My prior post, On Bigotry, was actually the first half of an assignment for my Writing with Classical Tropes class. The assignment was to write anything we wanted, within a certain length, and I had wanted to write that essay for Under the Bridge anyway. The second half was to select one paragraph and analyze it for the tropes, or figures of speech, that are recognizable. The main tools for this exercise are A Handbook of Rhetorical Terms by Richard A. Lanham (whom Professor Shea refers to as "The Holy Richard" but I think of as "Biggus Dickus") and a website called Silva Rhetoricae, or The Forest of Rhetoric. The assignment was NOT to use any specific tropes or a minumum number; it was to write as we always do and then pick it apart afterwards. These exercises are called "lemon squeezers" by Shea (although I'm leaning toward the term "trope mope." I chose the fourth paragraph, which begins "And so they divide." The italicized tropes are defined in the text, and the above link should help if I failed to make any meanings unclear.

The writers among you may be interested in this process and, given this example, be motivated to pick apart a paragraph or two of your own? (Note: I wrote this on Word and pasted it - if you see any cyberwierdness in it on your browser - IE especially - that's most likely why.)

On On Bigotry

By Joe Serio

 

In my essay On Bigotry, I make the argument that bigotry is alive and well in America, and obviously so.  Of course, there is the racial and class bigotry that permeates every corner of the world, but the essay focuses on the recent growth of political bigotry. This manifests itself just as racial bigotry does with political opinions – both real and imagined – as the basis, rather than race. The fourth paragraph comes after political bigotry is introduced and defined, and serves as a complex exemplum, or example, of how political bigots behave.

The first sentence is wildly busy. The first half is a clear brevitas, or brief statement; “And so they divide.”  A series of three antitheses, or contrasts, follow the semicolon.  Atop these antitheses lies a progressio, where I build my point around a series of comparisons; “Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, us or them.” The parallel structure, where each phrase contains the word “or” in the middle of a three-word antithesis, is isocolon. Furthermore, the second segment is also an auxesis, in that I started at specific political parties, opened up to more general political philosophies, and ended with the broadest and vaguest division possible; “us or them.” Finally, and hypothetically, each part of the second segment is, in itself, quite brief. Perhaps this entire sentence could be considered a compound brevitas?     (Just joking there, UtB readers!)

I begin the second sentence with anastrophe, the unusual arrangement of words for a poetic effect; “As do racial bigots” rather than the more pedestrian “as racial bigots do.” At sentence’s end I begin a device that I use for the rest of the essay – emphasizing certain words with italics. Consultation with learned council has led me to see this as a written form of augendi causa, the raising of the voice for emphasis.  This device permeates the next two sentences, which serve as exemplum to the second sentence.  These sentences are formed from two antitheses: bigoted views of one side versus the other. The first part of each antithetical sentence rests on hyperbole; in this case, exaggerating the opposition’s faults. The second half of each rests upon euphemismus; ameliorating the home team’s faults.  It is tempting to consider these sentences together to be another progressio, as they do offer another series of comparisons. Looking more closely, however, these sentences compare and contrast within parallel clauses – their this, our that - meaning I used syncrisis in both.  Furthermore, I also used dialogismus in the wording, as I was speaking from another person’s character; either a conservative bigot or a liberal one, it matters not.  Brevitas briefly returns with “They’re all liars.” Alliteration arrives with “misquoted and misunderstood.”

The next sentence tropelessly begins a repetition of the pattern set in the second sentence. It makes a straightforward claim for the next two-sentence exemplum.  These latter sentences speak from the bigot’s point of view once again, in a more paraphrased dialogismus.  Each sentence is a syllogism, or the political bigot’s one-premise form of the trope; “if” this, “you must” that. Of course, giving the contrasting views one sentence apiece formed another antithesis between them.  The structure of the two sentences is parallel as well, with the aforementioned “if” followed by one belief and “you must” followed by two assumed beliefs. This structure, unlike that of the previous two-sentence exemplum, is close enough to be defined as isocolon.

Having clearly illustrated the division mentioned in the paragraph’s first clause, I wrap things up in classic fashion with erotesis, more commonly known as a rhetorical question – one that suggests its own answer. Here I suggest not a division, but a likeness – a union, if you will - between political bigotry and its more traditional cousin, racial bigotry.  In this lay irony; for in their zeal to create differences, bigots are ultimately all the same.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Lanham, Richard. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1991.

Burton, Gideon O. Silva Rhetoricae. 2007. 27 September, 2009. http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Silva.htm

As I mentioned in my last post, there are those who would now have us believe that bigotry is something America has outgrown. After all, they will say, racial prejudice is no longer a mainstream, accepted attitude. Any hint of bigotry, they'll tell you, and the PC Police knock down your door. If that still doesn't convince you that our shores are now free of racism, they'll simply point you to our Nigerian President.

While ruminating on such, I found this news item. It seems that a Jewish fraternity has been planning a move to a new house near the University of Memphis, so someone decided to welcome them to the neighborhood by painting swastikas on the house's exterior. No one can claim that the fraternity's behavior had made them unwelcome, as they haven't even moved in yet. This was simply simple-minded hatred against Jews just because they're Jews.

Now, people can argue until Ragnarok about whether it was meant to be a serious threat, or merely a childish prank. As it happened on Fraternity Row, it's easy to see the prank angle. What kind of mind sees such a prank as funny, however? What personality will see this as worth actually putting time and effort into? The bigoted mind, of course-the small, insignificant mind that says to itself "Well, they're only Jews (or Blacks or Muslims or Asians or Democrats or trailer trash or mimes or whatever) so I, being inherently superior, can have some fun at their expense."

You know…… assholes.

Of course, this is just one out of millions of instances of bigotry that happen every day, in every state, every town, every block. It's a little flashier, wholly reprehensible, and invokes a war we actually won, so it gets the media attention.  They can't possibly show every slur or threat against minorities, every lie about people of the other political party, every loogie in a cop's fast food sandwich. But then, they don't have to, because bigots will create their own displays, like the one in this news item's comments.

The first one comes from a person called "Susan" (hereafter, the sarcastic quotes around these peoples' names will be absent, but understood) who charmingly suggests that the Jewish fraternity did this themselves for the publicity. This is, of course, idiotic. Who needs this kind of publicity?

Still, nothing is so idiotic that someone won't reply to it (unless inured by experience) so Susan finds a sparring partner, Michelle.  Her first volley is the old "I'm more educated" game – I'm a history major so I know about these things. Predictably, her opposition turned out to have two graduate degrees in something or other, which of course makes HER the most educated. The education bigot loses round one. Susan (with sarcastic quotes, remember) then decides that Michelle isn't a real Jew, while she has traced her lineage back to the "real Jews who stayed in Persia."

