Hyperreal Blogging

Do you remember Morgan Spurlock’s show 30 Days? Essentially Morgan stood and acted in someone else’s shoes for a month. Interesting concept and quite eye opening on some episodes. Here’s why I bring that up.

Most people think politicians are out of touch. Those in the House and Senate - even Governors - lack the knowledge of what it’s like to be part of the traditional working class even though they claim “I know it’s hard - we’re doing our best for you. For those who believe our politicians have lost contact with the “average” person, 30 Days might be the answer.

Here’s what I’m thinking. We could require those elected to high office (Senate, House, Governorship, etc.) to participate in a similar program where they go into a community (not their own of course - people would recognize them) and have them engage in a person’s daily activities and work load. The average person would be one who is not comfortable middle class, though, seeing that this level of our country is slowly going away. Rather, they would take on a role of those that are being affected the most by the economic recession (especially prevalent in Elkhart county and the state of Michigan)

• Office Manager
• Customer Service
• Waiter / Waitress
• Retail Sales
• Car Sales
• Janitor
• Factory Work

The politicians would have an hourly salary and that’s it. No benefits. No assistants. No vehicle. Just a few clothes on their back and the goal of figuring out how they could live and survive on that, and that alone, for 30 days. I bet some would back out after the first week, but I think it might help these politicians really see what life is actually like outside Washington.

Think it would work? Think politicians might actually get things done in Washington having experienced the “real world”? Who knows. It’s just an idea. But then again, most good things start out as merely an idea.

As I begin the second phase of my doctoral studies, I find myself struggling to having to adapt my writing style to the industry standard for the Academy. And I’m not alone. In fact, I really didn’t notice this “issue” until a colleague (JO) mentioned having the same issue in her microblog. Sort of like having an unrealized itch. I hate it when someone mentions they have one; all of a sudden I do too.

So now I’m becoming hypersensitive to my own writing style (it’s happening with this blog entry…dang it). As I read comments about my dissertation pre-proposal from my committee, I realize that I’m slowly having to switch from a more metaphorical, conversational style of writing to something more objective, formal, and straightforward approach. Wherein I could rely on my audience to have knowledge about certain concepts and ideas, now I have to explain myself in more depth and avoid generalizations. I’ve done it before when writing my M.A. thesis, but it’s been awhile. And class papers aren’t the same thing. So this is a new experience for me.

Not that this whole process is a bad thing. Really, it’s not. I keep telling myself that I’m learning something new here that will help me compete and grow as a teacher and researcher. But I have to be honest - it really isn’t my preferred method of  writing. It’s just not all that engaging (at least to me). Sorry folks. But I’ll do what I have to do to get the degree.

As I struggle, feel free to provide comments, suggestions, or pithy comments to help  me curb my old ways. My fear is that my own style will fade off into the distance and replaced with prototypical academic writing. If this happens you have my permission to slap me upside the head and say “snap out of it!”

Dear U.S. Government and Former President Bush,
 

Last year you voted to give banks $700 billion dollars for a financial bailout of the banking system. You said the goal was to use these funds to help stimulate the economy, have banks give out loans, and “save” the banking system from failing. I believed you. But after seeing how most of the banks (not all) have spent my money for their own personal gain, and not providing public accountability for these funds, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed.
 

Due to a lack of competence in utilizing these funds for “good,” I am requesting a refund of my portion of the spent bailout funds, $1050, as well as the encumbered amount, $1050, for a grand total of $2100. A majority of the banks have shown that they are unable (or maybe unwilling) to hold up their end of the bargain, so I’m pulling out.
 

Please contact me via e-mail and I will be happy to send you my mailing address. I’ll gladly accept PayPal, a certified check, or a money order, however I’m not comfortable taking a personal check.
 

Sincerely,
 

Alec R. Hosterman
alec@alechosterman.com
Mishawaka, Indiana

Perusing Michael Wesch’s favorites on Youtube (he has some fascinating videos), I ran across this interview Tom Brokaw and Edwin Newman did with Marshall McLuhan on the morning after the presidential debate between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976.  Amazed at what McLuhan was saying - it almost rings true to what has happened in the 2008 presidential and vice-presidential debates.

