Thursday's Reading on the Watergate Scandal.

I may have missed something in the reading,

I know that Nixon knew of the intrusion into the Democrats hotel in Watergate, but I was questioning if he knew of this after the incident, or was he did he play a part in planning this?

If he had found out after, the cover up could have been his part in trying to save his face and those who worked for him. The responses given in the long trial were kind of on both sides.

So did Nixon order to burglaries in Watergate, or did he learn of it after?

Cade vs. D'Amico

It was interesting to read Toni Cade's Preface right next to Debby D'Amico's To My White Working-Class Sisters.

Both wrote of working women, but the contrast and similarities were so interesting that I wonder how a conversation between the two would end.

At first, when reading Cade's piece, I was thinking why does she want such a separation and distinction amongst the black women? I felt that she was going against the long struggle for equality. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been fighting so hard for the equality of human beings. But after reading D'amico's, I got the sense that Cade may have been arguing against the melting pot of assimilation, and pushing for maintaining one's identity, and was not necessarily trying to say that people were unequal.

In "The Current Cinema", Pauline Kael discusses the extent to which art house films became the cultural norm, especially for the growing 60's youth counterculture movement. The appeal of this style was not only the quality of the films produced, but also the feeling of being "an inside audience whose members enjoy tuning in together to a whole complex of shared experiences and attitudes." This elitist appeal and sense of superiority is arguably part of what made the counterculture movement so successful as well and still pervades the "indie" counterculture today. Does this deviation from mainstream culture actually imply a higher quality or artistic aesthetic? Or is a film automatically considered more legitimate only because it defies artistic convention?

The Ramifications of Shifting Power

In what way did the shift of power from producer to director impact the quality of the movies made? I am inclined to think that because producers were often entwined with distributors, etc., their focus was not so much on quality and freedom of artistic expression as much as marketability. However, when a director is given complete control of a movie, a complex and often ambiguous air is added to the film, inspiring several different interpretations and complicating what could seem like obvious readings.

"New Hollywood"

Professor Decker’s lecture today described the trend of decreased censorship and content regulation in Hollywood movies. Does this trend reflect a genuine shift in what American society deemed socially acceptable, perhaps brought about by becoming somewhat inured to the “shocking” as a result of all the various counter-culture movements? Or is it more the result of directors being given more artistic license or whatnot under the antitrust laws that broke up the vertically integrated system of studio production and distribution for the film industry?

Oops I deleted my post but this is for Patricia

Movies are such a passive experience. You sit down and you have no say in what unfolds, no chance to argue whatever the movie has to say--you sit and you watch. Your only power in to turn off the TV/leave the movie theater but hey, you payed good money for that ticket! Naturally, we put ourselves in the roles of the characters in a movie, we get to be Rocky, the terminator, Don Corleone for two or more hours of that day. Movies are fantasies and never full replications of the truth, but they allow us to escape into our fantasies in the least intensive way possible--sitting down! Basically, I saw the Justin Bieber movie and realized the power of movies, especially documentaries. I watched a great director portray the kid in the most talented, heroic way possible and I could not do anything about it but sit and watch--it is not easy to contest something you both see and hear! Well regardless of your views of J. Biebs, movies make one hell of an aesthetic argument!

Here's my favorite Bieber song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHVhwcOg6y8

Is film is the opium of the people?

After reading "The Current Cinema", I immediately thought of a quote my film teacher loved to share when I took his class in high school:

"Theaters are the new church of the masses- where people sit huddled in the dark listening to people in the light tell them what it is to be human."

--1930's Film Critic

Are we "looking for 'truth'- for some signs of emotion, some evidence of what keeps people together"? Do we "[go] to the movies looking for feelings that will help synthesize [our] experience," as the article suggests?

Why do we love going to the movies?

