Narrative Introduction

At the end of a weekday, many working Americans watch the clock: 3:45, 4:30, 4:50, 4:55, 4:57, freedom. At the end of a weekday, may working Americans sit in traffic: 5 more exits, 3 more exits, 1 more exit, home. Oh how it feels to be home and isolated from the troubles of the day - the phone calls, the files, the complaints. But for many Americans, that is precisely where the trouble begins. Oh how it feels to be homeless. Pushing paper and flipping burgers almost seems like an escape for the x percent of Seattle individuals and families who cannot afford housing in this metropolitan city. Sitting on the number four bus headed downtown from Capitol Hill, I sat next to a woman and her two young children. "While I was pregnant with this one" she says nodding to the eldest of the two, "this was home." Under the I-5 overpass. Home. At the end of the weekday, this annonymous, selfless mother was happy to return to her new home in a low-income apartment complex on Broadway Avenue and Pine.

That's so girl wearing a skirt as a shirt

I would dare to make the sweeping generalization that everyone has said or been apart of a conversation when something was "so gay" or someone was a "fag" for doing or not doing something. Living with three boys and a few of our adopted roommates, almost everything revolves around this language in one way or another. Homework - so gay. Traffic tickets - twice as gay. Cleaning the bathroom? You could only imagine. The fact of the matters is however, that these words have become a part of a vernacular un-phased by Ad Council campaigns. This is our new culture, whether you like it or not. Like time, you cannot "un-do" existing language. Phase it out? Yes. But with what? More words that mean the same. As a society there will always be words that thrive on our fears, that further stereotypes, and become embedded in our everyday conversations.

The Ad Council's "Think B4 You Speak" campaign is a valaiant effort, but one that I think should be revised. Answer me this - are 15 year old boys likely to listen to Hilary Duff? Wanda Sykes? Although I wish, I also doubt. The effectiveness of these ads reaches our lived lives in that they are visually appealing and speak to the truth of a problem. The artistry is well played (*see attractive celebrity personalities and teenage actors, interesting scenes, and engaging dialogue) but the problem, I believe, is that they do not reach to the level of seriousness. The narrative is so light-hearted that I think it fails to address just how hurtful and destructive this language can be.

On the other hand, I also believe that this series of ads is a smooth and easy introduction to the issue at hand. In terms of creating and developing political behavior and identity, "Think B4 You Speak" opens up the doors to the idea that words do mean more than what they seem and that they do have effects, regardless of what we may think. For young students, these ads help to identify an existing problem and the support resources that address them.

Hooking-up: an ominous threat

In his opinion piece "Hook-Up Culture" written for the Tufts Daily, student Jack Grimes argues for the restoration of what he defines as dating in an attempt to erase the "cold soulless, heartless, loveless business" of one night stands and commitmentless sex. His article is founded on the idea that our youth's culture is so entralled with "hooking-up" for its basic physical pleasures that college students are at risk of becoming dead to the ache within for intimacy.

Additionally, he believes that one night stands and the like are "inextricably tied up with the emotional." I would argue that Grimes weakens his claim by arguing that everyone wants to be loved through an act of deepest intimacy. He believes that everyone wants seeks such a level of gratification that "the porno fiend fabricates it and the rapist steals it." This is, in my opinion, a gross overgeneralization. First, not everyone looks for intimacy at this level. Many people are pleased with being deeply intimate on a non-physical level. How is it that Grimes only finds "intimacy" through sexual experiences? We must look outside the box. Secondly, I would also argue that there are those who are seeking to escape intimacy through careless sexual encounters. In all, the writer greatly limits his argument with such an overgeneralization.

Additionally, I find a post hoc fallacy in Grimes' belief that one night stands and casual sex are causes that would effectually be the death of true intimacy within our culture. He argues "if this" then "that" and again greatly limits his argument. But where do Grimes' ideas stem from anyway? I believe that his article is so weaak in its claims and is written without any factual reasoning because it comes from a single point of view that does not include opposing ideas. I was turned off from "Hook-Up Culture" so to speak, because it was written from a college student, who may not be completely educated on the topic. The frat boy, heterosexual paradigm that calls women "unpaid prostitutes" uses an ad hominem to attack women's characters as mindless tools to be at men's leisure.

