Tough Oats

Hello readers - it's been awhile, and I think I can explain. Between a much-needed vacation to see some friends in Seattle and some life-changing events here at our California Headquarters, I've pushed my poor blog to somewhere in the middle of the to-do list. I've had an article I wanted to blog about for a while, and am just getting to it now.

CNN's Glenn Beck is one of my preferred CNN writers, and last week's article on Michigan and Florida's poo-pooing about not being able to count their votes towards the Democratic primary was something I read with, admittedly, much glee. Glenn, thy name is parental justice!

Glenn's choice of words for telling Florida and Michigan that they had their chance was very simple: Too bad. You broke the rules, you sit in time-out. But my mother had a better name for it: Tough oats. Did your mom ever say that to you? There was probably some two-word phrase that she might have used when withholding your dessert if you didn't finish your dinner. You didn't like the rules of the house? Tough oats. But Mom, can't I stay out until midnight tonight? Tough oats. You're embarrassed by that old fogey car that your father bought? Tough oats. (Side note: I ended up partially buying that old fogey car right after I got married.)

Isn't it strange how this country works? Most people in this country are looking to be able to have their vote and eat it, too. They want to have their voice heard, but when was the last time even 50% of the population showed up for an election? These delegates in MI and FL are charged with representing how the people vote in the state, but alas, the DNC made a few rules, and they broke them. It was all over the news; remember? Michigan and Florida held their primaries way too early, back in January. They flipped the proverbial bird to the parental figurehead of the Democrats, the DNC, and held primaries anyway. To which the DNC put their foot down and said: Well, go ahead. But your vote won't count. Tough oats; too bad.

Just recently, the DNC upheld their decision to not have a new primary in Florida, sending Brother Michigan and Sister Florida to their rooms to sit and think about what they've done, by giving up possibly the most exciting opportunity to participate in a Presidential primary such as this. What a bitter punishment!

What gets me even more is the fact that Sen. Clinton has asked for the primaries to be held in Florida later. Um, Senator? Do you realize you won that state? Of course you want those delegates; you're falling behind. In addition, Michigan did not have Sen. Obama on their ticket. His name wasn't even on the ballot! Do you think it might be fair for either Senator to go head-to-head in a face-off again?

Sure, it would make for some brilliant news. But what was done was done. Those two states made their choice to break the rules; fine. But just as the disobedient, pimpled teenager who breaks curfew on the weekends is stripped of their car and computer privileges, so goes for Michigan and Florida who now sit in their rooms, screaming "IT'S NOT FAIR!" to the DNC. And as all parents know, drawing the line in the sand is the best way to demonstrate between right and wrong, even if we're teaching the lesson to a bunch of adults who feel entitled otherwise.

Repeat After Us

When I first changed the name of this blog to rumi∞nation, I knew that the niche I wanted to settle my writing self in - one that will constantly be populated by new information and one, ironically, populated also by me, the media - was going to be a journey I'd started long ago, sitting in a college classroom in Erie, PA, exploring what we call language.

What is language, exactly? In the most basest of terms, it is merely an organized uttering of sounds from our vocal cords, or a series of dots and lines bent on the page. But then throw in culture, birthplace, geographical location, accent, and several other variables, and we find that these uttered sounds are both a constant and variable in themselves, the way our parents teach us how to understand those sounds and what they mean, even attaching the visual cue of language with those dots and lines, and making it a cohesive way of understanding, and communicating with, other humans. Yet while language is what binds the human race together, so it also forces us apart, in ways such that the utterances of Arabic are vastly different from those of Mandarin or, if you're from the part of the world I hail from, you'd know that language used by folks in Erie and Pittsburgh set themselves apart from the rest of the Northeast US.

