does not make them any less part of the black, feminist, or american community or any other community for that matter. These other spheres give us a place to communicate with people who have the same struggles, issues, concerns, ect. as we do. The fact that modernists think there should only be one public sphere is ridiculous. That 'official' public sphere may have worked when all of the members were white men, but now, there are so many other people (who identify themselves in so many different ways) that are a part of the public sphere. The idea that we lose a common interest by having all of these different public spheres suggests that we are, or were once, all common. But we aren't. It is not that simple. We have many different interests that relate to the different communities that we belong to. These other public spheres are just branches of the one public sphere that i see as the official one----not made up of men of the white race, but of anyone who considers themselves a member of the human race.

Michelle Peterson: Fragmentation

Once again, I find myself wondering what all this debate stuff between modernists and post modernists is all about. I think that we live in more of a post modern society than a modern one, so why does Habermas persist on trying to bring back the modern ways? Clearly, our society is not going to regress back to the eighteenth-century. Poor, poor, Habermas, he needs to find a new hobby.

It’s a good thing that different cultures have their own public spheres and no, democracy should not rely on just one public sphere. It’s silly that Habermas wants equality of access to the public sphere but only one public sphere. That would never work in our modern society. “Visibility” is the key word in this chapter. Distinct public spheres have existed since the beginning of time, but just recently these public spheres have been acknowledged (142). Thanks to spectacle and the media, public spheres are able to acknowledge one another, even if they don’t want to. There is just no escaping that multiple public spheres exist, and this is truly what bothers Habermas. In the eighteenth-century there was not TV, radio, or as much spectacle, so the elite white men in charge were able to ignore the other public spheres. That is just not possible today.

McKee says that modernists believe that “In order for everybody to be equal in public debate . . . they must leave their differences at the door” (145). If this were truly the case, what on earth would they debate about? It seems like Habermas wants people to just agree without having a disagreement. Yet, he wants disagreement because he believes that debates are important, so I guess I’m not really sure what one of his debates would look like.

Habermas thinks that “allowing cultural difference into the official public sphere encourages people to be selfish” (148). But not allowing cultural differences into the public sphere encourage selfishness more so. Habermas’s conflicting views are selfish for only wanting white elite males into the official public sphere. What I do think is selfish is having separate “Nations.” There is a “Black Nation,” “Women’s Nation,” “Queer Nation,” etc. I think that having these separate nations sets each group apart from society as a whole. While I think it’s important to maintain these separate cultures, having separate nations just goes too far to separate all of us.

Finally, Jim McGuigan believes that it was “ideas generated in working-class public spheres that passed into the official bourgeois public sphere in the 19^th century and resulted in working-class people being given the vote” (163). I agree that change starts where there are a people who are willing to fight. Oppression leads to struggles, and where there are struggles there are power struggles. Power is a driving force for the oppressed, so occasionally, when the oppressed suffer for a very, very long time, sometimes, someone in power is finally willing to listen.

From Lorraine: Fragmentation

#&(*@*^<*&>!!!

That having been said, i highly disagree with Habermas when he more or less states that things were better or would be ideal if educated (and white) men ran things or were the only ones allowed to participate in the public sphere. Again, the people that Habermas favors seem a little too privileged and disconnected to the majority of people who have to work (hard) for a living and will be affected by the discourse by those who Habermas deems worthy to participate in the public sphere. I'm not sure if Habermas ever acknowledges this, but power has a tendency to corrupt, and if one group or individual is given power without anybody to oppose them, it can really screw things up for everybody else, especially those who would be denied a voice or participation in the public sphere. It reminds me of that one episode of The Simpsons where Lisa and all the other smart people in town try to run Springfield, and they're no better than the corrupt morons who were running it. Stephen Hawkings eventually intervenes and helps everyone to realize that power corrupts, no matter how smart you are. I especially like it when Stephen Hawkings shares a beer with Homer and is interested in Homer's idea that the universe is shaped like a doughnut. Hawkings, the intelligent, white male does not discount Homer's idea on the grounds that Homer is an imbecile (albeit a usually well-meaning one).