Grammy's

During the Grammy's this past weekend I found myself thinking more about our 60s class than questioning Lady Gaga's performance--but then again the Egg and fake shoulders were pretty tame compared to a meat dress. But The Kingston Trio was honored for being a folk revival band, Bob Dylan "performed", the music world remembered Mitch Miller and if Arcade Fire's performance wasn't a sensory overload I don't know what it was. Given how we learned about folk music do you think the Kingston Trio merited the title "folk revival band"? Also how do you think the legacy of Mitch Miller will be remembered?

Women in Country Music

In 'Creating Country Music', Peterson mentions that "women were systematically excluded from the business side of the developing industry and for decades were expected to fit a few stereotyped performance roles" (Bufwack and Oermann, 1993)

What were those stereotyped roles and why were women less involved in developing country music? Did this result in them being less authentic?

Is "Freedom" Panidealistic?

Something in today's lecture that I found interesting were the lyrics of "Okie from Muskogee." Although Merle Haggard may have wrote the song with the intent to poke fun at the "Okies," his use of the word "free" is worth noting because of the contrast it makes between the freedom ideal of the "country music culture" and the hippie culture, so to speak. He wrote that "We don't take no trips on LSD/We don't burn no draft cards down on Main Street/We like livin' right, and bein' free." This use of the word "free" implies that freedom precludes a duty to love one's country and respect its ideals. Counterculture, however, seemed to understand freedom as the ability to express oneself in any manner one deemed fit, be it through music, drugs, or whatever. I think that the contrast between the two is pretty cool because when most people look back on the 60's they think of the hippie culture, but there was also this whole movement of people who wanted to adhere to conservatism and the "old" America.

America: Where The Streets Are Paved With Gold

After the civil rights movement, the perception was that a WASP identity was not embraceable. Regardless of whether that was one's identity, WASP's were seen as the oppresors. Arguably, this could have led to the revival of embracing ethnicity as second and third generations of immigrants attempted to re-identify themselves. But if many of those immigrants and first generation of immigrants had grown up in a society of WASP dominance, under the "melting pot" ideology in which they felt compelled to shed their cultural customs, how could their children and grandchildren authentically embrace this reemergence of "white ethnicity"? Could they truly reflect an ethnic culture and "customs from the old world" when they themselves had grown up with parents and grandparents who had been able to abandon thier ethnic identities and customs? Or did this reemergence of "ethinc" identity simply serve as a convenient label? And furthermore, should immigrants feel compelled to assimilate and abandon their culture, or do they even have a choice?

hegel on country

In Creating Country Music, I was amused that Peterson chose a term out of Hegelian philosophy to describe his view of the cyclical trend in popularity of ‘soft shell’ versus ‘hard core’ country music. Dialectical is certainly an apt term for that trend, so I suppose there really isn’t anything that one can’t apply Hegel to.

Ethnicity in Hard Core and Soft Shell Country

We were talking about the white ethnic movement in class, and it seems that the hard core country artists are more ethnic than the soft core country artists because of their authenticity. The Peterson article states that even though the hard core country artists tended to make less money then the soft core artists, but they "have received the most attention from contemporary commentators" (150). The hard core country artists seem to parallel the first generation immigrants of the early 1900s because they want to keep their traditions alive and tend to not make as much money. The soft core country artists seem like the second and third generations of immigrant families. They would rather make more money and have a better life for themselves by keeping in touch with their heritage, but altering their traditions to better suit the world they live in and make themselves more popular.

The Republican Party

It was mentioned in class today that the Republican Party in the early 1970's wanted to affiliate themselves with country music because it held the ideal of an unchanging society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first time we see the Republican Party so solely associating themselves with one social group? I found this interesting because we still see this today, that the Republican party as a whole represents "true American values" and traditional life styles no matter the social class. Why do you think this strategy has been so consistent the past forty years?

