"we pledge allegiance to rock and roll..."

i want to write a thesis on this!

In his 1987 culture war manifesto The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom [...] sees music as a generational obsession with no historical equivalent. It is "society's greatest madness." Literature, film, technology, career choice...nothing defines the young identity as thoroughly as musical affiliation. We pledge allegiance to rock and roll, the lowbrow howlings of cosmetic revolutionaries and pelvic ministers. The beat of rock music is the beat of sex, and the fandom of twelve year-olds is their premature induction into sexual maturity; Bloom's nightmare is young children singing "Brown sugar, how come you taste so good?" They cannot authentically be erotic, so they just gyrate and masturbate and spoil all their potential. It's not the loss of innocence or lack of family values he laments, but that the soul under these conditions becomes really boring. All the erotic tension that used to keep us tight like a bow, hungry with a desire that motivates us to transcend the mundane, is dissipated by premature ejaculation, so to speak. Eros used to fill kids with wonder and longing. Now it is all wasted like so many dribblings of ejaculate on the sheets.

the awesome part? this is the introduction to an album review for Britney Spears' recent attempt to reintroduce herself into the realm of pop cultural relevance.

rhetorical questions

today, while watching the Daily Show, a number of things occurred to me. (pardon my inertia if these are really duh, but they were pretty a-ha to me about a minute ago.)

1) why is it that conservatives champion the "joe six packs," but refuse to pay them living wages? seems like one doesn't follow the other...

2) Trojan Brand Condoms is imploring Americans to "Join the movement to help America evolve. Use a condom every time." i thought that was interesting marketing, because the first thing that came to mind was "wow, i bet the creationists are going to have a problem with that." and then i remembered that creationists are probably also the same bunch teaching abstinence-only sex ed and not using birth control.


i thought the use of the word "evolve" was an interesting choice as well, considering the implications of "the smart choice," the non-ape-ish thing to do. but there's also the idea of "survival of the fittest" – thinning the gene pool and leaving only those best able to survive current conditions. and i thought that maybe in our current state of environmental, political, economic, financial, existential and spiritual duress, how maybe what we need is less "ignorant" people. and i thought of how maybe the "smart" thing to do would be less human reproduction. but then, isn't Trojan missing the demographic that needs birth control the most? hmm... ?

also, i found this segment from the Daily Show on undecided voters particularly on point:



"[McCain and Obama] are totally different! why can't you decide??!!"


my thoughts exactly, Sam Bee.

-stef lee


p.s. whilst organizing and editing tags today, i discovered that "rhetoric" is pretty much a greatest hits of free rad!cal writings. who knew? not me.

p.p.s. scary what-if: Palin as President. just try opening the windows and doors in that office. creeepy!

on cue

and of course, this happened again.

what's so splendid about this, though, is that this little tart is the fiancee of jackass Ben Alexander, whose simian antics in passive-aggressively attacking SFS have been laughable at best.

--- Katie Klug wrote:

What do you want? And when would you like it?
Take me off your listserv -- wealth redistribution is not one of my key interests...

--- Stephanie Lee wrote:

How delightful of you to ask, Katie.

>>What do you want? A LIVING WAGE.
> > And when would you like it? NOW.

And you're not on any Students for Staff listserv. I got your email from Miami's website. I'd remove you if I knew how.

Take care,
Stephanie

----

anyway, they deserve each other. rumor has it Ben Alexander used to be a punk (without a capital P) before he met her, and then he went conservative on our asses like no one's biznass.

if love turns u into a conservative, count me out.

in other news, it's 6:20 in the AM and i just finished a final paper! it's that Foucauldian/Derridean analysis of Fight Club i've been talkin about. excerpts later...

-stephan!e

[in other other news, i stayed up all night working on the aforementioned paper, only to catch the Kurt Vonnegut news right as it was breaking. it was a strange feeling, the sudden news and the early hour of the day making me feel suddenly so alone and weary.]

i just bring out the best in people...

is it me, or do the denizens of Miami University just seem particularly starved for attn, so much so that they'll lash out at anyone hopeful enough to make compassionate appeals to them?

well, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. and boy, do i got lots o it!

but first, the call to arms:

---
Please join Students for Staff and economists, Dr.'s Stephanie Luce and Christian Weller, for a Living Wage Forum.

TOMORROW, TUESDAY APRIL 10TH

Fisk Lounge, Ogden Hall, above Bell Tower Dining Hall
4:30 PM

- talks by living wage expert Dr. Stephanie Luce and economist Dr. Christian Weller
- discussion with students and staff to follow

FREE FOOD AND DRINK PROVIDED

---

Students for Staff
FAIR WAGES = FAIR MIAMI
http://musfs.org/

---

Sponsors:
The Bishop Debate Society (Miami University)
The Center for American Progress ( http://www.americanprogress.org/)

---

and now, the pudding [*notice that i am no longer removing emails to protect non-innocents. use this info to your discretion. but do not let them know who told you... ;-) ]:

--- JT <hatfiejt@muohio.edu> wrote:
How the hell did you get this email address? Take me off your stupid hippy listserve, or I swear to god I will see to it that every single MU staff member will die cold, hungry, and alone. And naked. Make it happen.