Other bigots begin chiming in. A political bigot blames the swastikas on "liberal socialists," obviously confusing them with National Socialists and more than likely not understanding either term.

Susan returns with a lot of news. First, she agrees with Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, she makes an anti-Christian comment, and then finally comes out of the closet as a Muslim, after which all her opponents simply say "Well, no wonder." Very naïve of them, I'd say, because I don't believe Susan for a moment. After all, do militant pro-jihad Islamic fundamentalists normally begin their tirades with "I'm a history major, so I know!" or "You're not a REAL Jew, and I am?" No, they normally come out of the gate with a bunch of genocide-stolen land-White Devil- Glory of Allah type stuff. Susan is simply one of those people who like to start arguments on the Internet and will pretend to be anything or anyone toward that end. I forget what those people are called. Oh, yes – assholes.

It doesn't end there. One person who decides to actually make sense argues against the whole "Zionist agenda" argument by saying "An educated person would know that races of people aren't conspirators as a whole." But bigotry cancels out education, doesn't it, just acids and bases or matter and anti-matter.

Going further, Robt.in Ctown expresses hatred toward all immigrants, someone else chimes in with a statement against all religions, someone comfortable with the screen name Kikehymie suggests that the vandalism should have been a lynching of Jews instead, and then the crown jewel of it all, a comment titled "The November Criminals," which lays out the 12 point creed of the KKK, including hatred toward:

•   All non-white immigrants
•   All welfare recipients, regardless of race
•   All HIV+, regardless of race
•   All foreign investors
•   All free trade partners
•   Mexicans, naturally
•   All non-Christians

Consider, for a moment, that in 50 comments, this was what stood out the most; people taking the opportunity to share their own bigotries and petty, pointless hatreds. Again, we see that bigotry nullifies the effect of education, as an educated person would instantly know that the article itself does not invite such a reaction.

Oh, yes, I'm afraid that bigotry – racial, religious, class, education, and political – is very much alive and well in America, and I fear that the intellectual homogenization enabled by the Internet will only make it worse. When people can easily find support for what they want to believe and join online communities with "their kind" exclusively instead of taking part in a greater marketplace of ideas, the "us and them" mentality becomes easier and easier to adopt, even when it's aimed at people who are very like the bigots themselves.  I'm afraid that we aren't finished with bigotry by a long shot.

There is much talk of bigotry fueling President Obama's opposition, along with many denials. "How can there be bigotry in America when a black man has been elected President?" some ask, as if the election had been unanimous. Others deny bigotry by claiming that they oppose the President's policies, not the man himself, and the fraction of them who also decried Bush's skyrocketing deficit and government expansion may be in earnest about that.

 

It's clear, however, that bigotry plays a role in the President's opposition. The 400 % increase in death threats since Obama took office is hardly attributable to concern over health care reform. Arguing for racial bigotry's complete absence is impossible when facing propaganda that portrays Obama as an African witch doctor, pre-election statements about the "White House" having that name for a reason, and "Barack the Magic Negro." On a clear day I can't be convinced that the sky is any color but blue.

 

I can give the bigots this, however; not all the bigotry we see is racial bigotry. Another kind, political bigotry, has been growing. It's evident when we see people both right and left picking "sides" the way they choose a football team. They frequently don't consider what the labels are supposed to mean; after all, they have media-supplied stances to follow after they pick their side, whether these positions make sense or not. They never view debate as an opportunity to see another point of view, a different aspect to an issue that their experience does not provide – no, debate is to show how stupid they are and how smart we are. Political bigots see no validly differing philosophies; their side is wrong and bad, ours is correct and good, just as racial bigots view other cultures.

And so they divide: Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, us or them. As do racial bigots, they defend their own faithfully while finding whatever fault possible with them. Their intern-diddler reflects on their entire side's moral decay; ours is an aberration, shamefully exploited by a spiteful media. They're all liars; we're misquoted and misunderstood. The political bigot can sum up an opponent in a second by simply applying a stereotypical platform to anyone espousing one item on the list. If you're against the war, you must be anti-capitalism and anti-gun. If you're against abortion, you must also oppose church/state separation and health care reform. Is this any different than the bigot who assumes than any given one of those people is a criminal or welfare cheat or just loves watermelon?

 

Of course, political bigotry infects both sides. It is disingenuous, however, to pretend that both sides display equal symptoms; the greater gangrene is on the right. Obama's first seven months have seen more partisanship than Bush's entire first term, and people who pretend otherwise are lying to themselves. Those who claim that the unanimous opposition from Republican congressmen is a payback for what Bush received are particularly self-deceptive; they are ignoring, not forgetting, the ease with which two wars began and the PATRIOT Act passed.

 

Saddest of all, political bigots can't be friends with those they disagree with. The bigot's preference for filtering input – getting news from pundits because the media is biased toward them, for instance – eventually includes personal input. A polite disagreement is answered not with facts, but insults; a request for sources becomes an attack on the speaker's integrity. The bigot eschews the company of anyone who disagrees, becomes entrenched in reinforcement, even brags about moving cross-country to get away from them and be among us. Therein lay the grandest lie; for what could be less patriotic than freely and purposely choosing to despise your countrymen because of their –real or imagined- opinions?

I'm not sure about that.

For certain, I'm not prepared to OPPOSE such a thing, but to be honest, I'm not sure I see the point.

Does anyone really observe Pearl Harbor Day anymore? A few, but only a few, and fewer every year.

No one really bothers to Remember the Maine, though. Remembering the Alamo is done purely for reasons of tourism.

The morning of 9-11 was something that no one who was alive and cognizant that day will ever forget without help from Alzheimer's. It was, I guess, our generation's "moment." Just as our parents all know exactly where they were when Kennedy was shot, we can all recount our tales of how we found out about 9-11. In fact, I just did so this afternoon in an exercise for my Documentary Videomaking class. I was planning to make several callbacks to the Trade Center that morning. I'd been building a phone rapport in a few of the offices over the prior weeks. I've often hoped that those folks were on the lower floors.

The point is, I'll always have that connection to the date. I'll think of it every year. I won't make a show of it with an FB post or a t-shirt, as I'm not the demonstrative sort (not that there's anything wrong with that), but I'll think and feel about it without any prompting from anyone.

However, the next generation won't, because to them it will be as Pearl Harbor is to us: a piece of history. Not a shaking event that rattled the nation's sense of security to the core, as these two events were to their respective generations, but as a a date in history that they have no heartstring tied to. That is, unless we fail them as our parents' generation didn't fail us when they solved the problem themselves. Even in that event, however, the feeling won't quite be the same.

So the reality of it is that our generation doesn't need to be reminded of the day or how we feel about it, and if made official it will be mere calendar clutter by 2060 at the latest. Not that our legislators wouldn't LOVE the distraction of having to run this through the channels, mind you.

