More Big Brother Thoughts

Last week, I posted some thoughts on the current season of Big Brother. Two days later, on the telecast on Thursday, August 26, the same kind of issue that I had addressed came up again. In this instance, when Matt was evicted from the house, during his post-eviction interview with host Julie Chen, he referred to fellow houseguest Britney as a "succubus." Instantly, Chen told Matt to "keep it clean." Matt responded by saying that the FCC allows the word, to which Chen suggested that that didn't mean it should be said on this telecast.

On the one hand, this draws attention to the inappropriateness of using some terms. So, in a way it addresses my point from my previous post. On the other hand, it does so in a way that doesn't really address the issue. Rather than simply stating that using the word is inappropriate under the same kind of "family programming" veneer that's been used on previous episodes, Chen could have allowed Matt his use of the word and then challenged his use of it, pointing out how it is derogatory toward women and how it reinforces the system of sexism in United States society.

With that in mind, I see this as a missed opportunity that ends up reinforcing the same kinds of things I brought up last week. As I mentioned, I'm very much for the liberalization of language use. To do otherwise keeps people from actually discussing and dealing with problems. In this case, Matt's use of a derogatory word is called out as inappropriate without explanation of why it might be inappropriate. All this reflects and teaches is a dictatorial kind of rule--i.e., "Don't do this because I said so." In the end, that doesn't address the systematic oppression of women that this term, along with other terms that continue to be allowed like "bitch" and "ho," reflects. In fact, given how much patriarchy has historically given the same kind of "just because" reasoning when women have attempted to challenge gendered oppression, it can be argued that this kind of treatment of use of "succubus" reinforces oppressions of many kinds (including gender) by reinforcing the idea that those with less power should not do or say things simply because those in power tell them not to, regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the reasons that those in power have for what they have commanded others to do or not to do. That, to me, seems like a very dangerous lesson--a lesson of brushing problems under the rug rather than dealing with them that leads society little of anywhere but continued hegemony, as the powerful maintain and grow their power because attention has been deferred from looking at the ways that power works, particularly as it works in oppressive manners.

I don't necessarily blame Chen here. She's asked by CBS and the producers of the show to fulfill a role within certain social and industry expectations. She's in a position where she could address the bigger issue of oppression, so it's disappointing that she doesn't. She's also, though, in a role where she could easily be dismissed should she articulate things that CBS or the show's producers don't like. Media companies, media industries, and the folks that own and run these institutions have a much higher degree of culpability. Of course, CBS is also subject to a bigger game of hide and don't seek, which is particularly acute for them since they were the network that received heavy fines by the FCC after the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson performance during the 2004 Super Bowl. So, it is political and economic systems and institutions that are creating this kind of situation. And that just seems to suggest all the more fully that we need greater and fuller analysis and critique of the system of capitalism that sets many of the rules for life in the contemporary U.S. world. Of course, with these same institutions and systems developing even greater and greater influence over schools, media, and other educational experiences on all levels, that critique becomes even tougher to express and sustain.

And, as this occurs, to quote F. Scott Fitzgerald writing 85 years ago, "so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." Perhaps, though, I should be quoting George Orwell's 1984. After all, the show does take its name from that book, and the social critiques offered by that book seem to apply so readily to the whole situation.

Big Brother is Watching Out for the Whole Family

I don't normally watch the television show Big Brother. Other than a few moments here and there in which I've happened across it and a couple times in the last two years when I put Big Brother After Dark on with no sound for something on television while I was working, I have never paid attention to the show, and I've certainly never become invested in the show in any way before. However, I am watching Big Brother this season because I know one of the contestants. Ragan Fox, with whom (as I've mentioned on this blog before) I went to graduate school, is on the show this summer. So, I'm watching.

There are plenty of things to comment about in connection with the show. The kinds of things that the competitions emphasize, the relationships between the houseguests and CBS as a network, and the ways that the producers edit and present the footage to produce the show are all ripe for examination. Among all of this, one particular situation has caught my attention.

A few weeks ago, when host Julie Chen asked Ragan what it was like to be taped to a wall in one of the competitions, Ragan responded by joking that that's just a typical Friday night for him. Immediately, Chen moved on, citing that this is "family" programming. In another episode, when another of the contestants--Rachel--cursed when frustrated during a competititon (and had this censored out by the network), Chen told her to "keep it clean." Clearly, then, the producers of the show hope to present this as "clean," "family" entertainment during the 8:00 primetime block, and they see joking about one's night life (I'm assuming especially for an openly gay man to be the one doing the joking) and using certain kinds of language as inconsistent with that image.