In all, Grimes's article is filled with fallacies that weaken his argument while demeaning women on his quest to break down "hook-up culture" and build up traditional intimacy.

Yellow is the IN color of 2009

Above the Seattle Times headline “Jobless jolt hits Seattle area, state” is a picture of a smiling, waving Michelle Obama dressed in her yellow Isabel Toldeo dress. "'In' color for 2009...is yellow" is what reads next to her image although, other prestigious publications like the BBC online edition call the “jury out” on her inauguration style. Headlines of the century? I think not. Among other infatuations with the First Family are Sasha and Malia dolls, Obama cupcakes, rap songs made into remixes of the President’s inauguration speech, and t-shirts – oh, the t-shirts! Obama’s face has become an iconic symbol painted onto canvas, sprayed onto walls and posters, printed on t-shirts, and frosted onto baked goods. Impressive, I know, but what does this mean to a country in crisis? Is there any real substance in an image or mass product goods?

It is hard not to be swept up in the wave of excitement that has overcome our nation since November 4th, 2008 but we must ask if what we truly find inspiration in is the Obama message or image. He is young and fit but is anyone really listening to what he says? The Inauguration Day itself was a sight to be seen but what of it? As a nation facing an economic crisis and a long running war abroad, I argue that we must not be blinded by the fresh new paint on the White House. Instead, we must remain critical of our government and their actions. Not all is solved with the introduction of a new leader. The fairytale hasn't necessarily come true - yet. So while Michelle Obama's style is appealing and Sash and Malia capture our hearts, American citizens should remember what is at stake. Perhaps publications like the Seattle Times and the BBC should be more careful in what they select as "news." Obama-mania is intriguing but it is not the narrative of our lives. News media should not lessen the importance and seriousness of today's politics by trading it in for articles proclaiming Michelle's "in" yellow as the color of 2009.

The Aesthetic Imperative

In her article, The Aesthetic Imperative, Virginia Postrel writes that we, citizens of the 20th century's future, still value function in our everyday "things" (be it computers, stores, or kinds of dress) but are increasingly attracted to the aesthetically pleasing. She argues that what was once seen as an "unnecessary luxury" or "special indulgence" is now seen as a necessary form of expression. Not only do our iPods house our own personal tastes in music, but they do it in a variety of colors - white, light grey, dark grey, purple, yellow, orange, red, blue, green, pink, and black. But why? Why devote so much energy into making our "stuff" so visually and audibly pleasing?

Postrel believes that function no longer stands alone because our sensory side is "as valid a part of our nature as the capacity to speak or reason." She points in the direction of biology as a reason for acting this way - for needing to interact with the sensory experience. In her argument, Postrel looks to psychologists in order to support her argument; we perceive changes, they say, through sensory outputs. But even everyday shoppers feel this way. A Utah grocery store customer finds her shopping experience much more appealing after the store received a facelift, regardless of the fact that the items did not change. In saying "the environment offers something special" Postrel claims that aestheticism is an increasingly important value within our society. By enlisting professionals and everyday consumers, Postrel attempts to get to the center of this curious transformation.

While we layer our sensory perceptions and their emotional appeals onto ordinary functions, Postrel argues that we must not confuse our increasing interest in aesthetic pleasure with other values or the "narrative" of the story. I am in agreement with this point out of the fear that what is aesthetic is not always sound. We must use reason to navigate life or end up by way of the dodo. Will a basic mp3 player outlive a multi-colored iPod? Sometimes these dilemas are much more consequential. For example, a car may have the sleakest design but is it the safest? Are we willing to give up safety features for aesthetic pleasure? In beauty pagents, where the best aesthetics are literally the reigning queens, we are pleased with what we visually see but what about beyond that? The women in Miss Universe have increasingly begun to look like one another...except that they're from different countries! I argue that, like Postrel, that choosing aethetic pleasures over true value could lead to dire consequences and a devaluing of even our own society and culuture.

God hates fags.

