The Modern Man

Waller Newell gave an interesting critique of modern masculinity Sunday night. Newell believes that man’s modern performance of masculinity has become a form of machismo. Traditional masculinity valued the stoic reserved individual who was a sound protector and provider. However, in recent years masculinity has malformed into a state of complete machismo. Men are expected to display their masculinity through aggression and physical confrontation. Newell blames popular culture and the media for this departure from traditional masculine values. He believes that popular novels and movies like fight club pressure men to become aggressive and confrontational, where as traditional literature instilled the stoic and reserved form of masculinity. As a result, man’s new methods of asserting one’s masculinity has attracted a negative connotation, and has thus made it difficult for the modern man to establish his masculinity in an acceptable manner.

Manliness

I thought Walter Newell's lecture on modern manhood was interesting and thought provoking. It is true that the notion of the modern man is becoming more like that of men in "Fight Club", that is, men who are violent, aggressive, and ruthless. However, the notion of what it means to be a man has changed over time. In the past, manliness and manly virtues represented chivalry, family values, and courage. It is interesting to see how the notion of manliness has changed from positive to negative over time. Hopefully, the chivalrous, courageous manliness that Newell advocated for will become the norm as we live out the rest of our lives. Lastly, I thought it was interesting how Newell referred to men in classics such as the works of Homer. Although Newell claimed that the chivalrous values of manhood existed in Homer, he admitted that in many major classic works there was always a man that embodied rage. As important as chivalry was in the ancient world, the rage and aggression associated with modern manhood still existed.

Waller Newell Lecture

What does it mean to be a man? According to Waller Newell, there is a crisis of manliness. It is apparent that men have to choose in our modern society between being a whimp or a beast. Newell's classical example comes from the movie, Fight Club. Men have become more and more tyrannical, which Newell notes that this "Macho" behavior has only turned into a recent phenomena. How can we relate these characteristics of men to politics? Well clearly male politicians are going to want to portray themselves as more "Macho" if this has become the new reformed modern culture. Not necessarily to the extreme of violence and aggression, but political candidates in particular by no means want to appear weak and appear subordinate to their position. Only tomorrow will we find out which candidates could hold this role to seek a win for their party.

Who should Obama blame if seats are lost?

Reaction to Waller Newell

Newell discussed the idea of masculinity and how it has dramatically changed over time to incorrectly represent the virtues of men. Nowadays, society expects men to suppress their emotions and portray a “tough guy” mentality defined by aggression and physical confrontation. Stereotypes of men in the media perpetuate and encourage their bellicose nature, such as in the film, Fight Club. Newell stressed the necessity of courage but also claimed that it is the lowest of mankind’s virtues. Society overstresses courage as a tenet of masculinity. In the past, masculinity had a different meaning, in the context of the family. It entailed protecting one’s family, and performing necessary masculine tasks to preserve their safety and well-being. Today, men utilize their masculinity merely for the purpose of reputation and social status. As a result, the term “masculinity” tends to carry a negative connotation.

The change in the view of 'manliness' across time periods and cultures

It was really interesting to hear how different generations and cultures view manhood and the responsibilities it entails. Of course, as stated in the presentation, our generation has most definitely been conditioned to believe that men have to be aggressive and barbaric in order to fit the stereotypical male. This is a shame, but it can be easily solved because this idea of aggressiveness and hyper-masculinity is simply a warped and exaggerated view on the chivalrous stereotype of males that existed in generations in the past.

As it was stated throughout the lecture, the examples that come from Greek mythology display how the view of masculinity in the west has changed over time. Furthermore, the professor of Asian art who spoke at the end of the lecture, presented a good point as the oriental view of the roles of males and their relationship to females in social, political, domestic, and economic situations differ greatly from those of the west, and those of the past.

