The Nuclear Story

So I'm not exactly certain what the "nuclear story" truly is, but I did find a couple of sources. I would call them biased, but I'm still not even sure how.

The first is from Fox News, called "Republicans Push Obama to 'Pull the Trigger' on Iran." Sounds awful, right? Here are some "facts" I managed to pull from the article:

1) Officials have admitted that Iran is roughly a year away from having nuclear weapons.
2) Iran keeps saying that it is using enriched uranium for power purposes, not for weapons.
3) Obama obviously organized a 47-country summit to address nuclear power -- and didn't bother to invite Iran.
4) Obama's plan promises that we will not use nuclear weapons against a country without them.
5) Iran and North Korea were excluded from the previous promise because they have been uncooperating.

In another article published before the summit, I found these facts:
1) We passed Resolution 1887 last fall. No idea what that is.
2) Apparently the challenge, according to the article (also published by Fox News, titled "Nuclear Security Summit Communique and Work Plan"), is to find out what to do with the 2000 tons of plutonium and enriched uranium.
3) I didn't really understand much else...

Further research led me naturally to what Obama and others were saying:
1) McCain says that we have not been tough enough on Iran, that we've been pointing a loaded gun at them, but failing to "pull the trigger."
2) Obama says that "Words have to mean something. There have to be some consequences."
3) Senator Jon Kyl says that the summit was a disappointment.
4) Obama also brought up the issue of Al Qaeda finding the weapons and using them.

I'm not sure what all of this means, but it sure is hard for those of us who don't know all about uranium and nuclear energy to understand everything that's going on. Hopefully some source will provide unbiased, layman's information about all of this...

Melanie

Actual Comment on McLuhan

So I haven't loved McLuhan's book, The Meduim is the Massage. Actually, I've despised it. It feels like a complete contradiction, and sometimes I question whether or not he's actually for the new media or against it -- I guess his humor doesn't work for me.

Speaking of humor, he says on page 92, "Older societies thrived on purely literary plots. They demanded story lines. Today's humor, on the contrary, has no story line--no sequence. It is usually a compressed overlay of stories." Then, in huge bold letters, taking up a fourth of the page: "AMATUER."

WOW. I find it altogether intriguing that McLuhan could possibly feel compelled to comment on humor, as if he is the end-all, be-all of humor knowledge and criticism. While I agree, I wonder why he has decided to call that "amatuer." To me, humor based upon our lives and struggles, those that are composed by the melding of interesting stories and events, are the more entertaining and thought-provoking ones. There is a certain underlying theme or motive behind humor presented in this way, and it calls for a questioning of ideals or morals, etc.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather hear a joke or a humorous story about life itself than I would about wanna'-hear-how-the-chicken-crossed-the-road-it's-really-interesting-how-he-does-it-and-did-you-hear-the-one-about-what-the-dollar-bill-named-his-daughter-ha-ha-ha.

Melanie

Gender and Opposition -- "Argument Culture"

So the chapter we read from Argument Culture about men versus women when it comes to this "argument culture" was actually the most interesting chapter in the book we've read so far. It was nice to finally have something different.

Mostly, I enjoyed reading about how little kids play -- and having been in a high school class about Early Childhood Education that also delved into the ways children develop and play at young ages certainly helped to encourage my interest -- and how girls and boys differ when it comes to fighting. However, I want to be clear that the comments Tannen made in this chapter are not completely applicable to either sex, for personalities always come into play, as well as the ways the children are raised.

Specifically, I enjoyed reading the last part of the chapter about the differing cultural acceptance of aggressive behavior. I remember being told so many times when I was little (by my step-dad) that if someone was going to pick a fight with me, I should fight back -- and I should win. If someone should try to hit me, I should try to hit them back -- and hit them so hard on the nose that they won't bother me anymore or be aware, even, of what "hit" them. Of course, I know my dad's background as really aggressive, and I know he got into fist-fights again and again as a kid, so his telling me to fight back doesn't surprise me at all. I never had to use his tactics, though, because I always fought like a girl.