If I didn’t know any better, I would think that the Westboro Baptist Church was a joke – a laugh out loud, feel your belly roar joke. They are so passionate about their hateful “message” that it all almost seems satirical. No other church dares to affiliate with them and most Americans do not even understand where their ideas stem from. “You’re going to HELL” does not in the least scare nor threaten me mostly because it is shouted from disillusioned cult members. Arguing that “Fags eat poop” is a fact also makes me laugh. Maybe it’s because of the word “poop.” Say it again, I will probably laugh. Poop. Haha. Perhaps I find humor in such an accusation because they are serious. I cannot remember the last time that I used “poop” to strengthen my argument against someone. Should I come across such picketing on the street, I would probably stop to take a picture – like finding Mickey Mouse at Disneyland, it’s a rare gem. Tell a classroom full of college students to research the Westboro Baptist Church and you’ll just have to wait a few minutes before you hear giggles and jokes.

But I cannot completely disregard their actions. Shocking, I know. Truth be told, what WBC does is remind Americans that our freedom to speech lives on. To silence their absurd messages would mean giving more power to the government and the masses to shut down anything that "offends." That is why I believe we should remember to listen and constructively converse with Phelps and his members. While they disregard most people's opinions and lack respect for most other human beings, we cannot dismiss them entirely. I would be interested in engaging in a conversation or following a debate with them for the sake of better understanding their actions and beliefs. We cannot completely disregard individuals as human beings simply because they seem crazy. Additionally, the Westboro Baptist Church also serves as a reminder for perhaps our own ignorance. Their limited respect and acceptance of others could bring to light the fact that maybe we ourselves are closed minded to different lifestyles and cultures. The Westboro Baptist Church is a reflection of our own culture. They are a piece of our history and socialized thought that should be explored and analyzed more - not disregarded simply as a laugh out loud, feel your belly roar joke.

MIA #1

At one point or another, many of us have heard or seen the phrase “Home is where the heart is” and would also generally accept it as true. After all, “home” is where most people create their first memories of childhood or yearn to return to after a long day at work. When it comes to the debate over building low-income housing in downtown Seattle and its surrounding neighborhoods however, opinions are divided around the legitimacy of these specific homes and to what effect they would have on the community. On one side of the street so to speak, city politicians and housing advocates argue that housing affordability is a fundamental right that should be shared across the board. Opponents however, such has for-profit developers and specific groups of residents and business owners, believe that low-income housing proposals and tax levies are government infringements that only provide “modest answers” to a much larger, even nebulous, problem.

Even as our economy dwindles, the need for affordable housing will continue to grow and remain as an imminent dilemma. For example, the City of Seattle spends about $40 million annually to address the issue of homelessness; a problem that could be tackled by creating affordable homes for families and individuals alike. The 2008 One Night Count of the Homeless in King County found that there had been a 15 percent increase from 2007. Neighborhoods that were once affordable are witnessing a transitioning “face lift” that tailors to a more gentrified, upper-middle class. Additionally, family shelters are turning away families on daily basis due to a lack of space. Will we change our fundamental value to rest on “My car is where the heart is” or “Underneath bridges is where the heart is?” Doesn’t sound quite right, does it?

As a believer in increasing affordable housing, I argue that we should utilize city proposals and tax levies as a means of supporting non-profit organizations working with low-income housing. This will also include for-profit developers in an evolution of thought and business practice. Since 1980, Seattle residents have consistently supported city tax measures that help to soften the impact of rising rents. Why should we continue to do so? First, because we can all agree that having a home is a necessity as well as an individual’s and a family’s fundamental right. Secondly, increasing low-income housing within the city gives people more immediate access to their needs like groceries, banks, and hospitals without having to rely on cars for transportation. Finally, developing more homes and apartments for people who make less than $43,000 annually (80% of median income) within an urban atmosphere allows for more employments opportunities. Select residents and for-profit developers should realize that this is not a city just for them, but for all citizens who deserve a certain standard of life.