A Changing Definition of Manliness

Waller Newell presented a great look into many historical contexts of what being a 'man' truly means and has come to mean as societal values and expectations change. I thought one of his most interesting points was the relationship between the genders since there are no contexts where the two genders do not interact and influence the each other. The differences and similarities have been the topic of much debate throughout history and it continues to be, especially in relation to feminist issues but also increasingly the study of males. An asian art history professor remarked that in asian culture it is impossible to consider that the two genders could be separated because asian culture is so family centered. I think that this represents a microcosm of the rest of the world where, although societies are not as extreme, males and females are inexplicably linked.

Newell also discussed the changing status of what manliness means. Classically it represents chivalry and courage but modernity had changed this view towards aggression; currently however, there has been a shift back towards chivalry. One of the most interesting things is why the pressure has changed. Obviously it is related to how the roles of men and women are viewed in relation to one another but how much of it can be attributed to innate senses and societal pressure. It is extremely interesting to consider how different men and women really are especially since their roles in society are converging due to uniform rights.

An era of volatility?

Even If House Is Lost, Obama Finds Hope In History

Most of people predict the Republican Party is going to win the mid-term election. However, even so, President Obama still has hope to win reelection. NPR compiled the information of the three former U.S. presidents who lost the majority at least one house of the congress in mid-term election but still won reelection. They are Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton thought about strategies to cooperate with the Republican Party right after Democratic Party's lost. Therefore, I think it is important for President Obama to think what the step should be. No matter his party wins or loses, mid-term election is not a decisive factor for reelection. It is also important to study the people's concerns about Democratic Party, and the aspects attacked by the Republican Party during this mid-term election, because President Obama should eliminate as many these impediments as possible for his reelection.

The Election Will Be Tweeted (and Retweeted)

Obama's Appearance on the Daily Show

I have to disagree with Will's interpretation of Obama's appearance on the Daily Show.

Obama’s appearance on the daily show isn’t a testament to his ability to rally voters or his ability to mobilize the youth vote, but only a desperate attempt to in the last few days before the election to present himself (and his party) in the best light. The mere fact that he would go onto a comedic show to try to justify himself shows desperation.

In a manner similar to “the boy who cried wolf,” the over exposed president is losing his voice in traditional means and is forced to turn to things like Comedy Central in order to be heard.

Now granted, the show’s viewers would be a good target for Obama’s self-promotion, but making an appearance on the show when they are only looking for a good laugh is not the way to make them take him seriously. Trying to make a serious point on a show that is all about political satire is a tough thing to do, which is why it was such a red flag that the President is in trouble. He sees this and is trying to pull out all the stops, which to me, seems more feeble than inspiring.

Maybe to some of his faithful followers this event seems bold, daring and well-thought-out. But for many, it only shows that Obama is waking up to the fact that you can’t always win by saying, “Yes we can.”

Divided We Fail?

This is a very angst-ridden article about the upcoming election. It ends by saying that if elections go as expected, and there is a Republican majority we should all; “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” Paul Krugman describes that dissimilar from the circumstances in the late 1990’s, the current state of economy makes bipartisan efforts in government even harder. And that with Republicans control, the much-needed policy to dig us out of our “economic trap” won’t be possible. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell states that, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” It seems that our system of “checks and balances” has come to an unfortunate extreme in recent times. The initial goal of preventing one overarching power between the three branches has been distorted by Republican and Democratic power. If Republicans come to win both the House and the Senate, people, like Paul Krugman, predict that the division among the Democratic and Republican parties will prevent a unified governmental body from working towards what is in the best interest of our country. I sincerely hope that Mr. Krugman’s predictions do not become reality in the days to come.

Bill Clinton Tried to Get Meek to Drop Out

Recently, Bill Clinton attempted to persuade Kendrick Meek, the Florida Democratic candidate for Senate to drop out of the race. Currently, the election is a three-man race between Meek, Independent Charlie Crist, and Republican Marco Rubio (Tea-Party extremist). Rubio is leading both of his opponents, so Clinton felt that if he could convince Meek to drop out, Democrats would unite behind Charlie Crist, the stronger candidate. The Democrats need to do whatever possible to retain seats because of the unfavorable political climate. It seems to be selfish of Meek to remain in the election, despite the advice of Bill Clinton. Clinton has the parties best interests at heart, and realizes the importance of sacrifice to help the Democratic Party in this election. Obviously, it is difficult for a candidate to hear these words, and he may see it as unfair to have to drop out. As a result, however, it is likely that Crist and Meek will block each other, allowing for Rubio to win and costing the democrats one more seat in 2010.