What would be another good example of this? What about lobbyists from major corporations who essentially buy votes from Congress, which is the public sphere of our government? Those congress people take money from these corporations, and tweak policy to where the bottom line is that the working poor and the diminishing middle classes are given the shaft. Don't believe me? Check out these links:

http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-09.htm
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/19750

As far as this diatribe can be related to the gay community, I'll tell you: My older sister and I are very close. My sister is also a lesbian. When she and her girlfriend were hanging out, just holding hands (that's as far as the PDA's went) and minding their own business, they were accosted by a straight couple who made their opinions very vocal and they even attacked my sister and her girlfriend. When the police were called, my sister had fought back in self defense, but SHE was the one thrown in jail. I reckon you can say, in this instance if interaction in the public sphere, my sister's voice was moot (along with the fact that she was defending herself and her attackers were the ones who struck first) because the police did not do anything to her attackers.

Beyond that, I'm all for gay rights. Why? Because there's nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that excludes them from getting married, having kids, etc. Again, I talk about America because of Industrialized nations, we're pretty behind in the times (did you know in some foreign Industrialized countries, gay people can get married? Wow). In fact, we have the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and last time I checked, letting gay people get married or adopt kids does not trample on anybody else's rights--but denying gays and lesbians those chances does by definition alone.

Here's a clip from Otep, leader of the band that bears her name, who's also a lesbian and poet who threw the primarily African American audience for a loop at "Def Poetry Jam"

Stephanie Velona on Fragmentation

McKee presents again the modern view and the post-modern view of fragmentation and again I find myself lying somewhere in the middle. I would agree with the statement that “There’s not enough common culture where all of the inhabitants of a country can come together to discuss the issues that affect everybody” (141). I think that it is important for all of us to embrace our differences, but that having been said I also think we need to find some commonalities so that society as a whole can run a little more smoothly. So this may be a modern perspective on my part. I also think that Habermas missed the mark a bit when he says that society was better off when it was basically run by educated white males. Because as McKee also states everyone comes to the board with their own set of perceptions, principles and ideas that may not be the best for the society as a whole.

I do think that Nicholas Garnham has a good point when he says that “national issues must take place at a national level and is undercut by a multiplication of simultaneous viewing and listening options” (148). I think this is true because I feel that this can lead to confusion on some very important issues. It is another subject that I feel there is no true ideal but that we need to find some commonalities. McKee points out that even academicians cannot communicate across different paradigms, that it becomes too confusing and difficult. So I guess what I would like to see is what I have already stated, that everyone embrace their differences yet find some commonalities only then can society function as a whole. But is this just an ideal or a utopia like Habermas puts forth, I truly hope not.

Michelle Peterson: Toby Keith

Alright, I'll admit it. . . I'm a country girl:)This song is about 9/11. Definitely an appeal to pathos.

A mixture of genres from Lorraine

HA HA! I found it!

Fanya Daniels-I think I did it right this time

Fanya Daniels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRjIYYjIe_0

Jared's spectacle as well as genre fusion

Long before there was Rage Against the Machine to give us the fusion of rap and rock, there was Ice-T and his group Bodycount to fuse the equally subjugated genres of rap and hardcore punk.


The other day we were talking about rappers and how they're political. A lot of the rappers that we mentioned were praised for their articulation within the form (Tupac, Common, Public Enemy), which seemed to be indirectly suggesting that those rappers who are more intellectually advanced have increased credibility and importance within the public sphere. With that discussion, we mentioned the devaluation of gangsta rap. And that kind of sounded like a slightly less exclusive version of the Westernists' philosophy regarding the hierarchy of genres. With that said, I found an incredibly less-articulate, yet equally eloquent and subversive political spectacle. This may be offensive and easy to disagree with, and I was planning on defending this clip, but Ice-T was nice enough to do an interview about his motivations for writing this song that explain exactly what I would've said to defend his point with this song. So please click the link below the video and lyrics after you digest all that.



Ice-T interview on Cop Killer

Megan Aragon

I liked this one but I dont know who it is by, but I think the lyrics talk about the media and the lies we are told?? What do you think??

[Verse 1]
It’s like a pencil with erasers at both ends
I want it all but we’re dealing in percents
And these activities that you have engaged in
This is the politics of seeing you dance with him
We began with concluding remarks
Pick up the pieces and examine the parts
Your words always cut when they're cliché
But here’s my knife because I came for the buffet

[Chorus]
This is the way it goes
With you a part of it
Nervously saying words
That oh-so-tightly fit
A mark beneath the chin (Uh Uh)
I’ve caught you once again
It’s in the way you sell every word and phrase
And leaving me to know how much the meaning weighs
Saying that but meaning this (Uh Uh)
Using hands for emphasis
(Oh Ho) [x7]