While many people agree that everyone deserves an equal standard of livelihood, others feel strongly about what they have and still do work for. Opponents to an increase in low-income housing feel as thought city taxes and proposals for development directly infringe on their rights. As a doubter of such measures like the 2008 affordable-housing proposal, which collected $20 million from commercial and residential developers, I believe that government puts too much responsibility on hard-working citizens and should not control private business interests. “Incentive zoning” is an interference on commercial practices that does not offer any incentives to add affordable units. They could even drive businesses away and deter potential home buyers from considering certain neighborhoods and developments. Already, some residents have objected to a disproportionate share of lower-income housing in their neighborhoods because it could lower the value of their own homes or change the face of their existing communities.

In a December 2008 Seattle Times piece by Emily Heffter, she supports measures that increase affordable housing in Seattle but criticizes the way in which the city manages funds collected by commercial and residential developers. Her article addresses the existing problems, but also realizes many shortcomings of both its supporters and opponents. For example, Heffter writes that while taxes have been collected to begin the many projects for low-income housing, city officials have worked inefficiently with both time and money. Heffter responds to the question of “So now what?” The city has its funds to support its programs, but problems does it still face? In my opinion, articles by the Time and P.I. are largely in support of increasing low-income housing, but many of their readers who respond with online comments remain skeptical and critical. Although some funds have been collected and there is substantial support behind affordable-housing projects, there still remains an existing conflicting and a mismanagement of details.

Holding our breath.

Holding our breath, we cannot help but try and imagine what is waiting to greet our newly elected president and the country that chose him. January 20th will be President Obama's moment of truth - to fail or not to fail? It is inevitable however, that he will not escape criticism and will have to bear the burden of so many wishful people. For all of those struggling families mentioned in his emotional speeches along the campaign trail, will he live up to his promises? Were their stories, their lives used for career advancement or progress as a nation? Older generatitons remember newly elected leaders that held the faith of the nation in one hand while they crossed their fingers on the other. Younger generations, including my friends and peers, fling themselves on to the man who encapsulates the idea of a new day. January 20th will be a new day not to live in doubt and regret from past misdeeds created and left by a self-serving administration. Instead, it will be a moment to briefly reflect then turn on our heels and march towards a better future. For that we will hold our breath until we have arrived.

Daily Assignment #1

With their text, They Say/I Say Graff and Birkenstein hope to introduce a certain kind of writing formula to students and developing writers so that they may become more engaged in critical thinking and discussion. They argue that by enlisting their "they say___, I say ___" formula, we can move beyond our own ideas in order to listen and respond to others. In this way, we as better writers give power to a constant global conversation that allows everyone to be heard and everything to be discussed. Professor Bammert's course description also calls for writing that is analytical and reflective. By first evaluating others' arguments and developing our skills at analyzing, we may begin to become writers that use language to inspire change and more fully understand one another. Both arguments about academic writing and rhetoric rely on the idea of language and communication as a tool to analyze our world and promote thoughtful arguments.

Michele Obama's DNC Speech

During her speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama did not talk to the American people but with them. By recalling intimate moments with her husband and newborn child as well as stories told to her by people from around the nation, she created a sense of trust that most politicians would pay for and a level of humbleness that others could only dream of. What Michelle Obama did was develop an emotional and inclusive, yet concrete message through story telling. We as viewers suddenly found ourselves in an understanding relationship with a woman that most of us have never even met.

As our new found friend, what advice did Michelle offer to us? She told her audience, presumably working class families, to never let go of the American dream. After all, Michelle's own father never let her doubt that she was loved or that she could go to college. Her speech reminded us that this dream endures in both her and Barack's values, the future of her own two daughters, and American families from across the country. While she finds inspiration in the women who pioneered the 19th amendment as well as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Michelle encouraged her own audience to find the same in her husband, Barack. To have faith in him is to find inspiration, a dream, and change to make the country a better one.

Michelle Obama's speech did nothing to belittle the opposing party nor did it put her White House ready family on a platform. Instead, she spoke to the nation as an average American looking for a better future. She spoke soft enough to allow us to get to know her, but appeared assured enough to remind us of her confidence and readiness. While she was as elegant as a modern day Jacqueline Kennedy, she also tripped on her words and sounded like, well, you or me. Her speech told us that she is us, we are her, and together we make a nation ready to move on with the leadership of a man just like the rest of us - Barack Obama.