Given that, it's telling what does seem okay for "good, clean" programming. Notably, numerous guests have referred to women repeatedly and consistently as "bitches," while a group of guys who call themselves "The Brigade" have used the phrase "bros, not ho's" to declare their loyalty to their all-male alliance. Apparently, then, derogatory references to women--and the misogyny that comes with it--have become "clean," "family" programming on CBS. To me at least, that sounds a lot more damaging than vague allusions to sexual exploits on a Friday night and words like "fuck" and "shit," which don't directly attack people as these other terms do.

Now, we might argue that in fact the show is countering misogyny by depicting the users of the terms "bitch" and "ho" in unflattering lights, perhaps using this to convey the idea that using these terms is damaging and/or inappropriate. However, one look at message boards in places like this seems to suggest that that's not the kind of message a lot of people get from the show. Rather, there appears to be a lot of buying into use of these terms as okay.

I tend to be all for the liberalization of language use. I think we could use a lot more openness in terms of what can be publicly discussed and how it can be publicly discussed. I've argued things along those lines on this blog before. The allowance of terms like "bitch" and "ho" on network television has become part of that liberalization process. Twenty or thirty years ago, we wouldn't have heard these things on primetime network television programming. Yet, we need to be cognizant of the way that this process proceeds. Namely, it's telling what choices media programs and organizations make about what is now considered "okay" and what remains considered "inappropriate," particularly given how much footage from the Big Brother house is left out in the editing and arranging processes for the actual episodes that air. And it's telling what ideologies--in this case ideologies regarding gender--these choices promote and reflect. In this case, Big Brother sure seems to be suggesting that mistreatment of women, loyalty among men against villianized women, and verbal abuse of women are meaningful and acceptable aspects of regular and appropriate family life. The producers of the show choose what they want to portray to viewers, and these choices seem pretty misguided.

More Stupid Baseball Nicknames

A couple of years ago, I blogged about the ridiculousness of the trend of baseball nicknames following on the heels of A-Rod in which people combine part of the player's first name and part of the player's last name. I also suggested where this might lead, with Albert Pujols becoming "A-jols" and Pat Neshek becoming "P-Nes."

Well, I saw another one last night, calling Rockies' outfielder Carlos Gonzalez "CarGo." Obviously, there are a few different puns that can work with this name, but the same can be said for "V-Mart" for Victor Martinez and "Man-Ram" for Manny Ramirez. In the end, they all seem inspid. Yet, they seem to prevail.

And if that's the case, then I'm still hoping that Kevin Youkilis has a relative named Frank or Fred or something who makes it to the major leagues and provides one of these nicknames that actually has some appeal.

To the Left, to the Left ...

How about if we start out with a bit of Beyoncé ...

A few years ago I came up with the following philosophy about contemporary U.S. politics: Most Republicans are jackasses, most Democrats are dumbasses, and most third-party and independent candidates try to be smartasses. And when you've got a bunch of asses, what they produce is a bunch of crap.

It was an attempt to be pithy, though more recently I'm thinking it may be too crass and generalized. It certainly suggests some things about my own ideological assumptions. That said, I still think there is something to the basic sentiments it's trying to suggest, and I think a recent situation involving Sarah Palin is a good example of this.

Apparently, Palin made a series of attempts on Twitter to comment on the proposal to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site in Manhattan. In the process, she said "refudiate," which is not actually a word. Some on the left have picked this up as a reason to make fun of her, suggesting or implying once again that this is further evidence that she is quite intellectually challenged.

Now, I am far from a fan of Palin. I think she has been embarrassing in her lack of eluctionary abilities, her apparent lack of even fundamental knowledge of things about which she speaks, and her continued use of simple rhetorical constructions that lack merit, consistency, and coherence. So, I can understand frustration that she has become a prominent political figure in this country. On the other hand, I think focusing energy on her use of "refudiate" is silly, petty, and actually damaging.

I make speaking mistakes all the time. Few, if any, people don't. In fact, during the 2008 election, when folks pointed out the many articulation flaws of Palin, many individuals on the right and in the media would then suggest how Joe Biden isn't perfect either, with reference to gaffes he made. This always frustrated me because making speaking blunders here and there differs significantly from consistently being unable to articulate much of anything with coherence. The former is entirely forgiveable as part of being human; the latter is typically a sign of incompetence. Joe Biden, I believe, fit the former; Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has consistently seemed to fit the latter. Perhaps she will improve. She may gain understanding of issues, learn the nuances of positions, and develop her elocutionary skills. Indeed, an appearance with William Shatner on The Tonight Show a while back actually impressed me. In the meantime, I believe that many of her recent statements and comments show that she still has a long way to go.