--- Dave Sorrell <sorrelldave@hotmail.com> wrote:
Please do not pollute my inbox with your socialist drivel. I did not ask to be put on your mailing list, so please remove me immediately and do not send me any further messages. Thank you.

---
to which i replied:

You're not on any listserv or mailing list. I got your email from Miami.

You should know Miami also sells your email to spammers. Ironic, considering they also pollute your mailbox with Barracuda Spam Quarantine Summaries.

Have a good day,
Stephanie
---

and i didn't even mention how Mother Miami also sells our phone numbers to telemarketers. i thot too much truth in one day might just kill them.

love!
-stephan!e

p.s. interestingly, i remember JT from high school. he was the mopey lanky kid with a muffin cut who sat in the back of math class and never talked to anyone. now i like to think of him as the self-aggrandizing shmuck who was in my Media Aesthetics class who had to drop b/c he couldn't pull his lazy ass out of bed at 9 am 3 days a week, who saunters around campus in a camel hair overcoat, looking much too full of himself for his own good. i'd love to punch him in the neck. kids with parents with that much money and no heart really don't deserve to speak of hard-working honest people in that way. sorry. it wasn't worth holding all that in...

the hits they keep on coming

as is my usual practice, whenever my favorite student activist group (Students for Staff) has events on campus, i plug it like hell in all my classes and daily conversations. i send mass emails to everyone i can think of, and make (perhaps) excessive use of all the BlackBoard class email banks, where i've discovered i can easily send one announcement to something like 400+ honors kids at a time.

after doing this for the last 2 events, i've gotten to expect maybe one or two angry responses to my spamming. most are wondering who i am, and how i got their email, not realizing that Miami has a history of favoring spammers over the privacy of its students (in fact, Mother Miami sells our information to spammers and telemarketers. ironic since one of the frequent complaints of the Miami student specious is the excessive barrage of Barracuda Spam Quarantine Summary emails.)

well this most recent spam session resulted in the quickest deluge of responses yet. those clever honors kids! they're so sun-starved and attention-hungry, just chomping at the bit to engage in meaningful interaction with any fellow human being, that their anger pours forth like effervescent steaming magma, spewing in my face.

but no matter. little do they realize that i'm more than willing to bite back. mine is a rhetorical fight, and i am ruthless.

below, a sampling of the rantings i found pleasantly awaiting me in my inbox, a mere 5 minutes after the first wave of emails. [angry Honors kid's response, followed by mine]

but first, the context:

----

The campus org Students for Staff, in conjunction with the Center for American Progress and the Bishop Debate Society, has organized a week of events for discussing and taking action for a living wage in our community. We invite you to attend the following events on April 10 & April 12 as we explore the intersections of work, wages, class, and economic disparity at Miami University.

TUESDAY, APRIL 10TH
LIVING WAGE FORUM
- talks by living wage expert Dr. Stephanie Luce and economist Dr.
Christian Weller
- discussion with students and staff to follow
Fisk Lounge, Ogden Hall, above Bell Tower Dining Hall
4:30 PM
FREE FOOD AND DRINK PROVIDED

---

THURSDAY, APRIL 12TH
LIVING WAGE RALLY!
come show your support for a living wage!
4:30 PM, the patio behind Shriver
FREE DINNER

----


chomp chomp,
stephan!e

--- Matt Kern [email removed] wrote:

Stephanie,

You realize this is two days, and not a week's worth
of events, yes?

Can I also ask how you got my email address?

and who is the Bishop Debate Society? I've never heard of them
before. Do they have meetings?

thanks for your response...whenever it comes.
-matt kern

--- Stephanie Lee wrote:

Matt,

The Bishop Debate Society is, in my most basic
understanding, a funding source that provides
assistance to student groups who bring speakers
to campus. It was created, I assume, in the spirit
of dialog and community-engagement.

I probably got your email address from one of the
many BlackBoard sites. Miami makes it easy for all
student groups to advertise for their events this way,
and it is no form of trickery on my part.

And you are correct, 2 days does fall short of a week.
Thank you for pointing that out to me.

-Stephanie


===========

---Tim Nordquist wrote:

The more we pay them the more they will charge us to
go there. [sic]


---Stephanie Lee wrote:

That is definitely not true. Tuition has been rising the maximum amount every year, regardless of increases in wages.

As someone concerned about rising tuition, you should be wondering where all your money is going, and asking why your money is being used to pay sub-poverty wages.