And why, knowing that we'll never forget it ourselves, do we want to make a holiday of it? That question could lead to some serious self-discovery, couldn't it? Careful, now.

Certainly, people are sincere in feeling that this day should never be forgotten, ever, but they must know that this isn't realistic. Again, people felt that way about the Alamo, and they were sincere, too. Life will always heal the wounds of such atrocities under bandages made from bigger, newer atrocities.

Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, we need to feel that after eight long years, something can actually be done decisively about it? Even if we can't get Osama, even if we can't eliminate Al Queda (whose name should really be HYDRA, they've got so damn many arms), we can at least do this? Perhaps it will make us as patriotic as the Pearly Harbor folks, despite the fact that they sacrificed their rubber, meat, sugar, and cookware to help the war effort where we took tax breaks instead and went shopping? Perhaps we just need to do something because we don't know what the hell to do but aren't ready to drop it, either?

So really, you want to give the folks in Washington the nod to pursue this aside from than the truckload of issues they're already falling behind on, I won't fight against it. I'll just be over in the corner, wondering.

Note: To see what Shuffleathon 2008 was about,see here.

This was a very difficult piece to begin writing.

 

Usually, when I need or want to write something, I think about it a while and then I sit down and write it. I can write about things I never even thought about before researching them for a piece. I can write about things I don't WANT to write about, like those damn reflective essays Burbank likes to assign (and which are always useful). I can even write fairly easily about the time I saw my grandma's tits even though I trytryTRY not to ever, ever remember that.

 

But for this piece I had a definite and longstanding pattern of avoidance and that really got to bugging me, mainly because I was still doing it after I recognized it. Hell, I continued doing it even after I decided to write about it.  What was that about?

 

I mean, a day without music doesn't happen very often to me. One wall of my living room is devoted to CD racks, and even when – as now- my player is on the fritz, I have Gregory, my Cowon iAudio7 (named for Pope Gregory I, whose contribution to the spread of music was considerable to say the least). There is always something to listen to – piles and piles of stuff to listen to. I thought that Shuffleathon was a good idea, I was pleased as punch to get a post from England  (hey, who was that? All I have is an e-mail address, as I've long since lost the envelope.) and was impressed with the nifty origami card stock thingie that the disc was placed in, although it made the list a bit challenging to read as it was spread about the perimeter of the unfolded sheet. It listed only a couple bands that I've heard of, and none that I had actually listened to. "Cool," I thought, "I can learn about some new bands."

 

Then it languished. And languished. And languished on. Meanwhile, I listened to a hundred+ bootlegs over the course of a semester. With so much music at my beck and call (at time of this writing, I still have well over 50 burned discs awaiting a spin and 182 folders of mp3s waiting to be loaded onto Gregory, each representing a concert – and high multiples of those numbers in discs and folders already listened to) it is easy for something to be lost in the tide. On the other hand, how difficult is it for me to put something on TOP of the stack? Shouldn't break an arm.

 

After several reminders, I sat down to listen to it and take notes about what I heard (and I'd sure like to know where THOSE walked off to!). I did just that and liked, for the most part, what I heard. I kept thinking about other things I should be doing, though. After about six songs, I stopped it and went on to something else. I needed to, and that bugged me even as I did it.

 

I remember the excitement that greeted a new LP in my youth. I would sit and give it most of my attention, reserving just a little for the cover art, the inner sleeve, the notes, any and all information that came as part of the package. Then, if I liked it I would do this over and over again. I could easily memorize albums, and become familiar with every detail of the packaging. I was the guy who always knew who was in the band and what they played, who produced it, who guested even to the tiny details like Toni Tenille's spoken role in Pink Floyd's The Wall (Wanna take a bath?), and who made the cover art (usually Hipgnosis).

 

I'm not really certain when that ended. Did it end when the cover art became postage-stamp sized, or because I got older and have more stuff to do? Gregory helps me listen to a lot more music because I can have the music with me when I'm DOING things, which, it seems, is how I always listen anymore. But I wasn't busy when I tried to listen to this disc, just restless. Did I simply outgrow the desire to pay that much attention to a disc, or is it that there isn't as much these days to become enrapt in? Is it because the albums themselves grew longer as the format shifted? Was it the result of the great musical deluge?

 

The deluge started when I joined the BMG music club and designed a way to get loads and loads of CDs at their cheapest price, "free" (which comes to approx. $2.50 per disc). I stocked the blues and jazz collection up quite a bit, but didn't sit and absorb anymore. I had begun school part time and worked full time, and listened to discs mainly in my car. Then the concert deluge began. For a long time, I gathered as much as I could, figuring that the opportunity would be brief. Two of my favorite sites, in fact, were shut down within a few months of my getting into it even though they had policies against sharing commercially available material. I had to get what I could while the getting was good, I thought. So I did. Months turned into years, and I slowly realized that even if this scene disappeared overnight I had enough to last a lifetime, so I've slowed down considerably. I can't stop completely, of course – Jeff Beck still tours, after all. Still, a new acquisition doesn't have the emotional impact it did when I had to save my sheckels for weeks to buy something.

 

So, having realized the problem, I addressed it by converting the disc to mp3 and loading it into Gregory. And there it languished. And thus I learned a couple more things about how I've changed.

 

First, I don't really think about individual songs that much anymore. While buying individual tunes online has, for most people, ushered in a new era for the single, I tend to listen mostly to concerts and see things in terms of entire performances. Just as I used to say "That was a good album" I will now say "That was a good show." This happens even more when I listen to several shows from the same tour, which will frequently have the same or similar setlists. I listen to it as a performance, and judge it as a performance, not a collection of songs. It is the instrumentation that really matters – what the musicians can do in the moment. For instance, I haven't listened to the studio version of Stairway to Heaven in over a decade, and I don't want to. As part of a Led Zeppelin concert, however, I can listen to it over and over (I've picked up a lot of 1980 Zep shows lately) and always hear it freshly when I do, because it isn't Stairway to Heaven as much as it is part of a Zep show. Does that make sense?

 

Secondly, I pick what show I'm going to listen to according to my mood. Am I in a Pink Floyd mood, or would a Dexter Gordon show suit me better at the moment? If Floyd, am I in the mellow, mysterious mood good for a 1970 show or would the harder, more cynical edge of the 1977 shows be better? Mix discs, by nature, usually try to express a flow from one mood to another, encompassing several. But I'm never in SEVERAL moods at once. I've grown more accustomed to the thematic thread that will run through a performance most of the time.