And this, I think, gets me back to the political philosophy with which I began. That philosophy called Republicans "jackasses" because so many of them seem so willing to use anything to gain and maintain power. They're effective at it, and they can be downright ruthless about it, not seeming to care about the consequences or consistency of the rhetoric they espouse. As conservatives, they also have power already on their side. The rhetorical concept of burden of proof suggests that in a debate the burden of proof lies with the party trying to challenge what is already assumed. Those arguing from what is already assumed enjoy the privilege of resting on that assumption until it is challenged enough to be questioned or overturned. Conservatism, by definition, has this power of assumption, and conservatives today quite readily use it, even when the things they say are ultimately inconsistent and incoherent.

Meanwhile, when Democrats get power or get good opportunities to use power, they screw it up over and over again. While freely admitting that this is tied to my own ideological leanings, I tend to think that the left has better ideas. No one's ideas are perfect, but when weighed rationally and with nuance, I think generally the left's arguments tend to have more depth. Indeed, that's actually something Republicans play up, though in a different way, with anti-intellectual rhetoric about leftist elites. In other words, pointing out logical inconsistencies and articulating nuanced positions become devalued, as if doing these things constitutes a problematic view of the world and a means of oppressing other people. Notice, though, that I say "the left," not "Democrats" when I mention these ideas. Two reasons account for this. One is that I think that for the most part the Democratic party in this country isn't really on the left politically. The second is that many of the Democrats I hear don't really go about making arguments for good ideas or don't go about doing it effectively, so I can't group them here. In other words, they're dumbasses.

Making fun of Sarah Palin seems like another instance in which Democrats and others reinforce that assessment. And, ultimately, I think it plays right into the hands of the likes of Sarah Palin and her supporters. Picking on instances like this provides fuel for Palin to continue to identify herself as a victim of the left and of the "lamestream" media, as she likes to call it. (And, by the way, I would argue that the media does have a liberal bias, as so many claim, but I would add the caveat that it's a liberal bias within what is already a conservative frame, which makes it essentially a moderately conservative bias.) Palin does have a long pattern of consistent inability to articulate herself that suggests a lack of competence. Maybe in some way using the word "refudiate" reflects that, but it's such an easy, everyday kind of blunder to make that I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't think a big deal should be made of it. There are plenty of much more potent examples to use to show Palin's apparent lack of competence that the argument does not need examples like this to make that case. To do so seems like it aids the narrative that she (along with her political advisors) has constructed for herself, and it allows her and her supporters to shift attention from the actual content of her statement, which I think is very problematic and the much more important issue here, to her image as victim of the media and the left.

Palin may be incompetent when it comes to solutions and complex explanations of contemporary social, political, and economic issues. She may be becoming more competent as she is learning more about those issues. She appears to be relatively competent at promotion and public relations, recognizing an audience to which she appeals and finding a way to keep appealing to it. Certainly, both of these types of competence play roles in contemporary U.S. politics. I think, though, engaging more with the ideas she promotes as much as possible would be the much more effective and much more humane path for the left. Perhaps, though, that's the problem with the contemporary left. In Ancient Rome, Cicero called rhetoric the combination of eloquence and wisdom. Perhaps the left needs to learn how to focus more fully on consistently stating any wisdom it has in more eloquent terms to make their statements more impenetrable from the anti-intellectual attacks of the right. Petty squabbling over use of the pseudo-word "refudiate" seems anything but this. Indeed, it makes one look like many Democrats look of late (i.e., like a "dumbass") or look like an elitist who engages in attacks on other people's lack of cultural capital as a means of humoring herself/himself (i.e., like a smartass). And whether it's Palin levelling it against Muslims or her detractors levelling it against her, I'm tired of all of the crap.

Independence Day: For You and Me, Not Just Some of Us

“Ain’t that America, you and me …”

John Mellencamp, “Pink Houses”

When I attended spring graduation at Bowling Green State University, I was a little disturbed by the extra rounds of applause given to individuals whose military ranks were stated along with their names as they accepted their diplomas (well, the diploma carriers that would later hold their diplomas, anyway …). I did not join the audience in a round of applause that these students received while others did not. Now, despite what the likes of CNN contributor Ed Rollins (I believe very wrongly) suggests about academics simply not liking the military, I did not do this out of dislike for the military. I’m not a fan of violence, but I understand the usefulness for military, and I am quite happy to support the military in that regard. Rather, given that this was not a military ceremony, I did not believe military members should receive extra recognition. To do so, to me, seems to suggest that they’re more important than everyone else. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s true, and I do think that’s a dangerous way to think.