[Verse 2]
You’d like to think that you’re the best part of me
But I confess there is nothing left of you here (nothing left of you here)
These parallels and silly games
Hide your face and say the name
Say the name (say the name)

[Chorus]
This is the way it goes
With you a part of it
Nervously saying words
That oh-so-tightly fit
A mark beneath the chin (Uh Uh)
And I’ve caught you once again
It’s in the way you sell every word and phrase
And leaving me to know how much the meaning weighs
Saying that but meaning this (Uh Uh)
Your tears for emphasis

[Bridge]
(Ahhhh)
There’s that smile again (there’s that smile again)
You fake it and I follow you right in
What a fool I've been
To fall for it each time

[Chorus]
This is the way it goes
With you a part of it
Nervously saying words
That oh-so-tightly fit
It’s in the way you sell every word and phrase
And leaving me to know how much the meaning weighs
This is the way it goes
With you a part of it
Nervously saying words
That oh-so-tightly fit
It’s in the way you sell every word and phrase
And leaving me to know how much the meaning weighs
(Oh Ho) [x5]

[Outro (On Purevolume.com, not from iTunes download)]
That dress and those eyes are telling white white lies
White white lies
That dress and those eyes are telling white white lies
White white lies

Megan Aragon

BOB DYLAN LYRICS

"Political World"

We live in a political world
Love don't have any place
We're living in times
Where men commit crimes
And crime don't have any face.

We live in a political world
Icicles hanging down
Wedding bells ring
And angels sing
Clouds cover up the ground.

We live in a political world
Wisdom is thrown in jail
It rots in a cell
Is misguided as hell
Leaving no one to pick up a trail.

We live in a political world
Where mercy walks the plank
Life is in mirrors
Death disappears
Up the steps into the nearest bank.

We live in a political world
Where courage is a thing of the past
Houses are haunted
Children unwanted
The next day could be your last.

We live in a political world
The one we can see and feel
But there's no one to check
It's all a stacked deck
We all know for sure that it's real.

We live in a political world
In the cities of lonesome fear
Little by little
You turn in the middle
But you're never sure why you're here.
We live in a political world
Under the microscope
You can travel anywhere
And hang yourself there
You always got more than enough rope.

We live in a political world
Turning and trashing about
As soon as you're awake
You're trained to take
What looks like the easy way out.

We live in a political world
Where peace is not welcome at all
It's turned away from the door
To wonder some more
Or put up against the wall.

We live in a political world
Everything is hers and his
Climb into the frame
And shout God's name
But you're never sure what it is.

From Lorraine: Songs from Nine Inch Nails' " Year Zero"

These songs are from Nine Inch Nails' album Year Zero, with songs based in the near future where the government has drugged the water and is "Big Brother"--monitoring everything, but these songs can be applied to now times and should be seen as satire/sarcasm.




My Violent Heart

you and i we may look the same
but we are very far apart
there's bullet holes where my compassion used to be
and there is violence in my heart
into fire you can send us
from the fire we return
you can label us a consequence
of how much you have to learn

you can try but you'll never understand
this is something you will never understand
can you hear it now?
hear it coming now?
can you hear it now?

on hands and knees
we crawl
you can not stop us all
you wear our bones
our skin
we will not let you in

you have set something in motion
much greater than you've ever known
standing there in your all your grand naivet�
about to reap what you have sown
time will feed upon your weaknesses
and soon you'll lose the will to care
when you return to the place that you call home
we will be there
we will be there

on hands and knees
we crawl
you can not stop us all
our blood
will stay
we will not go away
on hands and knees
we crawl
you can not stop us all
our blood
our grace
will never leave this place


God Given

hey man
please don't make a sound
take a look around
can't you see what's right in front of you?
aah
have a little taste
no more time to waste
you don't want to get left behind, because it's all coming down right now
now - how
hard is it to see?
put your faith in me
i sure wouldn't want to be
praying to the wrong piece of wood
you should
get where you belong
everything you know is wrong
come on, sing along everybody now

(god given)
and he gives us sight
and we see the light
and it burns so bright
now we know we're right
when his kingdom come
and thy will be done
we have just begun
we're the chosen ones

i would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true that hadn't come right from
his mouth and he wants me to tell you

wait
step into the light
how can this be right?
i'm afraid we're going to ask you to leave
guess you can not win
with the color of your skin
you won't be getting in to the promised land
besides
this is just another case
you people still don't know your place
step aside, out the way, wipe that look off your face
we are the divine
separated from the swine
come on, sing along everybody now