 

Still I managed to listen to it all while on campus, and found it to be an enjoyable listen. Still, I didn't write, mainly because of finals. After finals, I found that I still didn't have notes for each song, which seemed requisite, so I really had to listen to it over again. There we have another change – I realize now that rarely do I listen to anything twice in a year. If you had over 200 things ready to listen to at any given time, how often would you listen to the same thing? I consider, for example, Led Zep's June 18 1980 show in Cologne to be different from their June 21 1980 performance in Rotterdam despite the identical setlist. The solos aren't exactly the same, the energy isn't exactly the same, and so it isn't the same to me. It's hard to listen to ANYTHING again when there are a couple hundred things awaiting their first listen. Especially if you have to sit there and pay complete attention to it.

 

Ultimately, the music and I reached a compromise. I listened once again and took notes while writing all of this. You'll see them below. Taken as a whole, I enjoy this disc, even though my tastes for years have been running more toward blues, jazz, and instrumental jams – I almost never pay attention to lyrics anymore, except (as in this instance) when I really try to (ever try paying attention to lyrics while you write? Not the easiest thing I've attempted so far today). I've decided, over the years, that nothing can kill a great tune faster than stupid or trite lyrics (Elton John's Rocket Man being my favorite example). Given that, my notes below may seem incomplete or unfair. Music, like any other interpretive art, unfolds itself to me slowly, however, and many times I don't know how much I like a new song for quite awhile, and the music itself better be interesting enough to get us there. The sound of it comes first in all instances. That said, I like the feel of this disc, I like the way it flows from one feel to the next, and I can genuinely respect the thought that was obviously put into it. There are a couple bands here that I will definitely try to find more of – and I'll be interested to see what they can do live, naturally. Any time I learn something new, I like.

 

More important, though, is the way it made me look at things. Sure, it took a long time to get into it, but that time, I see now, was an essential part of the journey. This disc didn't just turn me on to Death Cab for Cutie (whom I had hard of before, but ignored, frankly, because of their name) – this made me actually spend considerable time in introspective analysis about how I listen to music, and how the change in how I treat music reflects greater changes in my life and my personality. In that, this may be one of the most important discs I have received in my adult life.

 

I think I'll keep it on Gregory for a while. That Rotterdam show should be so lucky.

1) Quote from TV or something..... all the pieces matter, obviously her intended approach to making the disc.

2) Fuse - Joe Henry. Mellow, bluesy, kind of just flows through me.

3) Strawberry Letter 23 - Shuggie Otis. A little faster, kind of Beatle-ish. Catchy tune. Repetitious bit at the end that could be much shorter. What's a Shuggie?

4) Angel - Massive Attack. I like this. Starts really moody and builds to greater intensity, going back and forth. This would be a great Chicago-expressway-in-the-middle-of -the-night song. The type of song that should never be heard in adequate lighting.

5) I Will Possess Your Heart - Death Cab for Cutie. Great groove, wonderful bass line. Reminds me of New Order in a way. I don't know who plays bass for this band but the style evokes Sara Lee, formerly of Fripp's League of Gentlemen and the B-52s. Would work great as a mood piece even without the vocals. In fact, I would probably prefer it as an instrumental. It's a shame more artists aren't brave enough to do that. Still, it's my favorite from this collection.

6) A & E - Goldfrapp. I don't know the name, but the voice sounds familiar. Is this because I've heard them before, or because so many female vocalists these days are going for that breathless, wispy sound? Anyway, I'm thinking of a pharmaceutical commercial because they often use this kind of tune with these kind of vocals. Mind you, I don't DISLIKE it, but I'm not intrigued.

7) Station Approach- Elbow. I almost didn't notice the song had changed, as I am writing while I listen. This shows how well one song leads into another on this disk.

8) Driving Away from Home - It's Immaterial. Kind of rockabilly sounding, a nice little romp with a haunting echo to the vocals.

9) Faron Young - Prefab Sprout. I remember this name from WXRT long ago. The flow remains steady. This has the rockabilly undercurrent but moves more into pop territory.

10) Apres Ski- Cinerama. Pop. It doesn't piss me off, but doesn't interest me, either. Kind of like the Cure when they aren't trying.

11) Mardy Bum - Arctic Monkeys. I don't know what this sounds like, which is odd because it doesn't sound outstandingly original. One of the few attempts at soloing on this disc, but not much.

12) The Opposite of Hallelujah - Jens Lekman. More interesting. Quite pop-ish, yet using an interesting mix of piano, strings, and bells. Brain-pop. Toes definitely tapping.

13) When the Morning Comes - Lloyd & Michael. Suzanne Vega's more depressing twin? Still, the minimalist tune is somewhat entrancing, especially the solo that reminds me of that Playskool xylophone I had as a tot. I like when instumentalists think outside of the box. The sound perfectly fits the simple, childlike melody and lyrics.

14) This track wasn't listed. Shades of the Kingston Trio! Their sound somewhat updated for the new century, but still evoking the old folksy-railroad sound of the early 60s.

15)I just realized that this is track 15 on the disc but it is obviously "Ghosts" by Laura Marling, which is listed as #14. This is obvious because the chick just sang the word "ghosts" about ten times in the past five seconds.

16)Young Folks - Peter, Bjorn, & John. Similar in mood to the Death Cab song, so I liked it right away. Intriguing bass groove, and I like the whistling for the melody where many others would have used guitar or synth.

17) Time to Pretend - MGMT. I can't decide on this one. None of the elements are especially interesting. The rhythm is old, the meaning is not exactly new (lost childhood innocence) and the weird sounds I can remember being used by Gabriel-era Genesis. Still, it seems to work as they've put it together, and makes quite a listenable song.

18) Love You, Love You - Yachts. Put Blondie's keyboardist into a Devo song, and this is what you get.

19) Another Girl, Another Planet - The Only Ones. Quirky pop. Strong Robyn Hitchcock influence, and a good guitar solo - the only one I've really noticed on this collection.

20) Mr. November - The National. Rock. Not much to say, really. It was there.

21) Endcap, similar to track 1. Yeah, the bitch is happy. 

 

Like almost everyone with a computer, I have an aunt who e-mails me cute inanities regularly. I usually ignore them – those that aren’t just plain unfunny are usually quite old- but she recently sent one titled “Bill Cosby Does It Again!” that caught my notice as a longtime Cosby fan. It seemed familiar instantly. It began with Cosby’s stated intent to be a write-in Presidential candidate, and outlined a platform: English as our official language, isolationist economics, closed borders, adoption of “Turkish-style” corporal and capital punishments, and elimination of foreign aid were among the planks. It took me less than five minutes of Googling to debunk it for it was, as I suspected, quite old, and has been attributed to George Carlin, Robin Williams, and Andy Rooney as well as Cosby. Snopes.com and several others quoted Cosby: “The platform attributed to me [and others] does not represent my views and in many respects is abhorrent to me.” Bad information is nothing new, of course, but this e-mail – one of millions sent across the world every day – exemplifies how the Internet, a fountain of information that forms history’s most powerful research tool, is instead just as likely to enable and simplify the spreading of untruths.