(I understand that there are many other ways of communication with other humans, including nonvisual cues and sign languages, secret handshakes and even Morse code, but my interest is in that of what American media uses, chiefly written and spoken language, that I would like to address here today. As you can see, the concept of language is incredibly complicated, and one that I have only started to explore on my own beginning with my college years. This will not be the last time I return to this subject, so please bear with me as we scratch the surface together.)

The American media, as you have all seen, has used a curious way of manipulating language. I truly believe that, with a First Amendment-protected media, one must not take it all at face value, and understanding that what constitutes "news" in my parents' generation is not the same as it is today. It's a curious phenomenon when I visit my in-laws, when we all sit down and watch the 6 o'clock news in the evening. I realized that since I got married, I didn't watch the news anymore; I went online to get it. I subscribed to the local paper just to get the comics and the movie listings, one of those "just in case" situations, and even then I only got the Sunday paper. With the newspapers and news anchors giving me the information, I found that their choice of language (and, therefore, the news) was not something I was fond of.

My nitpicking of this not only found me to start looking at other sources of news other than the American media, but to also realize that I didn't like a news anchor choosing the words for me. Although I worked for the school newspaper in college, I realized that I was given the utterly huge responsibility of choosing the words to tell a story to the rest of the campus, and that their words to describe it were probably vastly different from mine (notwithstanding the fact that I was bound to AP-type rules and a relatively airtight filter of words I was not allowed to use, as well as keeping the reading to a 5th-grade level.)

Coming from this angle, of one person who has both experienced the media language from outside and within, I took much exception with this blog entry by a certain Mr. Jack Cafferty of CNN, who seemed quite on the offensive when he found out that Senator Clinton had thrown a swipe at the media, even accusing her of "whining" about the questions delivered on some of her more recent debates. He says: "It's a tactic as old as politics: things aren't going well, blame the media."

Oh, Jack. If only you knew the influence your words have on some people in this country. Sir, you seem to come from a line of thought that you are reporting "just the facts, ma'am." I beg to differ. While the American media is perhaps not directly responsible for Clinton's seemingly downward spiral in this election, you fail to recognize that too many people take your word as unerring fact, even when you willingly write a blog entry that is not based in cold, hard, number-calculating fact. I heartily disagree with your quickness to separate yourself from the huge influence, good or not, on anyone's campaign. What do you and your media cronies choose to report about Senator Clinton? Let's see: CNN has been quick to report any time Clinton sheds a tear or lashes an angry word. Do you wonder if you or your superiors are making this news because, alas, she is merely a woman and her emotions are fair game to the media? Ah, but now look what words I have put into your mouth!

Let's try a different angle, readers: How many of you have taken a gander at the English language version of al Jazeera online? How many of you just gasped right now for me publishing that in this blog? Al Jazeera is not the enemy, folks; you should check it out sometime. BBC is a pretty interesting read, but there's nothing like reading some of the things that our Muslim counterparts are checking out on their own media outlets.

I will admit that I do not publish much from non-American news outlets, but then again, my reading audience is interested in popular media, and a good percentage of them are American. But the byline of this blog states what I am trying to do by calling attention and shedding a much less favorable light on American media: an attempt to discover common sense we lost by exploring popular media. I believe that most of the general American public has lost some of their common sense by swallowing a lot of what is fed to us through the media outlets without so much as a morsel of a question mark with it. I'm not attacking when we report on the number of casualties abroad, for instance; it's folks like Jack Cafferty that, while he does echo some of my sentiments about a broad range of subjects, also perpetrate the myth that the American media indemnifies itself from the influence it has on those constantly in its spotlight. This is the language we are trained to understand, but truly, it's not the only one that we have the capability to understand; there are more out there. Many, many more.

So, Mr. Cafferty, you have more influence than you realize, but this is not wholly a compliment to you or your American media chums. While your contribution is most intriguing, understand that if CNN were ignored during Super Tuesday, I predict there would have been a struggle, albeit a successful one, to figure out the language on our own. After all, if this is truly a free media, that means we have the power to create, write, and speak our own media, correct? Could it be that the media is only what we, the American people, can make it? I believe it has the potential to be much more malleable that you or I realize.

