Practice makes perfect

“Today’s Political Rhetoric Seen as Empty, Uninspiring.” Weekend Edition Saturday. National Public Radio. 29 Aug. 1994. Access World News. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. Transcript.

In this 1994 excerpt from the Weekend Edition Saturday on NPR, Scott Simon covers the current trending political rhetoric, briefly examines its effectiveness and purpose, and compares it to previous rhetoric. This is a brief overview and not an in depth analysis, but it gives good insight on the state of political rhetoric in 1994, before the use of the internet and during a time of relative peace. He mentions the use of negative T.V. advertisements as well, which suggests that political rhetoric, if it has become more violent, may have become so due to television and not the internet.

 

 

I guess I’ll figure it out when I have to

It’s just my luck that I would have three research projects simultaneously, and little way to make that research somehow overlap.

The first is for Applied Anthropology, and must be a background paper on a specific are of applied anthropology. How specific? I don’t know, but I was given the impression that my topic of choice, public policy, was too broad.  When I try to narrow the search, however, I end up with more political science research than anthropology. My hope is to focus half of my sources on specific examples of applied anthropology in public policy concerning the political assimilation of immigrants (this will overlap with some political science/general social science research) and the other half on the history of anthropology in public policy and different methodologies.

The second is a case study for a class called Cultures and Conflict. All I know is that I had to propose a study, and this study had to involve two separate cultures and a conflict. At first, this seemed easy—too easy.  After spending nearly two months in this class, I know how difficult this task will be. We haven’t even been able to identify what is “culture” is in class. I have an idea, but I have a suspicion that if I quote the three similar textbook definitions I learned for culture in Intro to Anth I will be cut off abruptly, as I was last time I tried to quote something I thought was relevant (I think the rationale behind stopping me from quoting might be that she is trying to teach us to think critically for ourselves, but if I could give a definition for culture my definition would follow one of the textbook ones, only greatly paraphrased.) I decided on a tentative topic that I hope will work: the cultures in question would be democratic and republican politicians, and the conflict would be the debate over the debt ceiling.  I dread Tuesday, when I receive my topic proposal with commentary. Also I will get my reflection from our last debate returned; I fear this even more than the topic proposal. My first line explained that I am terrified to speak unless I feel adequately informed about the subject and that this debate was difficult for me because I didn’t feel like I had time enough to prepare. Later on I explained what I learned and how the debate shaped my opinion, but I now think she will be merciless because I seemed complaining.

My third research paper is also the reason for this blog. Its purpose is to talk about technology, Web 2.0 and an area of my choosing. I chose how Web 2.0 changed political rhetoric, but both of those categories are too broad for me to find a good starting place. At first I wanted to focus on the evolution of belligerent political rhetoric in presidential campaigns, but now I am unsure. I guess I’ll figure it out when I have to.

Though last minute isn’t my style.

p.s. This is culture:

•  That complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society (Tylor, 1871).

• A society’s shared and socially transmitted ideas, values, and perceptions – which are used to make sense of experience and generate behavior and which are reflected in behavior (Haviland et al. 2005).

•  Ideas and behaviors that are learned and transmitted. Nongenetic means of adaptation (Park 2006)

Red Hands and Blue Feet

I have red hands and blue feet. No, this isn’t some kind of political statement, symbolically depicting my radical moderateness—it’s a medical condition. This unusual color combination occurs because the capillaries in my extremities react too greatly when exposed to cold. They go into vasospasm: first my blood vessels narrow, next my blood flow is restricted, my feet or hands turn white, then yellow, then finally purple and blue. As the blood flow returns my skin flushes with color, ending as a bright red.  Most of the time my hands warm quickly and my feet stay cold, meaning I usually have red hands and blue feet.

It’s called Raynaud’s phenomenon and luckily it’s only a minor condition. I’ll be able to cope with some fuzzy socks and an electric blanket.

When my grandma heard I had Raynaud’s, her first question was, “Honey, did you look it up on the internet?” Of course I did. The moment I returned from the doctor I was looking up information on WebMD. Before my doctor diagnosed me I had

image by Tcal at en.wikipedia

also Google searched “why are my feet blue and numb?”

What if I had been diagnosed before internet ? I surely wouldn’t trek all the way to the public library to check out what Reynaud’s was. I would take the lazy way out and take my doctor’s word for truth. If I doubted him, I would see another specialist.

This article from the OECD Observer comments on how the internet has changed the way patients access medical information.

A different Presidential election

My friend from Russia sent me a list of candidates running for President in her country:

“Registration of candidates for presidential election ended last week. Fifteen candidates presented their documents but Central Election Commission refused to ten candidates. So we have 5 persons:
-Vladimir Zhirinovsky ( Liberal Democratic Party of Russia);
-Gennady Zyuganov (Communist Party of the Russian);
-Sergey Mironov (Fair Russia [sic] party);
-Mikhail Prokhorov (non-Party, businessman);
-Vladimir Putin (United Russia). ”

Then I decided to look at some of their websites to read their platforms. I chose Vladimir Putin and Sergey Mironov. Interestingly, Mironov had a website in English. The first site I saw for Vladimir was his official website as Prime Minister (Russia has both a prime minister and a president). It wasn’t translated, so I ran it through Google translate (which is excellent, but has occasional errors.)
So, two points about technology:
1. It’s amazing that we can read webpages in whatever language we want.
2. I wonder why the member of the largest party in the Duma didn’t have a website in English but Mironov did.
That’s about it. I haven’t read up enough on the Russian Presidential election to offer any insightful commentary on it?