Hank Williams' Tunes

Hank Williams' songs have been covered over the years by a handful of various artists. Unbeknownst to me, I happened to have two of them in my iTunes library courtesy of my Grandpa. The tracks are taken from two of Williams' greatest hits: "Your Cheatin' Heart" and "Hey, Good Lookin' ". Patsy Cline covered the former and Tennessee Ernie Ford the latter. Here's two more country tunes for your listening pleasure.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/355lbicxk6dxj8t/03%20Your%20Cheatin%27%20Heart.m4a

http://www.mediafire.com/file/56fauyjiuuf3g15/05%20Hey%2C%20Good%20Lookin%27.m4a

Memento/Time Out of Joint

So this is a very random post, but this past week I saw the 2000 film, Memento and saw some distinct parallels in Leonard (the protagonist) and Ragle from Dick's Time Out of Joint. Where Leonard chooses to set himself up so as to make himself feel better later and Ragle becoming so stressed and pressured he makes a mini world to safely live in. Is this a universal human characteristic? Do we all set ourselves up to block out what we don't want to hear/see/feel and only view what we wish to see just to varying degrees? (unless you guys have "Facts" tattooed on your bodies and enjoy planning where green men appear and I just don't know!)

how united are we?

It seems like Americans, in order to truly come together as a country, consistently need a common enemy to stand up against. While it would be ideal if American People could unite under positive causes rather than negative ones, troubling situations again and again seem like the driving force of the "United" in the United States. For example, George Wallace was likely at the height of his power when he took a negative stance against integration and the whole country was aflame with civil rights. When that issue calmed, he then moved on to the war on Communism as he new target. However, even though Wallace focused on more positive issues toward the end of his political career, he had not nearly the power he once had when was slinging insults. What does this say about American politics in general? Are we to be forever restless for rebellion?

Wallace's Repentance

The documentary showed us a completely new Wallace after he was paralyzed. When he went back to campaigning he repented his past actions and succeeded in garnering a significant amount of black votes. The African Americans shown in the documentary seemed to wholeheartedly support him and believe that he had returned to "the old Wallace." To what extent was this transformation genuine? Was it just another ploy to win votes?

Political Science Paper

For my political science paper last quarter,

I looked at the percentage of those who thought going into the Vietnam war was a mistake, and who thought it was the right idea, based on educational level. I was expecting that the college educated would be more disapproving of the war, but this did not prove true in my research. The college educated actually were more approving of the war than the only high school and lesser educated people. I talked about some of the possible reasons in my paper, but would like to know what you guys think about why the college educated were more pro-Vietnam in 1964?

from the lectures

From the documentary and commentary from the professor on tuesday and thursday, we discovered the lengths an individual would go for attention, approval, and power. In George Wallace's case, he went to as great lengths as to completely changing his beliefs and physically getting in the way of two black students trying to attend the University of Alabama in order to get more attention and followers. This concept (especially found in politics)of doing something not because of the good that would come out of it or how morally right it may be but for one's own gain raises the important question of can anybody do anything without expecting anything out of it?

George Wallace: The Fighter

Professor Aberbach raised the question in lecture today on who the real George Wallace was. He was a a fighter. His main goal was to win. He had tried to fight in the beginning of his political career for better streets and free books, but when the public didn't listen and he lost, he was underprivileged in terms of power. So he fought on the majority's side against integration and for segregation. Yes, he was a man who at the very beginning and end of his career helped the poor regardless of their race, but in that in between time he was fighting to get elected so he could have the opportunity to make changes. And in order to win, he had to fight on the side of the segregationists even though the real him only wanted improvements to help the state and the poor, and according to his daughter, "Power."

The Kennedy Curse

Intricate, delicate, and tragic, the Kennedy family is compellingly complex. From JFK to Robert to Rosemary, their family is not only full of accomplishment but plagued by tragedy. However, before tragic demise seemed to grip every one of the Kennedy siblings, there was a time when the reign of the Kennedy brothers was energetic, powerful, and full of promise. I found an article from the Los Angeles Times in 1962 that talks about Robert Kennedy, as he was repeatedly mentioned in our reading for this week. I find the last section to be eerily prophetic- check it out.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=481683972&sid=1&Fmt=10&clientId=48051&RQT=309&VName=HNP