Now, I understand the idea that the military deserve recognition because they put their lives on the line so much more than other people. … At least I understand where that idea comes from. For some members of the military, yes, their jobs do demand this. However, there are two problems with this. While some are, many military are not really in direct danger of losing their lives on a daily basis. Additionally, this situation is not exclusive to the military. Many individuals throughout United States society put their lives in danger in their jobs, and I’m not just talking about firefighters and police officers. Electrical workers, individuals who work with nuclear and chemical waste, biologists who expose themselves to potentially life-threatening diseases and insects as they do research, and many other individuals risk their lives to do their jobs. Furthermore, individuals who have to work despite health conditions because they need the money to support themselves or they need to keep working to maintain health insurance risk the worsening of their conditions—and, thus, risk their lives—everyday. Many people also work additional jobs, take less vacation, and do other things that might lead to health conditions because they need to make ends meet. These people, too, are risking their health and their lives. So, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that the military risk their lives like no one else does and that they therefore should be celebrated more than other people.

Now, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t celebrate military members. We have days that we set aside for recognition of military—like Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Additionally, there are military ceremonies produced by military organizations that commemorate military accomplishments. At my mother’s funeral, the military gave a touching salute in commemoration of my mother, as she was a veteran. These are fine times to commemorate what members of the military do. However, that does not mean that commemoration of the military should be associated with everything. I do not think that college graduations are a time to advance military accomplishments above other accomplishments. I do not think that sporting events should be the place to use the military consistently and repeatedly as the means of showing national identity over other means of doing so. I do not think that military expenditures should be virtually ignored in discussions of the need to corral government spending. And I do not believe that the Fourth of July should be a military commemoration.

Does this mean that the military cannot participate in Fourth of July events or other events throughout the year? Absolutely not. By all means, let individuals who identify with the military contribute as such to these events. But these do not seem to be appropriate times to characterize military accomplishments over other kinds of contributions that the many of us give to United States society every day. While the Revolution that began the United States of America certainly had its military components, these did not work alone to produce this nation and the ideals of liberty and equality that the founders of this nation articulated, though they had not yet perfected and we have not yet perfected. These are the ideals that lay at the heart of our continuing mission as a society—the goals toward which we work that provide this country with the potential that makes it worth one’s commitment. And they are the ideals that we celebrate and seek to voice our continuing commitment toward on the Fourth of July. They are, though, as John Mellencamp sang in “Pink Houses,” ideals about “you and me.” We’re all in this together, and to suggest that a select number of us offer more important contributions than the rest of us is not just wrong, it runs counter to those founding ideals. In a word, it’s unpatriotic. If we suggest that academics offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a system of elite aristocracy run by intelligentsia leaders. If we suggest that individuals who own and run businesses offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a different kind of elite aristocracy, this one run by the wealthy and economically powerful. If we suggest that people of a certain religion offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a theocracy. And if we suggest that the military offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a military state. And all of these end results run counter to a democratic society.

The point is that so many of us contribute in so many different ways, and the ideals of democracy would ask us on this, the day to celebrate such ideals, to make sure that we commemorate that diversity, privileging none above the others, none at exclusion to the rest.

Let's No Mets

I've oftened contended that part of being a Mets fan is taking pride in how much the team can really suck. Back in 2003, when the Detroit Tigers threatened to break the Mets' record of 120 losses, I actively rooted for the Tigers to win 5 of their last 6 to finish with 119. I didn't want the Mets to lose the record. I also have a measure of pride when I speak of "The Worst Team Money Could Buy" that finished behind the expansion Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins in 1993. And, I'm proud that the Mets are the franchise that has the longest history without a pitcher throwing a no-hitter. It sounds like, from the comments in today's column by Danny Knobler about the Mets no no-no tradition, I'm not alone in thinking about Met fandom in this way.

Headline: Top Players Other Than Federer, Nadal, and Williams Sisters Will Play at Wimbledon!

The first few lines of the story titled "Federer draws tough road for Wimbledon defense" on CBSSports.com state the following:

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal face challenging paths to set up another Wimbledon final. Serena and Venus Williams also face potential pitfalls before another all-sister title match.

Six-time champion Federer and Nadal -- the only man to beat him at Wimbledon in the last seven finals -- were both handed tricky draws Friday for the grass-court Grand Slam tournament.

Let's see. We know, since it states these groupings could face off in the finals, that Federer and Nadal are on opposite sides of the bracket and that the same can be said for Venus and Serena Williams. Okay, but then, doesn't make the rest of this pretty much self-evident? Inevitably, folks like Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Jelena Jankovic, Francesca Schiavone, and all of the top players (at least all of them playing in the tournament) were going to be on one side of the draw or the other. The Williamses, Nadal, and Federer will all have to face "potential pits," "challenging paths," and "tricky draws." So, um, what's the point?

Oh, I know ... let's just state things in dramatic terms for the sake of drama, even when the things being said are inane and/or preposterous. And that, my friends, I would contend is one of the biggest problems with news reporting today.