 

 

What is Information?

            Information comes in several distinct forms. Information as discussed here in broad terms is data set in a context for relevance – it tells us something that we can use to take action or make decisions. Propaganda is distinguished by purpose; whether true or false, the information is presented in such a way as to provoke a specific action or attitude, and is thus subjective at best (Kirk 1). Misinformation, unlike propaganda, is always untrue but innocently so; it isn’t a lie, it’s just wrong (2). Many people who spread misinformation are repeating something they assume is true, while others simply mishear or misread something and repeat what they mistakenly absorbed (“The Misinformation Highway?” 6). Anyone who has seen a rumor get passed around or played the old game of “telephone,” where a story is passed from person to person, knows how this works, and one would have to be a lifelong hermit to be completely innocent. (This was the case with my aunt. When I told her that the e-mail was bogus, she simply said that it sounded to her like something Cosby would say. Since Cosby himself used the word “abhorrent” to describe some items on the list, it obviously isn’t something he would say. It did, however, give her use of Cosby’s image and reputation to back up things that she would say.) Disinformation is the most insidious; it is intentionally disseminated falsehood. Often, misinformation begins as disinformation, though it can be difficult to prove (Kirk 3).

 

            If bad information is nothing new, why should Internet misinformation concern us? Because bad information may cause bad decisions, it affects us adversely anywhere. False information on a pseudo-scientific website, for instance, might wrongly sway someone to let a symptom go unchecked, or panic a healthy person. A widely spread falsehood caused a 60% drop in Emulex Corporation stock; although the company bounced back mostly, there were still losses suffered (Weinstein 1). On a larger scale, dis- or misinformation can have extreme consequences, such as helping to create demand for a war. Far more regularly it is used to influence elections; while you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, it may be sufficient to fool enough people by Election Day (“The Misinformation Highway?” 5).

 

The Subjective Mind

            Before exploring the Internet’s role, it helps to understand how people absorb information and form opinions. We like to tell each other and ourselves that we base our opinions factually, but studies have repeatedly suggested otherwise. Even when we have reasonably balanced and factual sources of information, we tend to remember items that support our already established opinions and discount news that contradicts them (Wang and Aamodt 1). When Yale political scientist John Bullock showed a group an advertisement that accused John G. Roberts Jr., then a Supreme Court nominee, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," Democratic disapproval in the group leapt from 56% to 80%. After a refutation was shown, it lowered to 72%; obviously, the refutation – which was true - was less convincing to Democrats than the lie. On the other hand, the refutation completely eliminated the disapproval increase among the group’s Republicans. Shankar Vedantam, writing about this study in the Washington Post, concluded ” The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place (1).”

 

            The effect refutations have is even more fascinating when dealing with conservative opinions. We saw how Republicans, who were predisposed to approve of Roberts, accepted the refutation over the damaging claim. In another study, two groups were given the Bush administration’s pre-Iraq War statements about that nation’s weapons programs, which, as Republicans (these groups were not mixed), they viewed sympathetically. Only one group was shown the 2004 Duelfer report stating that the WMDs did not exist prior to U.S. invasion. Among the group that heard only the initial information, 34% thought that Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons. In the group that saw both information and refutation that number jumped to 64%. Refutation did not strongly convince Democrats; Republicans shown a refutation actually believed the misinformation in greater numbers. Some postulate that this may result from Republicans having “more rigid views” than liberals; they may argue back against refutations that they don’t want to believe, thereby strengthening belief in the misinformation (Vedantam 2). Either way, these studies show what we tend to notice ourselves anyway: that people, on the whole, will believe what they want to believe. Constant repetition, such as we have online, via e-mail, or on 24-hour news channels, simply reinforces that situation.

 

            Shouldn’t the source of the information influence belief? It does, but not entirely as expected. In a 1951 Yale University study, two groups were given identical information( Hovland and Weiss, 636). One group was told that the information came from sources generally considered reliable, while the other group was told the information came from less reliable sources. The groups were quizzed on their knowledge and opinions before, immediately after, and four weeks after being given the information. Prior opinion’s effect on belief was again noted, but the second quiz made plain that the “reliable source” influenced belief more than the “unreliable source.” There was absolutely no difference learned information between the two sources – the only thing that differed was belief (641-2). This is not surprising; however, the results of the third quiz, administered a month later, were.

 

            After four weeks, the third quiz revealed that belief in the information gained from the “reliable” source had lowered, while belief in the information gained from the “unreliable source” had increased. This “sleeper effect” was attributed to people gradually forgetting the source (645). Where one source’s perceived reliability created confidence in the information, the opposite perception about the other source created a barrier to belief, with prior bias mitigating both effects. After four weeks, the sources – and the perceptions about them – were retained in fewer individuals. What remained was the information – the absorption and retention of which was still unchanged between the two sources – and the personal bias that influenced belief in that information (650).

 

            This phenomenon has since been proven and named “source amnesia.”  The information we gather is initially stored in a brain section called the hippocampus. Stored with it is contextual information: where we learned it, from who we learned it, our opinions of that source, etc. Recalling the information reprocesses it, but not necessarily with all the contextual information. Eventually, the information is stored in the cerebral cortex without the contextual information (Wang and Aamodt 1). This is why we are able to do things like drive cars without having to recall the initial process of learning to drive. It also explains how we can cling to beliefs that are not true – even after being told they are not true, as in the case of those who still believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

           

The Internet’s Role

            When considering the Internet’s role in spreading untruths, it is pertinent to remember that the Internet was originally called the Information Superhighway. This is a much more descriptive name; the Internet certainly is, if nothing else, an informational Autobahn. With its speed and near-ubiquity, it is by far the best vehicle for moving, storing, and retrieving data ever conceived. Therein lies the problem, however; as far as movement, storage, and retrieval goes, false information is no different than true information, and a system that spreads one is equally suited to spreading the other.

             

            Access to the Internet is widespread not only for users, but equally so for content originators. One needn’t even go to personal expense, as Internet connections are available to everyone via schools, libraries, work, or friends and relatives. Anyone who can see Internet content can also create it in many ways, such as thread comments, e-mails, blogging, website creation, or sites such as Wikipedia that encourage audience interaction. Because of this, people can always find what they want – they aren’t limited to what the news media chooses to tell them or what publishers see as marketable. The modern Internet is truly a marketplace for ideas. That means that no matter what preconceived notions a person might have, information that supports and feeds those notions is only a search engine away. If someone is inclined to believe, for instance, that President Obama was not born in the United States, that person will find ample support for that belief, despite the fact that it was disproved long ago. That support strengthens the belief since the fact that someone else believes the same thing provides a sense of community, and the false belief is then easy to spread further via comments, blog posts, or mass e-mails.