(god given)
and he gives us sight
and we see the light
and it burns so bright
now we know we're right
when his kingdom come
and thy will be done
we have just begun
we're the chosen ones
and he gives us sight
and we see the light
and it burns so bright
now we know we're right
when his kingdom come
and thy will be done
and the father and the holy son
we're the chosen ones

i would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true that hadn't come right from
his mouth and he wants me to tell you


Capital G

i pushed a button and elected him to office and a
he pushed a button and it dropped a bomb
you pushed a button and could watch it on the television
those motherfuckers didn't last too long ha ha
i'm sick of hearing bout the haves and the have nots
have some personal accountability
the biggest problem with the way that we've been doing things is
the more we let you have the less that i'll be keeping for me

well i used to stand for something
now i'm on my hands and knees
traded in my god for this one
he signs his name with a capital G

don't give a shit about the temperature in guatemala
don't really see what all the fuss is about
ain't gonna worry bout no future generations and a
i'm sure somebody's gonna figure it out
don't try to tell me how some power can corrupt a person
you haven't had enough to know what it's like
you're only angry cause you wish you were in my position
now nod your head because you know that i'm right - all right!

well i used to stand for something
but forgot what that could be
there's a lot of me inside you
maybe you're afraid to see

well i used to stand for something
now i'm on my hands and knees
traded in my god for this one
he signs his name with a capital G

Rage Testify (Freddie)

My favorite spectile songs from Davey Neubauer

here is pobibily my favorite "political band" as half of their proceeds go to help people in Africa struggling with aids. The band is switchfoot, and the song is "Politicians".



this is a song from the perspective of the suffering people in Africa, again by Sitchfoot, its called "The Shadow Proves the Sunshine".

Jill Smith

This is the last one I promise. This song was written about Desert Storm. The lyrics are on this one as well. Enjoy.

Jill Smith-Another good one!

Viewer discretion advised, this is the uncensored version!

Jill Smith

Janet

Fight the Power

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Stephanie Velona-Corbet Dean Slam Poetry

Well let me see if this works. I have to tell you that if this guy weighed about 20 pounds more and had a mustache he would look just like my husband. This is really powerful for me as the wife of a police officer who hears stories like this on a monthly basis.

Fanya Daniels:Spectacle

I am kind of upset because I wrote on here last night and somehow it did not go through...I apologize

I think this chapter was very interesting especially in the Black Spectacle section. Me being apart of this culture it hits home for me. For someone to say that because we are traditionally oral and embodied we are not literate is what catches me off guard. I like how they brought up rap music also. We do not only sit around and listen to rap, we have jazz, the blues, R&B, gospel, poetry, and it all helps us communicates our feelings about our lives whether it is a struggle or happiness. I don't understand what people expect when this is what our culture is based on because it's the way America made us. There was a time where my ancestors could not read or write. We had to form different ways to get the message across we had a struggle of trying to be free. Rappers like Tupac I think is a positive influence and wanted to be heard...it may be vulgar or something your just not ready to hear but the message is there and its powerful and I think thats why many people don't want us in the public sphere.


Words of Wisdom
By Tupac Shakur
http://www.alleyezonme.com/lyrics/2pac/0022/Words_of_Wisdom.html

Killing us one by one
In one way or another
America will find a way to eliminate the problem
One by one
The problem is
the troubles in the black youth of the ghettos
And one by one
we are being wiped off the face of this earth
At an extremly alarming rate
And even more alarming is the fact
that we are not fighting back
Brothers, sistas, niggas
When I say niggas it is not the nigga we are grown to fear
It is not the nigga we say as if it has no meaning
But to me
It means Never Ignorant Getting Goals Acomplished, nigga
Niggas what are we going to do
Walk blind into a line or fight
Fight and die if we must, die like niggas

This is for the masses the lower classes
The ones you left out, jobs were givin', better livin'
But we were kept out
Made to feel inferior, but we're the superior
Break the chains in our brains that made us fear yah
Pledge a legiance to a flag that neglects us
Honour a man that that refuse to respect us
Emmancipation, proclamation, Please!
Nigga just said that to save the nation
These are lies that we all accepted
Say no to drugs but the governments' sceptic
Running through our community, killing the unity
The war on drugs is a war on you and me
And yet they say this is the Home of The Free
But if you ask me its all about hyprocracy
The constitution, Yo, it don't apply to me
Lady Liberty still the bitch lied to me
Steady strong nobody's gonna like what I pumpin'
But its wrong to keeping someone from learning something
So get up, its time to start nation building
I'm fed up, we gotta start teaching children
That they can be all that they wanna to be
There's much more to life than just poverty