Melanie

An Idea for the Media Presentation

So I have been thinking a lot about exactly what I'd be interested in for this media presentation. I was trying to do something that fit my personality and who I am, and I think that I have come across an idea that may work: the presentation of Christianity in media.

Namely, I guess I will be looking at common practices of Christianity on television (yes, those horrid tvangelists) and in the news (such as the comment by that priest about Haiti). I think it will be interesting to compare what I believe with how the media presents what "Christians should believe." Maybe I can even dispell some preconceptions of Christians and stereotypes that have been cast upon the religion. I'm excited!! What are your thoughts??

As for the reading we were assigned for Tuesday, I have only a few points to make:

1) Tannen has presented the court and legal system as yet another example of America's "argument culture" and the two-sided scheme we seem to follow in everything. I agree that there is hardly anything in court cases besides the two sides hammering out their own views and distorting others'. The premise of the court system has always been justice. "Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly" (Leviticus 19:15). I will make the claim that the corruption in our courts (and the hatred of lawyers) has resulted from our greed and obsession with money. It's as simple as that.
2) Our new book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, actually kind of angered me, as much truth as it presented. A key quote I found was on page 11, "A person who reads a book or who watches television or who glances at his watch is not usually interested in how his mind is organized and controlled by these events, still less in what idea of the world is suggested by a book, television, or a watch." I have found that this is true, but for me, this is the reason why I hate media. People do not think about how it affects them, or assume that it just affects everyone else. What do you think is the reason for this ignorance?

State of the Union Address

So I just finished watching the State of the Union Address. I had just finished reading part of The Argument Culture, so I was already in that mindset.
Obama said a fair amount about how the Democrats and Republicans need to work together, and how we need to be united. I thought this was a good strategy, because of the recent election. He needs to get at least one Republican vote from the Senate, so by saying that rejecting an idea completely just because it came from the other party was a terrible idea was a smart move. We read about that in the first chapter of the Argument Culture. While saying that we needed to be more united, he also pointed out some of the things the Republicans did wrong. "Lets try using common sense."
Obama also made his speech into a competition when talking about America's global situation. He repeated several times that the United States would not be number two, that we would settle for nothing less than being the best in the global market.
So, do you think his speech was convincing to pass all the bills he wanted? What do you think will happen?

Posted by Elizabeth Bush

"Argument Culture": Personalities

There were a few intriguing and though-provoking lines throughout the chapter we read for today out of "Argument Culture," but I want to focus on this paragraph in particular:

"We all tend to think of ourselves as reacting to others and others' behavior as absolute. If we hear ourselves snapping at someone, we focus on what we were reacting to. We think of ourselves as nice people who were provoked. But if someone else snaps at us, we rarely wonder what we said to provoke this response. Instead, we judge the other person's personality: He is rude, she is temperamental. The same thing happens when public figures are criticized for behavior that is a reaction to provocative questions put to them. This would be less unjust if the provoked reactions really did reveal their 'true selves.' But as often as not, they simply reveal the frustration of being caught in the web of the culture of critique" (Tannen, 67).

This is so significant to me because I have seen it so many times. Our perceptions of ourselves as logical, having thought our responses out thoroughly, are completely twisted. There is no way that a person could logically think of a quick response to a provocative question -- there's too much at stake. Especially when it comes to my faith, provocative questions illicit time and thought, they need to be supported by the Bible and such. But since sometimes it takes longer than others to come up with a response, any answer that is given is taken to be false or is criticized as being "the easy way out." I can't explain how many times that has happened to me.

Judging others based upon their fast responses to such questions as "illogical" or "argumentative" is like saying that a sweet dog is vicious because he barked when the doorbell rang. It's ridiculous, and I think that answers given to provocative questions need to be taken with a grain of salt. There's no way that the "truth" actually comes out; what comes out is our defense mechanisms that we've had to create and build simply to protect ourselves against stupid questions that threaten our reputations. What is said in an argument is often the result of being fired-up and angry, not because a person truly believes that his or her spouse is really a(n) [insert name here].

What do you think?

By: Melanie Pawlikowski