 

Aggravating this is, of course, the fact that the Internet has few content controls. Some serious sites have editors that verify content’s veracity; far more have editors that simply filter content to reflect their beliefs. Comments on threads, where they are monitored, are usually just monitored for profanity, not accuracy. Therefore a person who believes that President Obama’s birth certificate is fake can spread that untruth pretty much anywhere, as long as he doesn’t swear while he does it. The ease with which it is done increases its likelihood and frequency. Before the Internet, my aunt may have heard a false story about Bill Cosby’s political views, and she may have passed it on to my other aunts and assorted relatives during one of  many “henhouse” gab sessions, but she would not have written it out and mailed it via the postal service to 30 people. With the Internet, however, she can simply read it in her mailbox and with a few clicks, send it to 30 people in less than a minute. In her mind, the fact that she didn’t take the time to research it is a waiver, not a problem – after all, she didn’t write it in the first place, did she? All she did was pass it on. While I may consider that being part of the problem, many others see it as an exoneration. It is apparent that while misinformation today may not be worse than it has been through more traditional media, it is certainly easier to spread (“The Misinformation Highway?” 1). This means that the spreading of bunk is not only more widespread, but also more tenacious. The birth certificate story, for instance, disappeared from the newspapers after it was disproved, but not from the Internet where it can still be found well after the election. If people are inclined to believe things that they already agree with, and they can easily find sites that present information that fits that criteria, then literally anything that anyone wants to believe can be absorbed as a truth that is then spread with the words “I read somewhere that….”

 

Yet while information is easily found on the Internet, the accuracy of it is harder than ever to judge. As the amount of sources available increases, the criteria by which a source’s trustworthiness may be judged wanes. In the mainstream media’s heyday, which many say is now long over, a newspaper or network could establish a strong ethos, or reputation, for accuracy or integrity by making sure of their facts and having consequences for those that did not. When Walter Cronkite said “That’s the way it is,” people trusted that it was that way after his and his employer’s reputations were cemented. If the editor of the New York Sun says there’s a Santa Claus, well, that’s good enough for Virginia. 

           

            On today’s Internet, however, so many sources are available that it can be hard to tell the good ones from the bad. Ownership of most sites is very unclear, and not easy to find should someone be curious. Internet writers often use a nom de plume or “Internet identity (in fact, I know a guy like that),” or simply write anonymously. There are no standards or guidelines as in journalism, and no governing bodies as far as veracity is concerned. This makes it easy not only to avoid building a clear ethos, but also to create a false one. A false identity, title, education, or level of experience is easily created “behind the curtain,” so to speak. A real ethos may also be “borrowed,” as the e-mail attributed to Cosby, Williams, and Rooney illustrates.

 

            Of course, the audience helps writers circumvent ethos development in many ways. People may be so impressed with a site’s layout or features that they assume that the information presented can be believed. In cases like this, the medium truly is the message, as it is the presentation more than anything else that is convincing. The reader may not be expert enough to judge if the information is accurate or even likely to be. Someone with no medical training, for instance, may be fooled by information that a medical doctor would laugh at. Cannier readers than that can still be fooled by foreign sources, simply because of their unfamiliarity. Most people can judge the worth of a paper from Oxford University, but how does one judge an Icelandic university that one has never heard of? Second-hand information from known, reliable sources may be difficult to find in such a situation (Vedder 5).

 

            Of course, such questions of ethos are largely academic because of source amnesia. What does ethos mean in the long run, when the source itself is likely to be forgotten in a month and the information believed or disbelieved on the basis of personal preference more than the source’s integrity? The fact that people can find whatever information they want and find as many repetitions as it takes to convince them that it is true is all that truly matters in the Internet’s spreading of misinformation. Lack of clear ethos at the onset merely makes the process go even faster.

Is there a solution?

            What may be done to improve this situation? So far, there is no concrete answer to that question – in fact, the problem itself, while universally acknowledged as existing, is not universally acknowledged as being important. Certainly, those whose business it is to influence opinion are fine with the status quo. Those who are not see two broad approaches. One is to control Internet content more strictly; the other is a user-based approach.

 

            The former solution is a sticky wicket. Does it involve more government control? More corporate control? Most Americans see too much control as no better for veracity than too little. Certainly, Hitler’s propaganda machine and the Soviet Union’s Pravda were both tightly controlled disinformation spreaders. Many equate limiting anonymity with limiting freedom of speech (Vedder 7). The need to balance necessary freedoms with the control needed to limit disinformation makes this an unlikely solution, as Americans are inherently distrustful of those who would act as censors or filters of information for the public good. A third-party authority with which to establish a site’s ethical criteria could help, but who would establish such an authority, and how? What authority would be acceptable across cultural and political lines?

 

            User-based solutions are educationally based, and involve developing a more critical attitude in the general populace (Vedder 5). This would, ironically, have to begin in early education where learning by rote is often more valued than critical thinking (which can often get you sent to the principal’s office). This critical attitude would be akin to the “don’t believe everything you read in the paper” credo of old. While we are all familiar with this old saw, it does not always translate to the Internet – possibly because, as stated, what we want to read is always out there and easily found, reinforcing what we wanted to believe in the first place. It is one thing to acknowledge that there are “dogs” on the Internet and that they lie, but it’s another to associate that definition with those we agree, or “lie,” with. How readily can people be educated to resist the lure of easy, palatable answers, especially when so many people endeavor to pass their pre-conceived notions to their children regardless of what the educational system says about those notions? Still, if more people can be taught to use the same tools that spread disinformation to debunk the same by researching issues instead of simply looking for what they want to see, perhaps the spread of misinformation can at least be slowed over time, and outlets with established ethos and integrity- like newspapers and networks of the past – built up as well. Then, the Internet can be what it could and should be – a way of empowering individuals with accurate, usable information – rather than a simple marketplace of good and bad information alike, where truth must be dug for but attractive lies are always at the ready. 