This is defaintly ahhh words of wisdom
AMERIKA, AMERIKA, AMERIKKKA
I charge you with the crime of rape, murder, and assault
For suppressing and punishing my people
I charge you with robery for robbing me of my history
I charge you with false imprisonment for keeping me
Trapped in the projects
And the jury finds you guilty on all accounts
And you are to serve the consequences for your evil schemes
Prosecutor do you have any more evidience

Words of Wisdom
Based apon the strength of a nation
Conquer the enemy with education
Protect thy self, reach with what you wanna do
Know thy self, teach what we been through
On with the knowledge of the place, then
No one will ever oppress this race again
No Malcolm X in my history text
Why is that?
Cause he tried to educate and liberate all blacks
Why is Martin Luther King in my book each week?
He told blacks, if they get smacked, turn the other cheek
I don't get it, so many questions went through my mind
I get sweated, They act as if asking questions is a crime
But forget it, one day I'm gonna prove them wrong
Now every brother had to smother on the welfare line
The american dream, though it seems it attainable
They're pulling your sleeve, don't believe
Cause it will strangle yah
Pulling the life of your brain, I can't explain
Beg as you can obtain from which you came
Swear that your mother is living in equality
Forgeting your brother that's living her apology
Thought they had us beat when they took our kids
But the battle ain't over till the black man sings
Words of Wisdom
But the battle ain't over till the black man sings
Words of Wisdom

NIGHTMARE thats what I am
America's nightmare
I am what you made me
The hate and the evil that you gave me
I shine of a reminder of what you have done to my people
for Four hundred plus years
You should be scared
You should be running
You should be trying to silence me
ha
But you can not escape fate
Well it is my turn to come
Just as you rose you will fall
By my hands
Amerika, You reap what you sow
2pacalypse America's Nightmare
Ice Cube and Da Lench Mob America's Nightmare
Above the Law America's Nightmare
Paris America's Nightmare
Public Enemy America's Nightmare
Krs-One America's Nightmare
Mutulu Shakur America's Nightmare
Geronimo Pratt America's Nightmare
Assada Shakur America's Nightmare

I like when he names people and he says America's Nightmare due to the fact that these are people you need to watch out for they are smart intellectual people who will fight back with their pens, paper, books, and their words. This is what American has been scared of a Black intellectual male or female...I tell you what you can put my name on the list!!

Jared's posting on the Spectacle

I actually wrote on the spectacle for our first assigned essay, so I will try not to sound too repetive. I'm not making any promises though.

I'm actually a big fan of spectacle in the public sphere, as well as in art in general. I can understand how there would be a huge downside to spectacular forms and their appeals to the emotional sides of us; but I think these spectacular appeals are a testament to the intangible power of emotion (as corny as that sounds). A good example of how spectacles are more effective in gaining interest and inspiring spectators is Michael Moore. It seems pretty widely accepted that his "documentaries" are not true documentaries, because of their lack of focus on factual information and accompaniment of strong emotional appeals. However, I think most spectators (or at least spectators with somewhat similar political philosophies to Moore) are much more inclined to be inspired and compelled by the counter-propaganda that Michael Moore provides compared to a stale, extremely factually-dense documentary that does nothing more than inform. The popularity of and sales of Moore's films seem to support that claim.

Veronica: Spectacle

I have to say compared to the last chapter and my disgust; I really enjoyed this chapter. I agree with Jill and her agreeance with McKee's statement: "These spectacular forms of communication 'speak of pain, struggle and survival despite periods of hoplesness'" (110). McKee then goes on to quote McGuian who says, "Rap itself is best seen as a cultural forum for urban blacks to articulate their experiences, concerns and politics" (110). Many find rap music repulsive and vulgar, my mother being one of them, extremely on the conservative side, yet surprisingly she absolutely loves Eminem and Tupac. She loves their music because like McKee said above, it speaks of pain and struggle and survival. It is poetry, pure and honest poetry. Rap music to me always tells a story, someone's story. It many not always convey it in the most "politically correct" way but it is told in the purest form of honesty and pain. Rap music is a poetry that gets people through struggle. Many of today's youth and adults hear poetry of pain and struggle on the radio and it helps them survive their own. I just absolutely loved this chapter.