To what extent are the candidates pandering to the crowd, to the moderator, or to the camera itself? It’s a trick of the television, of the medium, according to McLuhan. Interesting insight.

With the recent world financial meltdown, I’ve been trying to grasp the vast nature of its overall essence.  It’s been a cancer among mortgage institutions for years, slowly growing, metastasizing, keeping quiet until 2008.  This year it broke free of its world of imitatio and made its own name known when it has a solid root base in our society: subprime mortgages.

I think to really understand the meltdown, we need to realize that our economy is really nothing more than a figment of our imagination.  It exists, but yet it doesn’t.  For instance, take out the money in your wallet.  How much is there?  That is the only bit of “real” money you have - that which you can hold in your hand.  In and of itself, that money is hyperreal: it stands for something that doesn’t exist, yet is given the power of real economical power.  That which is in your checking account, savings account(s), retirement account, 401k, bonds, stocks, real estate, credit cards, mortgage(s), and loans is merely valid on paper or on your computer screen.  A bunch of symbols that have meaning only to the viewer and no one else.  The problem is that when people, groups, banks, and lending institutions start to trade in “good” and “bad” mortgages - virtual capital of varying statuses - people  trust that their equity is the equivalent to what they can hold in their hand.  And it’s not.  It’s virtual.  It does not exist.

Propagating the dilemma is the solution forwarded by the politicians: a bailout or rescue package, depending on who you hear about it from.  700$ billion.  How big is that?  How many pennies is that sum total?  Can you hold 700$ billion in your hands?  A check is not the same - it is one, not 700 billion.  So our solution is based on the idea of a hyperreal solution - a way for our government to keep banks in check (pardon the pun) and retain eternal power over the struggling capital mongers.

How do we solve our financial crisis?  We can’t.  There are experts working on that as we speak, and I am not one of them.  I merely have an opinion.  My opinion is that I see this as another crack in the world of our perceptions, forcing us to deal with the real world rather than that of the virtual.  What we believe to be real - the financial crisis - is nothing more than a false sense of safety because of its enormity.  The only way to truly grasp the impact of this financial crisis is to see the effects of this dreaded cancer, the outcome of these mistakes in power and control.  

Talk to the people who have lost their jobs, who cannot pay their mortgages, who choose between paying bills and eating lunch.  In a recent edition of the New York Times, an article talks about the 9.3% unemployment rate (almost 10,000 people) as a result of the cancerous economy (click here for the article).  That is what’s real - the only real effect that matters in all honesty.

By popular demand (mainly from this blogger and his wife), Beaker has decided to make a run for President of the United States. Although there’s only a month to go before the elections, he feels the American people deserve better than the two candidates in front of them: “”Meep! Meep! Meep!…Meep! Meep!”

Joining Beaker on the ticket will be Bunson Honeydew, a conservative at heart but “maverick” when it comes to forward thinking and change.  Ecstatic about the nomination for Vice President, Honeydew told the press “Well I’m just so excited. Now, Beaker, we’ll just flip this switch and 60,000 refreshing volts of electricity will surge through your body. That should jump start this campaign. Ready?”  Beaker was not available for comment.

If elected, President Beaker will make sure to put in place a cabinet of qualified individuals that will help him make qualified, insightful decisions.  This cabinet includes:

• Chief of Staff - Ms. Piggy
• Secretary of Defense - Animal
• Secretary of State - Sam the Eagle
• Attorney General - Rowlf the Dog
• Secretary of Health and Human Services - Miss Piggy
• Secretary of Homeland Security - Fozzie Bear
• Secretary of Education - Gonzo
• Secretary of the Treasury - Dr. Teeth
• Secretary of Transportation - Rizzo the Rat
• Secretary of Education - Scooter
• White House Chef - Swedish Chef
• Good Will Ambassador Abroad - Kermit the Frog
• Ambassadors to the United Nations - Statler and Waldorf

Remember: with Beaker and Honeydew, anything is possible!