 

 

Works Cited

Vedantam, Shankar. “The Power of Political Misinformation.” The Washington Post. 15 September 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375.html

 

Weinstein, Lauren. “PFIR Statement on Internet Hoaxes and Misinformation.” People for Internet Responsibility. 28 August 2000. http://www.pfir.org/statements/hoaxes

 

Author unknown. Interview with Anne Mintz. “The Misinformation Superhighway?” Now. 4 January 2008. PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/401/internet-politics.html

 

Kirk, Elizabeth E. “Information and Its Counterfeits: Propaganda, Misinformation, and Disinformation.” The Sheridan Libraries. Johns Hopkins University. 2001. http://www.library.jhu.edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/counterfeit.html

 

Wang, Sam and Sandra Aamodt. “Your Brain Lies to You.” New York Times. 27 June, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html

 

Hovland, Carl I. and Walter Weiss. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press. Winter, 1951-52: 635-650. Synapse.Princeton.edu. <http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/hovland_weiss_source-credibility-Public-Opinion-Quarterly-1951-52.pdf>

 

Vedder, Anton. “Misinformation Through the Internet: Espistemology and Ethics.” In: Anton Vedder (ed.), Ethics and the Internet. Antwerpen, Groningen, Oxford: Intersentia, 2001, p.125-132. http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=4795. (Prints with page numbers 1-8)

 

Mikkelson, Barbara and David. P. “Bill of Write-Ins.” Snopes.com. 21 April 2009. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/platform.asp

 

Steiner, Peter. “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog.” The New Yorker. 5 July, 1993, p. 61. School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.27 August 1997. http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

                                                                                                           

 

Marijuana has been prohibited for almost a century, with effects on the nation such as high prison populations and an expensive “War on Drugs” that many call detrimental. For the past 40 years, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) and similar organizations have sought to change that. While it sometimes seems as if these efforts are gaining ground, victory remains aloof. Despite the ever-growing number of users and increasingly relaxed attitude toward marijuana, prohibition maintains a momentum that has proven difficult to counter. Recent developments in America, most notably the recession and the skyrocketing deficit, have provided fresh hope and a newborn kairos, or timeliness, for the argument that marijuana should be legalized for both medical and recreational use.

 

Medical data contradicting the established attitude toward marijuana as a dangerous narcotic has been stacking up for decades, yet has gained no ground. Indeed, while official studies are occasionally trotted out which purportedly prove that it is more dangerous than ever, these appeals to logos (logic) are secondary at best and are never trumpeted. Most of the arguments, some of which have almost become commonplaces, are based on ethos (the speaker’s authority), pathos (appeals to emotion), or a combination of the two. The major challenges are as follows:

 

• Claims by authorities, such as the DEA, that marijuana is both harmful to health and a “gateway” drug that leads to harder drugs
• The argument that marijuana causes gang violence
•  The argument that marijuana ruins lives (and, if legalized, maybe the economy) by sapping motivation and creating “slackers”
• The argument that marijuana use is immoral
• The argument that marijuana arrests prevent more serious crimes by taking the users off the street
• The argument that marijuana is addictive
• The argument that legalization would send the wrong message to young people, in effect “giving permission” to smoke it

 

All of these arguments are highly debatable. For instance, it can be countered (and has been many times) that gang violence is caused by prohibition instead of by marijuana itself, that slackers exist independent of pot, and that the government has no place enforcing morals or acting as our children’s parent. However, prohibition has lasted so long that few people bother questioning it, even some who use marijuana. The government no longer needs to back up prohibition with logical, medically based arguments, as such sound proof’s existence is largely accepted sight unseen by the general populace. Only ethical and pathetic arguments are needed to keep the status quo. Those who want legalization carry the burden of proof.

 

It must also be noted that those who oppose legalization do not come from one identifiable group. They are not all rich Republicans or poor Democrats or white people or college graduates. Legalization’s opponents come from all races, all political parties, and all social strata. The same can be said, however, for legalization’s proponents.

 

This is an important point because NORML tends to preach to the choir. Their booths are present at events such as rock concerts, hemp rallies, and Libertarian Party functions, where the message has a friendly audience. Their advertisements appear in cause-friendly magazines like High Times. This is good from a fundraising point of view, but is ineffective for spreading the message. While those who attend these functions and believe in legalization may indeed try to convince others, they are frequently dismissed by those others as “hippies” and “stoners” who don’t really care about the issue beyond their desire to get high. Their ethos cannot go up against the DEA’s. President Obama’s chuckling dismissal of the notion in a recent webcast illustrates this perfectly.

 

NORML cannot forget these people, of course. They form the movement’s core. They should be encouraged to donate and vote. In order to gain the momentum needed to change drug policies, however, NORML must expand their scope and bring their arguments to those that don’t support legalization. Ads should appear in magazines besides High Times. By appearing in publications such as Rolling Stone, People, U.S.News and World Report, and scores of other mainstream magazines, NORML will reach not only marijuana users but also legalization opponents. NORML should also use newspapers, radio, television (if it can be budgeted), and grass roots efforts such as flyers and handbills to reach as broad an audience as possible. Also, a presence at Republican and Democratic functions will increase visibility. If this is done aggressively enough, it will attract media and political attention. Thus, the media can be used not only to spread the message, but also to refute the inevitable political opposition that will come with greater visibility. Minds can be changed, but only when they are challenged frequently over a significant period of time, as in the case of global warming. No one cared about global warming 30 years ago, but it is considered a priority by much of the world after constant and varied presentation of data, arguments, and appeals to pathos.

 

Most importantly, legalization efforts thus far have been based on countering emotion and disinformation with facts, and have largely failed. As noted, this is because prohibition arguments are mostly based on emotion and the assumption that the facts were established long ago. Again, the burden of proof is on the pro-legalization side, so logos cannot be ignored – the arguments for legalization must be based on fact. In order to be more effective, however, these facts must be consistently tied to emotional arguments as well. Rhetorically speaking, arguments of pathos that persuade by creating a particular emotion can best be countered by arguments that create a different and stronger emotion.

 

For instance, it is often advertised that legal prescription drugs are more dangerous than marijuana. Recent reports claim that prescription drugs actually cause more deaths than all illicit drugs combined, with marijuana’s historic death toll equaling exactly zero. Alone, this argument fails to get much attention, but it can easily be connected to arguments more emotional in nature, such as the economy.

 

The U.S. economy – with its record setting deficit- has become the most emotional issue of the year. Doomsday scenarios are easy to find, and even those who support President Obama’s stimulus plan are nervous. People are very sensitive to any waste – or even appearance of waste – in government spending. What better time, then, to remind Americans that a recent estimate for federal, state, and local drug enforcement is $44 billion dollars – $10 billion for marijuana alone? That the same estimate puts possible tax revenues at $33 billion? That this is already America’s biggest cash crop, with uses ranging from medicine to fuels, from food to plastics, from paper to insulation? These facts can all be bundled in one argument – that while our economy dwindles and manufacturing dies in America, we are spending money to prohibit a non-lethal substance that could instead put Americans to work and help pay off the deficit by great bounds – that blends these facts with a vital emotional component. The question is, in the final analysis, “Can America afford to continue prohibiting marijuana?”