Home

Well, I didn't think it would happen, but we got home to California nearly on time and just after the year's biggest storm hit the West Coast. Personally, I don't remember the last time I have heard of anyone's airliner of choice holding their connection plane AND getting all their luggage on that flight, but that's exactly what happened to us after we were held up an hour late because of a window-defrosting problem in Pittsburgh. I thought we'd be stranded in Boston overnight because of either a canceled flight or missing it altogether, but I got to bed by 10 p.m. last night. (Not usually an early bird, but between a sick child, a sick me, Dramamine drowsiness, turbulence, and a decidedly unfavorable time of the month, it was the best to be expected.

As I wait to get my body clock back on West Coast time, I thought I'd share a headline that almost made me lose my sponge candy breakfast this morning (what?! I had a bowl of Life, too. Let the sick mommy have a day off from her diet.)

Justice Clinton?

Sweet canned Spam, now that's something I'd take as an equivalent to pigs flying: a female president with her husband eyeing up a Justice seat appointment. First, I still think most in this country would take a black President over a female one this year. Second, just yesterday, on my JetBlue flight back West, I saw the obligatory video shot of all the Supreme Court Justices talking with each other in their black robes, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had zoned out and focused on something behind the cameraman's shoulder, making me think that either she just was tired of the entire charade with the rest of her male counterparts, or that she really, really misses Sandra Day O'Connor; either way, I had the impression that Ginsburg was having a devil of a time being in the same room with her conservative counterparts, Justices Alito and Roberts. But wouldn't it be interesting if she were replaced first? It was Bill Clinton who appointed her to the Supreme Court in the first place. (Thank goodness Ginsburg gets her say in it, though- she can be there til she pops up daisies.)

All we have to do is make sure New York votes Chelsea in to take over her mother's Senate seat, and we'll have a downright Clinton trifecta in all three branches of the American government. Yee-ikes. Is it a bad thing to hope that Ron Paul throws a bigger wrench into the elections than fellow Texan Ross Perot ever did?

Welcome to Politics, Kid

Poor girl. I'd almost think that this should be news, but in reality, who would be surprised? When public image is the only thing worth to Presidential hopefuls, I'm sure they don't want someone to pull another Kerry-esque risk and have another Tasering incident at their rallies. I'd bet my winter beater car that they all do this.

To wear or not to wear, Part Deux

Remember the whole flap about Sen. Obama taking off his American flag pin? Well, it looks like there are some people trying to catch him again in his "non-patriotic" self.

This is why things taken out of context run rabid in our free press, by the way.

There is a video/snapshot being circulated via email of Sen. Obama at a steak fry in September with Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson. The picture shows Clinton and Richardson with their hands over their hearts, while Sen. Obama has his at his sides, appearing as though they are looking towards the American flag. Yet the email alleges that at this point in time, Sen. Obama "refused" to say the Pledge of Allegiance or place his hand over his heart.

Ah, the power of photos, right? They're worth a thousand words? But not a thousand sounds. Sen. Obama responded, rightfully frustrated, "During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart, during the National Anthem you sing." Yes, in that photo at that point in time, they were singing the National Anthem. And he's right. You see folks at the baseball games respectfully remove their hats during the Anthem, and some place their hand over their hearts, but usually they're just singing the lyrics off the Jumbo-Tron while a virtual flag flies in the background. But remember in kindergarten, every morning, you had to get up out of your seat and stare at the American flag posted front and center over the chalkboard, and hold your heart and say the Pledge?

Yes, it seems the most important things we learned were in kindergarten.

To wear or not to wear?

Lou Dobbs has written an editorial that defends the reason why he still wears his American flag lapel pin - full article is here.

