Your Word for the Day

oligarchy |ˈäliˌgärkē, ˈōli-| nouna small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution:oligarchic |ˌäliˈgärkik, ˌōli- | adjective ,oligarchical |ˌäliˈgärkikəl, ˌōli- | adjective,oligarchically |ˌäliˈgärkik(ə)lē, ˌōli- |adverb


From Aristotle, emphasis mine.
A Democracy is a form of government under which the citizens distribute the offices of state among themselves by lot, whereas under oligarchy there is a property qualification, under aristocracy one of education. By education I mean that education which is laid down by the law; for it is those who have been loyal to the national institutions that hold office under an aristocracy. These are bound to be looked upon as "the best men," and it is from this fact that this form of government has derived its name ("the rule of the best"). Monarchy, as the word implies, is the constitution in which one man has authority over all. There are two forms of monarchy: kingship, which is limited by prescribed conditions, and "tyranny," which is not limited by anything.

We must also notice the ends which the various forms of government pursue, since people choose in practice such actions as will lead to the realization of their ends. The end of democracy is freedom; of oligarchy, wealth; of aristocracy, the maintenance of education and national institutions; of tyranny, the protection of the tyrant. It is clear, then, that we must distinguish those particular customs, institutions, and interests which tend to realize the ideal of each constitution, since men choose their means with reference to their ends. But rhetorical persuasion is effected not only by demonstrative but by ethical argument; it helps a speaker to convince us, if we believe that he has certain qualities himself, namely, goodness, or goodwill towards us, or both together. Similarly, we should know the moral qualities characteristic of each form of government, for the special moral character of each is bound to provide us with our most effective means of persuasion in dealing with it. We shall learn the qualities of governments in the same way as we learn the qualities of individuals, since they are revealed in their deliberate acts of choice; and these are determined by the end that inspires them."

Silly Post. It's Friday. This is my dog.

Asking a Rhetorical Question

I am taking a new class, boys and girls.  This one is called Rhetoric and Media Arts.  I feel like it will be worth posting my thoughts and my findings here, since I haven’t really written much about politics, but I am still browsing the web and finding cool things.  This might end up being a kind of “flavor of the class” blog.  Do you love me no matter what?

The truth is, after our class on Monday, I felt like I lost my handle on this topic.  I thought I knew what rhetoric was, but perhaps I have been mistaken.  A little background first, some part of my undergraduate degree was in communications studies.  When we talked about rhetoric in those classes, we were concerned mostly with the idea of persuasion.  What tools can you use to get someone to see and do something you desired?  We talked about communication models that pulled apart sender, message and receiver.  We talked about what “noise,” cultural and physical there may be to disrupt the transmission of your message.  I managed to lump all of this together with the study of rhetoric.  I am pretty sure I am not where I need to be and that I have no real idea what the study of rhetoric entails.  Since my first homework assignment is to right this wrong, I have to go to Google.

I hate that I always start with Wikipedia.  Oh, sure!  I tell myself that this is what most people do: start with the basics and go from there.  Still, I wish there were something a little more reliable.  The entry about Rhetoric started me thinking about rhetoric now vs. ancient rhetoric.  I have made a mental note to find out more about Kenneth Burke.  I am starting to feel excited about our rhetorical decisions around political phrases like “undocumented workers vs. illegal aliens.”  There’s a lot here to play with.

Since I still feel like I am just dancing on the surface of this thing, I was very excited to find this video out on YouTube.  It has the rather amusing title "In Defense of Rhetoric: No Longer Just for Liars".  That brought me in, but I stayed for the full 14 minutes because it is a very good video.  There is a lot here that gets at the heart of rhetoric.  Balancing the message, tools for that message and the intended audience all while marinating your image.  I think I am starting to understand what got me muddled to begin with because of this video.  I appreciate the idea that rhetoric is how we come to understand our world, not just the arguments we have.

While I was out playing on YouTube, I also stumbled on this video.  The wonderful thing about this piece is that it attempts to dissect the use of persuasive language in Obama’s televised speech after the death of Osama bin Laden.  The reviewer notes the mise en scene, the movements of the speaker, as well as the types of words used and when during the speech.  This is the first time I have seen this kind of dissection.  Why is Obama using his hands here, but not before?  Why an emotional plea at the beginning?  Why tell us the history before simply saying something like “we got him!” and calling it a day?  Very interesting.

One more, sublimely silly, example of rhetoric comes to us from the fine folks at HuffPost.  In their daily column called “Good News” they are offering up a pictorial argument that suggests everyone should have a dog.  Entitled “21 Reasons A Dog Is The Best Investment You Will Ever Make,” I am adding it here because I enjoy the structure of the argument.  It begins with “are you tired of being let down by life?”  That moves through emotional appeal after emotional appeal, paired with pictures of dogs loving and being loved by their humans, with the occasional link to the story to match.  The “21 reasons” title is a lovely rhetorical device.  “Steps” and things that can be numbered feel very logical and pragmatic.  The last “step” is, of course, to do yourself a favor and follow a link to adopt from the ASPCA.  It's manipulative and brilliant.  I love it.

That wasn't a rhetorical question, but the way.  Do you love me no matter what?  Because this could get interesting.

Steven Colbert Brought Me Out of Retirement

Hi.  Yeah.  I've been gone for a while.  I am back, though.  I caught this on The Colbert Report on Monday, and I have been thinking about it ever since.  This is brilliant stuff.

Oh, and see you tomorrow.