 

Furthermore, another appeal to pathos comes from the fact that manufacturing fuels and plastics with hemp instead of petroleum and making paper from hemp instead of wood pulp are both more environmentally friendly. The quick rate at which the plant creates biomass is another environmental appeal, as biomass converts carbon dioxide to oxygen and thus combats global warming. These facts have been aired before, but only as part of a larger, clinical whole. Highlighting hemp oil use to replace petroleum, however, can strike an emotional chord more than ever for economic and cultural reasons as well as ecological ones. Many people who don’t like the idea of legalizing pot may like the idea of being dependent on OPEC even less, and may be swayed by the idea of replacing petroleum with something available domestically.

 

Marijuana’s medical uses provide a strong opportunity to combine logos and pathos. So much has been made of medical marijuana over the past few years that resistance to the idea is down when regarding terminal patients. The Obama administration has already adopted a policy of leaving medical marijuana alone in states that have legal programs. Prohibitionists point out that a legal prescription marijuana derivative, Marinol, is available to treat those conditions that marijuana is used for: glaucoma, pain, and appetite stimulation for cancer and AIDS patients. Patients, however, overwhelmingly testify that the derivative is ineffective compared to the actual plant. This opens the door for the claim that the government is less concerned with those suffering from disease than they are with protecting the profits of America’s biggest lobbyists – the pharmaceutical industry. Lobbying is another political topic that Americans have become emotional about – anything connected with lobbying is eyed suspiciously these days. Furthermore, the death statistics for prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco can be brought into play. Actual patient photographs can give the abstract idea of human suffering a face. A picture of an emaciated cancer patient bearing the message that a medicine that could help her eat and regain her strength – a medicine proven safer than prescription drugs - is prohibited by law so that drug companies can make a profit from a less effective version of the same natural substance carries a factual message with a strong emotional component. Who doesn’t know someone who suffered such a painful death? Who wouldn’t have helped that loved one escape the pain and nausea if they could have?

 

Criminality is an aspect of marijuana policy that is already mired in pathos – usually as a scare tactic to drum up support. That could easily be reversed, however. The cost of enforcement mentioned before has a human component: 872,000 arrests per year, more than for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault combined. Connect this to the medical evidence and it is clear that the greatest risk a marijuana smoker faces is the risk of arrest. 30 percent of those arrested are under 19 years of age. Prohibition forces have been successful at giving these people a hardened criminal’s face, but another face could be used- that of America’s children. The argument that their lives were disrupted more by the arrest and conviction than by the marijuana itself can easily be made, especially when linked to the ethos argument to be outlined later. Using the commonplace that petty criminals become highly trained criminals while serving time, these people can be shown as normal young adults that weren’t criminals, but became criminals in jail as a result of policies that protect pharmaceutical profits, show skewed justice priorities, and waste taxpayer money.

 

There are two more forms a pathetic argument involving criminality might take. First, legalization opponents are generally seen as serious, straight people who are not at all counter-cultural; think of the Brady Bunch. Prohibition, however, creates black-market profits, profits that drug dealers violently protect. With legalization, these profits – and motives – disappear. Thus, an argument can be made that legalization’s staunchest opponents aren’t Mr. And Mrs. Main Street, but the murderous drug cartels themselves. The second is related: a direct comparison of Roaring Twenties era gang violence to the gang violence of today, and a reminder that the violence of alcohol prohibition was ended by repeal. The recent murder sprees in Juarez give this argument excellent kairos. As Secretary of State Clinton admits that American demand for illegal drugs fuels the mayhem along the Mexican border, Americans can also be reminded that eliminating demand for drugs has never been effective, meaning that the only realistic hope for eliminating the motivation for violence is eliminating the black market by legalizing.

 

            Finally, the prohibition forces can no longer be allowed to control this debate’s ethos. It has been established that those who keep marijuana illegal speak from a position of highly informed authority, and that marijuana users are stoners and slackers who are fabricating evidence for legalization only so that they can legally get high. There are many people, however, who are not “slackers” yet have expressed support for legalization, or at least a more open debate. Jocelyn Elders is among the latter, but it may be more effective to trumpet a noted conservative like William F. Buckley, Jr., who along with former NM governor Gary Johnson and Republican Secretary of State George Shultz, is among the former. To combat the “slacker” ethos that users have been saddled with, a campaign can be started that highlights people who have admitted or been caught smoking marijuana but have been highly successful, such as Olympic athlete Michael Phelps (who would have needed no apology had he been caught guzzling tequila straight from the bottle), actors Jack Nicholson, Johnny Depp, John Wayne, and Woody Harrelson, as well as Republican governor Arnold Schwartzenegger. Others include William Shakespeare, Mozart, Steve Jobs, Barbara Streisand, Pablo Picasso, and even Bing Crosby, who openly advocated legalization in the 1960s. Care must be taken not to put some of these people, such as Schwartzenegger, in the position of advocating for legalization if they have not publicly done so. The point to be made is only that smoking pot did not prevent them from becoming productive and successful people, mainly because they were never arrested for it.

 

The constant increase in marijuana use over the past few decades, the advances in medical marijuana rights, and the federal deficit have all combined to create a far more receptive atmosphere for legalization than ever before. California is currently considering legalization, in fact. Still, the pendulum can swing back quickly, or the moment be simply forgotten, if this kairos is not acted upon. The arguments for prohibition have become commonplaces while facts supporting legalization are ignored. The time is ripe to change that, but efforts must go beyond merely repeating facts to friendly audiences. These facts must be bundled with powerful pathetic and ethos-based arguments and presented to a much wider demographic, particularly those who support the status quo or are neutral. Only by increasing support drastically can drug policy be changed. Only by combining facts with emotional and ethos-based arguments for legalization and presenting them widely over an extended time period can NORML and other pro-hemp organizations reach the support levels needed to bring about this much-needed change.

Works Cited

 

 

“About Marijuana.” National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws Website. 17 March 2009. http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7305

 

            “Annual Causes of Death in the United States.” Drug War Facts.org. 2000-2008. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

 

            Thompson, Keith. “Michael Phelps in Good Company.” The Huffington Post. 5 February 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/michael-phelps-in-good-co_b_164504.html

 

            Miron, Jeffrey A. “Commentary:Legalize Drugs to Stop Violence.” CNN.com. 24 March 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

 

            “Arguments for and Against the Legalization of Marijuana.” Legalization of Marijuana.com. Date unknown. http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/marijuana-for-and-against.html

 

            Messerli, Joe. “Should Marijuana Be Legalized Under Any Circumstances?” Balanced Politics.org. 7 April 2008. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm

 

            “U.S. Shares Blame for Mexico Drug Violence, Clinton Says.” CNN.com: Political Ticker. 26 March 2009. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/26/us-shares-blame-for-mexico-drug-violence-clinton-says-2/

 

            “Obama Goes Online for Town Hall Meeting.” CNN.com. 26 March 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/26/obama.online/index.html?iref=newssearch