=========

--- Preston Parry wrote:

Have you done any research into the economics of
living wage laws? There's a lot of factual research out
there, available widely on the internet, or through the
library's databases. It would be wise of you as the leader of
this movement to know any and all arguments you will
come up against.

Also, how much work have you done with the actual
staff members themselves? Have you tried hard to
understand their position, to get to know them as
human beings, or just as a single entity that serves
as an outlet for you and your group? I'm just curious,
because not once have I ever heard a staff member
mention to me that they weren't getting paid enough,
or that they in any way disliked their job. Maybe my
sample's just too small, but I was curious how much
research you had into this area as well.


---Stephanie Lee wrote:

Preston,

I have indeed been speaking to workers, as have other members of Students for Staff. It is our invested conversations and relationships with workers that drive many of us to continue working toward a living wage. While we could not possibly speak with all 1,600 of the Classified staff (hourly employees) at Miami, we have made an effort to get to know as many as possible, and have been working diligently in conjunction with many staff liaisons, and have met with staff advisory committees such as CPAC, in order to better understand the staff as a whole.

As someone working diligently on writing and researching my thesis, I can assure you that we do not do this for our own amusement, but because we care very much for the health of our community, and the individuals therein.

I'm glad to hear you've been talking to staff on your own, and that you've been "getting to know them as human beings." I encourage you to continue doing so.

I also encourage you to attend the Forum on Tuesday April 10th for the economics research on living wages. There will be two prominent economists from Washington DC and U Mass-Amherst who will speak to the very concerns you mentioned.

-Stephanie

living wage discourse

hey all -
i wanted to share a brief exchange that's been occuring on the western listserv (in response to my last post) that has helped me to clarify my stance on the living wage campaign on campus.

sometimes criticism can help you redefine your purpose, so i encourage all of you to go out and engage others in similar discussions. stir people up, get in debates, create a little friction. their discomfort and uncertainty is what stimulates breakthroughs!

love,
stephanie

------

> Stephanie:
>
> Please define sub-poverty wages. How much are these
> people making, what work
> do they do, what hours do they work, etc.? Are they
> primary jobs, or second
> incomes for people whose primary work is done
> somewhere else? If they are
> eligible for food stamps, do they get them?
>
> This is quite an inflammatory claim to make, and as
> someone hearing it for
> the first time I would like to know the specifics.
>
> I realize that I don't have the stats -- I don't
> know who makes what on the
> Miami staff, or what the average wage is. But if 98%
> of Miami workers make
> above poverty wages, then that doesn't sound much
> like oppression to me.
>
> [name removed]

---

[name removed] and others:

"Sub-poverty wages" means exactly what it implies: the wages paid by Miami for FULL-TIME work are below the federally defined poverty line. That is, assuming Miami wages are the primary source of income for these workers, they would be living in poverty. Furthermore, as research and opinion from Butler County social workers indicates, the federally defined poverty lines are grossly inappropriate for predicting poverty in Butler Co. because the cost of living is much higher than national averages. The more accurate estimate of poverty in Butler Co. would be 200% (twice) the federally defined wage.

What this says to me is that Miami does not respect the work or dedication of our staff members. Anyone who gives 40+ hours a week for our PUBLIC university should not be in a position where they qualify for government assistance.

It's not a matter of "if they get food stamps" or not. What matters is what these wages symbolize, which is respect and gratitude for work done, and time and energy spent. The current wage situation suggests to me that Miami does not value its staff. And this is a huge injustice that affects, and should offend, all of us in the university community.

You said "But if 98% of Miami workers make above poverty wages, then that doesn't sound much like oppression to me."

I ask you to reconsider that statement. For though it seems like a small number, it is no less significant. These are 32 individual employees who are potentially living in poverty, DESPITE the fact that they are working FULL-TIME. There are 112 full-time staff who might be needing food stamps to feed their families.

Yes, 98% is an overwhelming majority. But why should we accept that 2% are still potentially living in poverty? Is it acceptable for poverty to exist at all in our community?

Instead of thinking 32 ppl in poverty is not that bad, think of it this way: if it is such a small number of ppl potentially in poverty, then it would take even less effort from the university to make a change. For a university that continues to raise tuition and that has $47+ million in net assets, this should not be an impossible change to make.

We should not continue to sanction poverty and, yes, oppression when it affects those in our own community.

-Stephanie

having fun with stereotypes and prejudice

Q: so what happens when you put a gang of progressive liberal hippies and a gaggle of rich conservative republicans together with their internet access and email capabilities?

A: you get the western listserv.

...

Q: and what happens when you get this already ridiculous situation and you throw into the mix "serious" conversations about stereotypes and prejudice?