Davey Neubuaer: Specticle

What i got out of this chapter was that the specitcle of today is flashy, and fast. Today people have grown up with cable tv, ipods and cellular phones. Media is used as a tool to help certain sides of an issue persuade an audiance. As described in the chapter "were suffering from a plauge of soundbites". In this way I agree that the public sphere has become too "showy" and watered down. Apperance has become the more inportant topicof today, while substance has taken a back seat in the public sphere.

While listening to fox news channel I saw an example of this, when a college student accused the presidential candidate Barack Obama of being the ultimate specticle. His reasoning for this was that he thought Obama was all charisma and talk and had nothing inteligent to say. I honestly don't know if there is any truth to this statement but i do know that most people in the public sphere seem to gravitate twoards people who are esthically pleasing to the eye. I think the younger college age audiance especially appeals to this facotr becuase they have short attention spans. I can testify that for me I want to cliff notes version for what every candadite stands for so i will not have to spent a large portion of my time decerning what cadidate i think is best to run the country. Although i know this is not a productive outlook to have about such an important issue in our country I do think that most people my age most likely have the same mindset I have.

Megan Aragon: Spectacle

I enjoyed the reading and had no problem with the reading, but when it came to doing a collage report, I struggled. I struggled to the point where I had tears rolling down my cheeks. I came to dislike this chapter... I thought it was self-explantory, and I felt there wasn't really much to do research on... nor was I interested in anything... I cannot wait until we are done with this chapter, it is a nightmare and I dont think I have ever cried over an assignment! (Sorry Freddie! I know this is your favorite chapter!)

I agree that rationality isn't the same as truth. It is possible for an arguement to be completely rational and be completely wrong. So who's arguement is correct: the Modernists' arguement, or the postmodernists' arguement about spectacle? McKee says that both responses are correct, and frankly I agree with him, they are both correct because one or the other works for somebody. Not everyone learns the same as the educated culture. Some people rely on visual like the African-Americans have done: oral, performative, and forms of communications. However, I do not believe in allowing all different kinds of communications. I believe we should have some kind of conformed communication so we have the ability to have a slight understanding in each other, rather than having no understanding in the people of the same society we live in. To have acceptance in our cultural difference, we need to have some kind of common in order to understand and accept one another.

Jill Smith "Spectacle"

I enjoyed this chapter very much. I have to say that I am on the side of the post modernist side on this debate about spectacles in the public sphere. Being the music lover that I am, I have been exposed to rap music and all other music for that matter. I enjoy all forms of rap music and can remeber the first time I heard Public Enemy's "Bring the Noise." Public Enemy's such a great group because they believe in their message and rightfully so, they felt it was time for a change in society. Tupac Shakur also felt strongly about the need for change, his music is also very politically charged and I feel he is one of the if not the top poet of our time. The music that rappers make is poetry, pure and simple. The only difference is that it is "rapped" and put to a melody rather then collected in a book and read. I agree with McKee when he states, "These spectacular forms of communication 'speak of pain, struggle and survival despite periods of hoplesness'" (110). McKee then goes on to quote McGuian who says, "Rap itself is best seen as a cultural forum for urban blacks to articulate their experiences, concerns and politics" (110). A great example of this is in Tupac Shakur's song "Changes:"
"Come on come on I see no changes wake up in the morning and I ask myself is life worth living should I blast myself? I'm tired of bein' poor and even worse I'm black my stomach hurts so I'm lookin' for a purse to snatch Cops give a damn about a negro pull the trigger kill a nigga he's a hero Give crack to the kids who the hell cares one less ugly mouth on the welfare First ship 'em dope & let 'em deal the brothers give 'em guns step back watch 'em kill each other It's time to fight back that's what Huey said 2 shots in the dark now Huey's dead I got love for my brother but we can never go nowhere unless we share with each other We gotta start makin' changes learn to see me as a brother instead of 2 distant strangers and that's how it's supposed to be How can the Devil take a brother if he's close to me? I'd love to go back to when we played as kids but things changed, and that's the way it is
I see no changes all I see is racist faces misplaced hate makes disgrace to races We under I wonder what it takes to make this one better place, let's erase the wasted Take the evil out the people they'll be acting right 'cause both black and white is smokin' crack tonight and only time we chill is when we kill each other it takes skill to be real, time to heal each other And although it seems heaven sent We ain't ready, to see a black President, uhh It ain't a secret don't conceal the fact the penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks But some things will never change try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game Now tell me what's a mother to do bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you You gotta operate the easy way "I made a G today" But you made it in a sleazy way sellin' crack to the kid. " I gotta get paid," Well hey, well that's the way it is
We gotta make a change... It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes. Let's change the way we eat, let's change the way we live and let's change the way we treat each other. You see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do what we gotta do, to survive. And still I see no changes can't a brother get a little peace It's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do But now I'm back with the blacks givin' it back to you Don't let 'em jack you up, back you up, crack you up and pimp smack you up You gotta learn to hold ya own they get jealous when they see ya with ya mobile phone But tell the cops they can't touch this I don't trust this when they try to rush I bust this That's the sound of my tool you say it ain't cool my mama didn't raise no fool And as long as I stay black I gotta stay strapped & I never get to lay back 'Cause I always got to worry 'bout the pay backs some buck that I roughed up way back comin' back after all these years rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat that's the way it is uhh" (Shakur http://www.alleyezonme.com/lyrics/2pac/0128/Changes.phtml).
This song demonstrates what poetry can do. He is speaking from his heart and from his own experience which is powerful. When this is brought into the public sphere it causes awareness and also gets people to think. I think Tupac said it best when he said, "Though our hands are chained like they are, they haven't taken music from us yet. So that's how I'll fight. People tell me don't quit like everyone else. I wont have no fear" (Shakur http://www.alleyezonme.com/tupacQuotes.html).