Make sure to rock the vote, and cast your ballot for Beaker on November 4th.  If you don’t, well, Animal might not be all that happy and when Animal gets angry, chaos ensues.  Trust me.

I’ve been avoiding trying to be one-sided in this recent election year, especially since I’m teaching a political communication course, but I want to mention something about the recent VP debates.  Prior to the debates, the media, pundits, and even my students were saying the same thing: it’s a make or break night for Sarah Palin. If she does well, then it will help the campaign, but if she stumbles it will hurt McCain.

And so the debate went on, as scheduled.  It was an interesting night, me twittering with my students while keeping a keen eye to Palin’s rhetorical strategy.  She started off well, and seemed to show a coherent, cogent response to Gwen’s questions.  She had several gaffs - shout outs to school kids, Joe Six-packs, and others which commentators have already mentioned - but overall we could understand her responses.  For the most part.

What irritates me is the media’s tolerance of her performance.  Most commentators said the same thing - Palin didn’t make many major mistakes and he was coherent.  So when was this ever a requisite characteristic by which to judge a potential Vice President?  Sure she was coherent, but did you hear these same comments about Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, or anyone else in the past?  Even Dan Quayle made it through the debates in tact.

Forget content.  For Sarah Palin, success is judged by coherence.  And for one, I’m scared about this new criterion.  ”Aww shucks” only goes so far.  Johnson got away with it.  Bush has even gotten away with it.  But from Palin, we call it a “folksy syntax” (something I heard right away from CBS commentators that night).  

In a commentary on the recent financial fiasco and politicking about the bailout, Bob Schieffer said it well:  ”our politics have been dumbed down.”  And the recent VP debates shows how this is so very true.  I don’t want a “plain speaking” outsider coming into Washington, especially one claiming to be a maverick, ready to lead the country and all they were judged by was whether there was a subject and predicate - and they were in the correct order.

Quit dumbing down your analysis my friends.  Call it like you see it.  Sarah Palin’s responses were vague, trite, rehearsed, and had absolutely no depth to them (and those were the ones she actually answered).  I’d rather elect my favorite muppet,  Beaker, to office - at least I understand him.

Perusing stories on Digg, I ran across this CNN video comparing the Sarah Palin interview with the parody on Saturday Night Live.  Take a look (it’s short - less than 2 minutes).

free video player & video platform - interactive video, online video solution: video player, video editor - kaltura
wordpress video - wordpress plugin for integrated video on video blogs, and video tools

The commentator’s comments are telling - life imitating art, and art imitating life. Here we have one of those interesting moments - a hyperreal moment - where the parody is more compelling than the actual interview itself.  Would the real interview get that much publicity?

Just something to think about as we get deeper into this campaign.

Very true. So very true.

www.readwriteweb.com

www.strk3.com

When politics comes to town, so does political satire. And I love it. It’s equal opportunity humor my friends. But why do they do this? Why make fun of political ideology, especially since it’s held so close to us - right there with religion and family values. But as one of my students recently said, “politics is entertainment, isn’t it?” And that which puts a smile on our face, makes us think. 

I ran across this poster through Digg.com. It comes from www.strk3.com, a site that produces quite controversial political items. I think it makes a rather interesting point. Visually it’s quite stunning, but in one fell swoop it pokes fun at religion, politics, and so much more. Like a good editorial cartoon, it is complex and full of symbolism and metaphor. Its visual grammar is quite refined actually.

What…you don’t like it? Blasphemy you say? I can understand that point of view and I respect your position on it. But please realize that I’m not making a political statement, but rather I’m putting it up here as an example of political satire and its ability to engage the general public on several levels. If this sparks a discussion, great. If it makes you think about a political ideology, great. If you realize it’s visually striking and indicative of our country’s core rights and beliefs, great. It means you are thinking about issues and what’s important to you. Don’t forget that.

And if someone has a Democrat Jesus poster out there, send me a copy; I’ll stick it up there alongside this one. But if there’s a Ralph Nader Jesus poster, then I might have to take issue.