Political Words

The news media has gone off the deep end with word games. So called pundits blab away at each news cycle with no context whatsoever. They have managed to devise these labels that have no real reference to anything. These one-word, one-liners become conversational spit-balls that get flung around amongst us. We get mad at each other for no reason except that TV news media sucks!

We need a good dose of exposition here, a rational common place. Ostensibly a factual nonbiased reference for TV news media is a naive pipedream but could we at least hear one of our mainstream voices say, “Y’all don’t know anything!”

Take the word “jobs” for example. America needs jobs. We need job creators. That’s what we’re told. Are we really out of jobs? Is there nothing out there for people to do and get paid for?

Wrong. There’s plenty of work out there and we all know this. Chances are you are doing the job for two or more people on you own. We wait in frustration for others to do their jobs while they're overworked, underpaid and have no help. It’s all around us. Either you are overworked or unassisted or both.

We do not need “jobs” we need “hiring.” The jobs are there. We need those with businesses and those in government to lose the fear and hire people. But they won’t do this. Why? Because they believe that it's safer to have less people. They forget that more people means more productivity; more productivity means more revenue. It’s that simple. Yes it is.

Fear is derived from another word that’s flung around in TV news media, “economy.” They’ve managed to redefine this word so that we don’t even need to call it a “bad economy.” We already assume it’s bad. “The economy today. . . [L]” Or, “Today’s economy . . . .” is always followed by something bad. And we act as people living in a bad economy because we hear these words. It’s all in our heads.

TV news media pundits are good at one thing, acting. They can act. There’s no lack of emotion, opinion and drama on the news. It’s plenty entertaining. Socrates was right. This rhetoric only proves one thing. They don’t know anything.

My Advice to You

Don’t get tangled in spreading these words their way. Speak about the meanings of things. Leave the labels out. Don’t fear or get angry over words. Words by itself mean nothing. The truth is, it doesn’t matter. Things could very easily be better for all of us if we just believe it.

To the Pundits

I have two words for ‘ya, “fuck off.”

    

Online Dating Communicating

Online dating continues to grow in popularity. Apparently 20-30% of relationships are the result of an online date. At least this is what we’re told from the commercials. Whatever the actual statistic is the consensus is that indeed online dating has caught-on in a big way. Chances are you have heard a good story or two about a friend’s online date. And chances are you have gone on one yourself. And I have too, four of them to be exact. The concept puzzles me. Specifically, which part of the online searching experience prompts someone to meet offline and go on a date?

The Men’s Perspective

Jeff, a student of a colleague of mine says, “For guys, you have to cast a wide net. Honestly, when I message girls I don’t say much. Hey, like your pics, blah, blah, blah. And they either message back or they don’t.”

Jeff assumed to take me on as his padawan learner. He shares with me what he considers to be the ultimate online dating score. I’ll spare you the insecurities, however; he admits to having copied and pasted the same “blah, blah, blah” message to over a hundred different girls and landing about five responses. That’s 5% for Jeff. Is that good? I guess. But what do I know? I never “scored” from an online date.

My buddy Lou picks up where Jeff left off with the online dating tips. We often meet up for a beer or two and each time he tells me of a new online dating related experience, many of which he says result in a score. Again, I will spare you the details but add only that Lou has had things move very fast on a first date. This blows my mind. Considering the getting-to-know-you conversation based online dates I’ve been on, I can’t imagine things getting to that level, especially on a first date.

Do I envy Jeff or Lou? No, not exactly. But I don’t prejudge either of these guys. What interests me at this point about online dating is what sparks people to move from the online realm and meet in person and not the overall goal of the thing.

After explaining to Lou that we are at opposite ends of the online dating world he presumes to give me a hand with how to message girls the right way. I’m the freaking writer here!

He asks me what I message them with and I explain that I simply read a woman’s profile, look at the pictures and make a comment on something that’s interesting. My strategy is to relate to her by messaging something cool and significant to what she has put in here profile. I usually spend a lot of time editing these messages. I allow Lou to read one, “Ugh! Dude, this is too boring! You gotta flirt with ‘em a little bit!”

Ahh, yes! Flirting. This is something that I don’t consider myself to be a pro at. I guess then, it makes sense that this flaw would transition itself onto my online dating technique.

Lou offers a suggestion, “Here’s one of mine.” “Did it hurt . . . when you fell from heaven?” Really! “Or something like that” he says.

Our immature conversation went on until Lou convinced me to try it his way. I found a nice looking young woman on a site and messaged her with a similar pick-up-line. Then I remembered Jeff’s piece of advice. So I copied and pasted it to several other women as well.

I actually got a response from - based on her profile - a very cool, attractive and accomplished young woman. We started messaging back and forth. It was difficult to follow up with the cheesy pick-up-lines. I wasn’t sure what to write her. So I decided to cut to the chase and ask if she’d like to meet. What would I do then? Ultimately I would have to quit the charade and be my normal self. But I had to see where this would go.