He defines the controversy around why people are wearing these flag pins as pure "lunacy," and I agree with him on that. Yet again, the pols in this country are nitpicking everything apart to pieces, throwing mud while dodging it at the same time. It never ends, does it? And of course, it doesn't help that this kind of debate has been sparked in both wartime and election time in this country, especially when a Presidential hopeful has put away his lapel pin, and Dobbs has blasted this gentleman's choice and reasoning for doing so.

Sen. Barack Obama has put away his pin and reasons that his words will suffice as defining him as an American. Dobbs counters that this is "arrogant" and Obama is "horribly mistaken." Then there's Katie Couric, who takes exception when Americans use the flag to refer to us as "we," even though we are all Americans here and what singly does unite us is the soil we live on.

All right. Couric and Obama have their points, but I think Couric is ridiculous to say that we can't refer to ourselves as "we" when there is clearly something that unites us all in this country. Further, I believe Obama's quest for being an American versus wearing it on his sleeve is a very fine goal indeed. Show us how to be a patriot by doing and saying, and not by sticking a pin and saying "NOW I'm an American! Found the missing piece to the puzzle, finally!" It's as if by wearing these pins, the journalism and political communities are saying "Look at ME, DAMN IT, I'm a freaking AMERICAN! That's RIGHT! This is BETTER than my damn passport, beeyotches, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!" I'd rather not that be the message conveyed.

Dobbs points out that he also disagrees with those journalists who say the absence of the pin indicates neutrality and utmost objectivity. I must agree on this point. To quote Lewis Black, take a globe and look at it - "See? Countries!" To bear an American flag is to assert your citizenship to one of the many on this globe, but not to wear it doesn't take away my citizenship, and certainly will not take an American's objectivity away. It's in our blood, in our money, in our homes. For Pete's sake, we're watching American news while eating our American dinners in our American homes and working in our American jobs while paying our American taxes. The absence of a pin isn't going to change where we were born and raised or our "American-ness."

Let's face it, guys, whether Obama wears his pin or not, he still an American citizen, for crying out loud. And so are the journalists who don't wear their pins on the air. Further, I find it laughable that our country is so mired in its own culture and not more attentive to others, that we could dare question someone's objectivity on the basis of a pin. How many Americans have truly bothered to research and truly understand Islam? How many know that Ramadan is about to come to a close this week? How many truly know about both the advantages and issues of socialized health care and bilingual countries? You only have to look north to our neighbors, and even then, our American eyes are so short-sighted that we can't get past our own TVs.

But here's my beef, and it includes Mr. Dobbs: This whole issue with the pin is the high school equivalent of who was and was not wearing their school colors on pep rally day. Those who were wearing neutral colors were cast aside and questioned, even though it didn't change the fact that they were still going to the high school. Wearing the American flag pin has turned into a popularity contest, the ultimate trend to be in on, the accessory one should never leave their house without. Again, let's reflect on what Lewis Black says about this war: Just because you are not for the war, it DOES NOT mean you are for the other side. Just because you don't wear your flag pin DOES NOT mean you're for the other side, Mr. Dobbs.

Now that Obama has been questioned as not being "black" enough, and Hillary has been questioned as not being "female" or "feminine" enough (whatever the HELL that means), now we're questioning our candidates and pols as being "American" enough. How many levels of femininity are there? Or blackness, or American-ness? Has anyone counted? Can we pay some scientists to look into this, please, and clear this up once and for all?

Perhaps it is time for us to look at the globe, then, and see that there is one single thing that unites us all - our species, our humanity. The very essence of what and who we are are the very things that make us all connected in some way, even when we set against each other in war. There are no levels of humanity, unfortunately. Even if you're born in America, there's no on stopping you from obtaining citizenship in Canada or elsewhere. But once a human, always a human.

And if you're not wearing a pin, I promise to keep my nose clean, and yours too, of course. Just because Obama isn't wearing his pin does not mean I may or may not withhold my vote from him. I'm more interested in seeing what he does and not what he wears.