Jimmy Kimmel Did This Thing -

And I think it is wonderful.  Yes, I know.  I probably wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was wonderful.  I also think this is very sociologically important to watch.  Can you spot judge someone and decide if they are pro- or anti-gay marriage.  I know that being anti-gay marriage is not the same as homophobic (even when it feels like it might be), but this is exactly the kind of "safe/not safe" debate that most members of the GLBT public have always faced.  How do you know how it will be received.    There's funny bits in here too, of course.  It's late night TV and it has to be funny.  It is also a pretty smart thing.

Rethinking Frankenstein

I've been reading Frankenstein.  It's made me think a little bit too much.  While it isn't a web site I visited, it could be.  Either way, this is what is on my brain.

Like many of you, I was asked to read Frankenstein in high school and again in college. It had been so long, however, that I felt like I’d never read it. I jumped in assuming that as I went along, it would start to feel familiar. Maybe the book changed on me, or I read a different version. I found myself really enjoying the language this time! I read and reread parts of it because I liked the way it sounded in my head. I don’t remember that from the first time. Or the second, come to think of it.

One of the times I read Frankenstein, I was told that this story was about science gone too far. I believed it. It made sense to me when I heard it. I imagine I have notes about it somewhere. It’s probably mostly true. The subtitle of “the Modern Prometheus” would certainly lend credence. I know that Prometheus was the trickster who created man from clay and stole fire from the Gods. I remember his story had themes about consequences of trying to over-reach your station in life. Victor certainly would be very much like that trickster. I was told it; I believed it; I took notes. Veni, vidi, noti. Or something like that. I thought I had the real and only truth about this book. Maybe the book changed on me here, too because, this time as I read, I could not stop seeing the story as an angry letter to God.

Have you read Mary Shelley’s biography? Shelley’s mother died when she was 11 days old, by the time she was finished writing Frankenstein in 1817, she had also begun to live in exile and in debt with a married lover, suffered the loss of a premature child and weathered the suicide of both her half sister and the wife of her lover (It’s complicated.). She was not yet 19. Less than that would have broken many. Don’t get me wrong; she’s got a right to be ticked off.

At 18, with so much trauma and drama shaping her world, she set out to write a ghost story that ended up being an indictment on the relationship and responsibly of a creator to the created. With her own life a model of pain and rejection and turmoil, what vision could she use for the Creator? Shelley creates, in Victor Frankenstein, a Creator who is weak, vindictive, doubtful, malevolent, maudlin, given to fits of depression and rage. He’s a terrible God figure! What, then, should the Creation be?

In Victor’s eyes, he has created a monster. But is he? Why is Shelley’s monster so articulate? If she was simply telling a scary story, the result of Victor’s work could be the mute, grunting green man of movie lore. Instead, he waxes “I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king, if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me. Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous." This isn't exactly the machination of an evil demon fiend. in fact, this passage could read like a kind of prayer from a forsaken creation. This Creation is doomed in his own way, like Prometheus, to live a life of constant, renewed pain and isolation from the god/creator that could have opted to love and forgive him. 
 
For his part as Creator, Frankenstein spends his days feeling wretched, guilty and depressed. He feels a sense of responsibility for his creation, but only in so far as he believes it falls to him to destroy it. Utterly selfish to the core, it never occurs to him that his Creation would have anything like a soul or feelings. When he finally meets his Creation again, he finally thinks that he might be responsible in another way. “For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” At last, Victor agrees to help the poor creature, and then recants and destroys all signs of progress. He gives his creation a chance at hope and happiness and then takes it away. As creators go, Victor is a pretty mean specimen. He can be seen here as the vengeful Zeus. Enraged that the Creation would dare ask to have a chance at the same happiness and companionship that Victor would have in Elizabeth, he dooms him to continued torment. 
 
I think that I missed this reading of Frankenstein so long ago because I got caught up in the layers of voices. Walton is telling his sister Frankenstein’s story, who is telling the story of the Creation. I have to wonder if this story of a story of a story is another way to heighten the theme of this broken Garden of Eden. This third removed lens gets us away from the blasphemy. It also offers Victor Frankenstein a shot at redemption as the failed Creator. We get to see that Victor dies for us; to save us from the evil of his creation. The creature, too, gets his wish when Frankenstein finally becomes the constant companion and watchful eye that only a Creator can be. In the end, is the absence of his God figure that causes the Creation to despair and ultimately choose to kill himself.

It’s interesting. I've never thought about it this way. Maybe I should pull at it a bit more. There’s probably a reasonable paper in here somewhere. If I am ever asked to write one again, I could be ready. I will have the notes.

Fingers crossed

Over the next two days, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on two appeals to state and federal laws restricting gay marriages.  The first case will appear before the court on Tuesday, March 26th.  The first case will be about the ongoing battle in California around Proposition 8.  The over riding question here will be about equal protection and the 14th Amendment.

In a separate argument on Wednesday, the Court will tackle the federal Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA.  This 1996 law defined marriage as between a man and a women, and therefore barred gay and lesbian couples from any of the federal benefits and privileges of marriage.

The Supreme Court doesn't like to rule too far away from public opinion on topics such as these.  I guess it is good news, in that case, that just today a CNN poll was released that says that the demographic of support is shifting.  The cause?  A lot more people know someone who is gay, and the world didn't end.

"The number of Americans who support same-sex marriage has risen by almost the same amount in that time - from 40% in 2007 to 53% today - strongly suggesting that the rise in support for gay marriage is due in part to the rising number of Americans who have become aware that someone close to them is gay," 

Whatever the reason for the shift, I can only hope that the Supreme Court will understand that the failure to recognize millions of loving and committed relationships as marriages simply because of sexual orientation is a pure and complete act of discrimination.

I will have my fingers crossed.

Except when I am typing.  

I plan to follow the business of the Court this week with bated breath.  And then, of course, dear reader, you will have to read my  thoughts.