I think music is a great place for political messgaes. The late sixties and early seventies saw there fair share of politically charged music as a responce to the Vietnam War. Music has always had a place in the public sphere because it can reach people and bring people together.

Janet Payne - Spectacle

Well, what an interesting view of one cultural component Black America. I suppose Martin Luther King, Jr. and the March on Washington must have been quite a "spectacle." But such spectacles were and are necessary in the public sphere to simply get a point across to "Western civilization." McKee foscused on rap music, which is only one outlet of cultural communication. It's creators were writing for a specific audience, just as lynchings were held for a specific audience. I don't believe rap is intended to suite everyone's taste, and that may be its main point, the right of expression without deference to anyone. There is a dance genre among the Black community called Krumping, which originated from Los Angeles. I doubt if it would be suitable in a country club, but it is a form of expression for Black youths. Being a minority in American means watching your back. McKee brings up the issue of the "poll tax" and "literacy tests" which "resulted in severe inequalities of outcome." (127). Today, we have No Child Left Behind, which really translates to every child left behind because of the way the tests are administered and written. And the beat goes on.

Kristen Reagan: Spectacle

In the book, McKee sites Guy Debord about the three ways to describe "specticle." First, he says, specticle suggests that consumers are being given "flshy, showy forms of communication." Meaning that we get visual forms of communication, rather than written forms. The second way says that spectacles are for entertainment and that they distract people from "real" politics. Finaly, Debord believed that spectacles encourage passivity in spectators. Due to all this, some believe that people are just "passively observing the spectacles of life."

McKee points out that the issue of specticle is not something new in the public sphere. For hundreds of years, people have been interested in more visual things like music halls, circuses, etc. Even politics use specticle to get to the working class. Like McKee points out, it is interesting that for something that is considered a downside of the public sphere by some, it is also something that is being used by many educated groups.

Like we have discussed before in class, I do not believe that everything has to be written purely for the educated. Most of our population is not educated and by only having a public shpere that reaches out to the people who are educated, we are leaving out many people who might be interested in what is going on. I do not believe that specticle is a bad thing and by having it, we are involving more people, especially the young, in political and other important debates. By having political intent in rap songs, the people who listens to those songs are going to be able to know more about a certain situation, instead of being oblivious.

Ruby Valdez on Spectacle

This reading was pretty interesting. At least what I understood about it. Apparently, the modernists believe that the public is only interested in spectacle. Only flashy fast things are important. In a modernist point of view this is bad for the public sphere because is "work[s] against a project of rational communication, and thus against equality and democracy." I'm guessing this means it makes society separate rather than trying to make it equal like most modernists would like it to be. Am I warm? Moving along, it was also stated that this flashyness makes the consumer lazy. Basically, "spectacle" paralyzes a person's brain from having to think about anything that is happening. They also distract the public from what needs attending to like, politics (go figure, right?)

However, one part of the other side of this argument is for spectacle. I think it was the "Afrocentrists" that believed that " some histories of Black culture emphasize a heritage of 'melodies sung like speech... overlapping... call and response patterns...discrete musical events... and the inseparability of music and dance and/or stylized movement.'" This was a postmodernist point of view if I'm not mistaken. Many forms of this type of expression fall outside of the "paddock" of modernist norms. That is very unfortunate.