Newt Gingrich thinking about running for the White House.

The pool of Republican challengers planning to run in the 2012 election includes many big names like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump. With real leader do all these options hurt potential candidates chances to start gathering support. It will be interesting to see how the results from the 2010 midterm elections will effect the pool and if we will start to see a few lead candidates start to emerge.

Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending

Even though there was a large fund supporting Republican candidates, the Democratic Party outspent the Republican Party in this mid-term election. However, the Democratic Party is still in a worrying shape.

I think it very interesting because voters are not guided by commercials and slogans as much, instead, they became more realistic. Therefore, there is a split between campaign strategy in terms of fundraising and voters' attitude. I think, in this way, the influence brought by the spending on campaign is restricted to the political circle - people who understand politics and care about politics. The scope of fundraising influence is narrower.

President Obama Appears on The Daily Show

Tonight Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show renown, hosted President Barack Obama for the entirety of his show. Though the show had its moments of humor, I was struck by the conversation's professional and serious tone. Jon Stewart asked very serious questions about the President's shortcomings and his inability to quell the intense partisanship in Congress. I was most impressed with Obama's defense of Obamacare which he reiterated has insured millions of previously uninsured lower income Americans . He noted that because universal health care legislation has been passed it can be revised in the future without having to go through as major a legislative battle. Jon Stewart was an excellent host who professionally balanced his job as a comedian with serious political discussion that would have rivaled any "respected" news media.

The fact that the President of the United States would appear on The Daily Show so close to the midterm election to plug for the Democratic Party and defend his administration's first two years indicates that the Democratic Party is trying to mobilize the youth vote again. The Daily Show is primarily viewed by a younger audience who tends to lean Democratic. Obama is trying to reinvigorate the youth base that supported him in the 2008 election. With many Democratic seats in jeopardy this election season, the Democratic Party needs a large voter turnout to keep many at-risk candidates viable.

The President's Daily Show appearance also highlights politician's increased use of new social mediums to reach voters. A successful campaign must approach voters through older mediums such as print media and traditional news television programs and new social mediums like the internet news sources, late-night satirical television shows, and social networks. Obama was the first presidential candidate to utilize the internet and social networks to raise unprecedented amounts in fundraising and involve supporters. Obama's appearance tonight is indicative of the power of new social media in today's politics and the Democratic push to reinvigorate voters for the 2010 midterm elections.

Votes allowed to wear WWE tee shirts on Electoin Day in CT

Although she may be down in the polls Linda McMahon supports can now wear WWE apparel on election day.

Campaigning on Facebook

Texas Is Campaign Issue in California Ads

Should California create jobs at an expense of environment?

California Proposition 32 will be on ballot on November 2. Under current economic environment, lowering unemployment rate has become the top priority. California's current unemployment rate is more than 12%, and Proposition 32 aims at loosening environmental regulation on jobs in order to create more jobs. Hitting the two key words - environment and jobs, Taxes has become both a role model and the enemy, suggested by the New York Times.

I do not think we should pass Proposition 32 for the following reasons. First, we will lose our position when accusing other countries of not being sustainable. The pass of Proposition 32 might become an evidence showing that the U.S. lets go the environmental issue for its economic growth. This does not match the global image we are trying to build. Second, Most oil related jobs belong to the secondary sector of the economy, that is, jobs processing raw materials. However, currently, the largest economic sector of the U.S. is the tertiary sector, that is, the service sector. Therefore, if we create more oil-related jobs, we are developing backward.

Key Tax Breaks at Risk as Panel Looks at Cuts