A: oh ho ho. a fucking riot.

b/c no one likes to be called a racist. especially not liberal-minded folk or their conservative counterparts who are particularly aware of their own demographic stereotype.

but, as i thoroughly enjoyed pointing out in one of my rare contributions to listserv chatter this week, everyone is just a little bit prejudiced. and yes, everyone uses stereotypes. even liberals. (in fact, especially liberals. studies have shown that those who strongly believe they are NOT prejudiced are actually the ones who are most aware of stereotypes.)

but, that doesn't mean we shouldn't all be aware of what we say, right?

oh indeed. ;-)

what follows is a taste of the recent jabbering on the western listserv (clogging student, faculty, staff and alum inboxes since its inception). what you can't tell is that this used to be a discussion about the upcoming elections in ohio. (as i said, things got/get out of hand). what began as an earnest effort to get people to vote, soon devolved into name-calling, agitation, and good old taking-things-too-seriously.

so enjoy the best of the worst, and read the full discussion on the online archive (click, then follow discussion by clicking 'next in topic.')

love and splendor (and a stereotype-free evening),
stephanie

p.s. i blame this uncharacteristic burst of sarcasm on my film class, in which i am happily learning to take things less seriously, to laugh a little, and to look at things more critically, with an eye for humorous opportunities. oh professor yeck, you've ruined me... ;-)



NOTE: names have been removed to protect the innocent

--- person 2 wrote:

> I remember in CCI learning about stereotypes and how
> harmful and misguiding
> they can be. Does anybody out there want to argue
> and say that stereotypes
> are good? I just don't think it would fly...
>
> In the past WEEK, I have THREE TIMES in the past
> week heard blatant negative
> stereotypes of "rich" people, all by peers I thought
> I respected. In the
> class I take to be a CLA, a fellow student
> characterized the College
> Republicans as "rich, stuck-up, and ignorant". I
> know for a fact that this
> kid went through 10 weeks of training, most of which
> concerned diversity and
> tolerance, and in the last class he says this???
>
> Here, on our very own supposedly diversity-loving,
> liberal-minded, open to
> all people Western Listserv, again rich people are
> assaulted. Since when
> are all politicians "Lizard Rulers"? And why must
> you be rich to be one?
> And how does being rich automatically make you
> eligible to be a lizard ruler
> too??
>
> Believe it or not, there are good rich people. Being
> rich does not make you
> a bad person. Being rich does not make you ignorant
> or uncharitable. Being
> rich does not make you a Lizard ruler or bankrupt of
> moral values. One of
> the biggest stereotypes is that rich people vote for
> Republicans. Yes, 53%
> of adults making over $50,000 a year voted
> Republican in 2000. But 46% of
> that income group voted Democratic in that election;
> in fact, 43% of adults
> making over $100,000 voted for a Democratic
> President in 2000.
>
> I'm puzzled at this: we all know that it is not OK
> to stereotype poor
> people, at least we would never do that over the
> public listserv. You
> wouldn't say "If any of you welfare bums would get
> off your asses, get a
> job, and stop being lazy, then you could have a
> decent life." NO - that is
> not OK. Why? Because we know that not all poor
> people are lazy, or on
> welfare, or unemployed. Indeed many poor people are
> the hardest working most
> ambitious and honest people you would ever meet.
>
> Then why is it OK to stereotype rich people as being
> next-of-kin to the
> "lizards"? Don't call a poor person ignorant or
> immoral, and don't call a
> rich person ignorant or immoral either.
>
> An anonymous quote: "Stereotypes are devices for
> saving a biased person the
> trouble of learning." Saying all politicians are
> rich and corrupt (and thus
> being rich makes you a good candidate to be a
> corrupt politician) is not an
> opinion, but a stereotype, a bias, a prejudice.
>
> -person 2

me:

i agree. we SHOULD put an end to stereotypes. they're
not fun for anyone.

while we're pointing out ones we don't agree with, i'd
just like to add that i was frustrated by the lizard
stereotype. why are lizards getting such a bad rap,
hm?

i'm upset to see all this unjustified implicit
prejudice against the lizard population. just as we
wouldn't assume a poor person is lazy/ irresponsible,
or that a rich politician is arrogant/ selfish/
ignorant/etc., we should not assume that all lizards
are bad. i mean sure, they might be cold-blooded, but
they can also be quite loving animals, and make
excellent companions. i don't know for sure myself,
but i'm sure this is true since the lizardous pet
industry is just burgeoning these days.

so why the comparisons to politicians? i'd say corrupt
politicians have done more harm than lizards (the No
Child Left Behind debate last night is excellent
evidence of this). and what's so good about human
beings anyway that we can assume superiority over
lizards? that's not only specious, it's specist.

so before we continue this discussion, let's just
pause and consider our own stereotypes and opt to take
more care and consideration in what we say.

love,
stephanie