These two sides debate for much of the chapter. This is what I understood. I really enjoy to see two sides of this argument because most of the time I see the modernist point of view. That got boring quick. I've always liked gangsta rap, so this reading really helped me see at least part of where the music was coming from even though I'm not part of their culture. In all I thought the reading to be very insightful and eye opening. See you guys in class tomorrow:).

Karalynn Schneck: On Spectacle

McKee’s chapter on Spectacle and his embodied opinions about Spectacle did not have me convinced at first of its value in the Public Sphere. I started out entirely convinced that one mode of communication and rationality was obviously superior to the other—namely the modern doctrine of Western Philosophy. I was predisposed to side with the moderns completely at first for two reasons.

Firstly, I found it preposterous that rap music could be politically worthwhile, until I realized that the only rap music I have ever encountered has been what McKee defines as Gansta Rap: “Gangsta rap concerns many Black writers for its ‘impulses toward misogyny, homophobia [and] corporate greed… But many rap artists are explicitly political in their work” (McKee 132). I had up to this point considered any form of rap or R&B to be of the caliber of “Gangsta Rap;” in other words, I saw it as demoralizing, filthy trash.

I guess I have learned something new from McKee—however, I still didn’t agree that this spectacular approach was worthwhile, for one main reason: I think that the forms of politicized rap that were given as examples are destructive and divisive, maintaining racial lines and deepening racial prejudice of Blacks toward Whites. These songs “tell stories of the American government being ‘deceitful,’ the media being ‘absurd,’ of Black ‘pride and unity’ and of ‘antagonist’ whites” (McKee133). Not that I don’t agree that WASP culture has done deeply terrible things to Blacks over the last 300 years, but at this exact point in time, I don’t think Black Americans have as much to complain about for the amount of time they spend complaining. This view that they have of this evil White government is divisive, it promotes prejudice and it feeds a vicious cycle that keeps Blacks inevitably where they don’t want to be.

Black American pride has held them back in their education—a system they define as wholly white because it is based on literate communication instead of oral. Don’t tell me that Blacks are incapable of adapting to the system, they are just arrogant and refuse to do so: “one reason for blacks’ educational failures was ‘a kind of cultural orientation which defines academic learning in school as “acting white”’ …This orientation viewed academically successful black students as turn-coats” (McKee 130). Blacks are never going to fit in if they continue to see government systems as oppressive to themselves and their culture. This pride is destructive to their development. Why should we revamp an entire system of education just so they can feel more comfortable with their cultural identity? As long as they aren’t being discriminated against (and there are many tutoring, after school programs, welfare, Medi-cal, EOP, etc. which show that Blacks obviously have many opportunities to learn and grow within the system), why should the West change?

While I agree with McKee that complete logic is a bad thing, I do not agree that spectacular forms of communication are wholly good and infallible. There needs to be an even blending of both persuasive and logical argument in the public sphere, and both sides should meet each other somewhere in the middle or else we will experience something worse than Babylon—we’ll be stuck forever in BABEL.

Michelle Peterson On Spectacle

Usually when reading the previous chapters, I side with both modernists and post modernists, and can’t label myself as being one or the other. However, this chapter, and what the modernists think about “spectacle” has bothered me the most, and when it comes to spectacle I can safely say that I am a postmodernist.

The modernists think that “spectacles encourage passivity in spectators-who watch for easily consumed pleasure” (108). I couldn’t disagree more!! Spectacle is a form of political communication. Spectacle is used by all sorts of minorities not because it encourages passivity but because it encourages nonconformity. When reading this chapter, I immediately thought of Luis Valdez and his use of performance to educate migrant farm workers about the need for a union. With the help of Luis Valdez, farm workers went on strike and were able to raise their wages. Obviously, Valdez’s use of spectacle was useful and his plays are still performed today and are used to attack politics and inform the public. His plays are performed in a way that all walks of life can understand, and many people, just not Latinos, can relate to his plays.

Also, modernist thinkers have labeled Black cultures as “traditionally oral and embodied rather than literate” (109). First of all, the reason why this culture is an oral one is because people like the modernists didn’t allow blacks to read. Blacks were forced to sneak and teach each other to read, and if they got caught they would suffer serious consequences. What other choice did African Americans have other than to become an oral culture? Then, for the modernists to say that they are traditionally illiterate, I remind them Sojourner Truth was illiterate, yet she was able to act with power and authority.