We agreed to meet through the messages but while setting this up something happened. The tone in the messages changed. Then the response time lengthened. She then asked to reschedule and I agreed. And that was it. It sort of faded away. And like a hungry bear trying to catch a salmon in a stream. Almost had it! But it swam away.

Who knows what happened there. It could have been anything really. Perhaps her instincts were telling her that something was off. My profile, the pick-up-lines and the other messages didn’t add up. If it was her analytical skills that threw-the-brakes on this then I’m most impressed. I find it amazing that simple text and pictures are used to play this game.

Such a complex array of information and communication is online dating. The level of work that must go into your profile and in each message in order to get a response is astronomical. Things have to be lined-up just right to actually meet someone you find online.

The Woman’s Perspective

My friend Jen shares her experiences with online dating from a woman’s perspective. She’s had several unfortunate dates but one of her stories in particular is shockingly good.

She agreed to meet a guy who lived about an hour away. She thought he seemed nice from his profile and was polite in his messages. He arranged them to meet at a bar restaurant where he lived and insisted that she park in a certain lot near there.

Jen arrived a little late. She drove a long way so this should be expected. But the guy had kind of a bad attitude. She wasn’t sure if it was because of her lateness or if it was something else but tried to make the best of the situation, had a beer, ordered some food and tried to make conversation. “It was awkward as hell” she said. “I didn’t know what was wrong with him but I was getting kind of tired of it.”

Then the guy suggested they move to a different bar. Jen said that she pretty much had her mind made up about the guy but was willing to give this first impression a second chance, especially since she drove so far to meet him.

The date didn’t improve. Jen was tired and ready to leave. But there was one problem. The parking lot, that the guy insisted she leave her car in, had closed with her car locked inside. What a plot! She was stuck there.

Jen was furious. She didn’t know what to do. It was late. The parking lot would not open back up until early next morning. She did not have money for a hotel. Then the guy offers for her to stay at his place. Of course! Poor Jen didn’t have any options. So she agreed. “I told him there was no way anything was going to happen. He had an attitude about what I said but acted polite otherwise. He didn’t seem weird or dangerous he was just kind of an asshole.”

They went to the guy’s place. He set her up on the couch in the living room. She said he seemed pretty normal and didn’t try anything. He went to his room. She laid-out on the couch and tried to get some sleep.

A few minutes later the guy came back to the living room. “He had nothing on but a pair of ‘freakin Speedos! Hell no!” she said. “Fine” said the guy and he went back to his room.

Jen made it out of there the minute the parking lot reopened the next morning. “Worst night of my life!” But it is a fun story.   

What was so impressive about the guy’s profile? How did he use his profile and the messages to lure her in? What compelled Jen to go on this date? “I had nothing better to do.”

  

So maybe online dating isn’t analyzed all that much after all. Maybe a basic profile is all one needs. Maybe the messaging is not all that important. People use online dating for something to do. It’s fun. It’s an adventure!

My friend Kristina shares her viewpoint of online dating. “It ‘kinda messes with things. Maybe you were not supposed to meet that person. Or maybe you were but not at that time.”

A lot of people share Kristina’s viewpoint. Online dating is kind of generic and not the ‘real way’ to meet people. It begins with pictures and small letters. These were typically things that came after you met someone. Now it comes firsthand. Does that mess with the natural order of things?

Conclusion

Even though, the communications of online dating are very personal and narrative, the actual functionality is very basic. It is mostly for information gathering. Written profiles and text messages can be taken almost anyway the reader wants to. If you start chatting with someone online and then move to meet them in person it is probably because each of you simply decided to and not because of any explicit message that was sent. Meeting someone has more to do with whether or not you feel like it and not because of something persuasive they wrote. The written material on an online dating site is mostly expository. It’s there for info. And in all of this information it is probably the picture of you that’s the most crucial. So, get a nice picture of yourself. It will be up to you to interpret the rest of what’s online in the way you feel it should.                   

After talking with a few of my friends on this subject and considering my own experiences I convinced that online dating is not totally different than any other kind. The difference between traditional meeting someone in person and then getting to know them versus meeting online first is like the difference between ice hockey and an ice hockey video game.

All four of the online dates I went on were similar. It was just a couple of drinks and a conversation and that was it. I can’t imagine it going beyond that because those are my experiences. And that’s me. I guess each person’s experience is different. I couldn’t go back to the cheesy pick-up-lines because it’s not really what I do. I could try to go on another date but the truth is that I got bored with it.

As for my future with online dating, I’m no longer subscribed. At the moment my hands-are-full with a lovely young prospect and I did not meet her online. Ha! Take that cyberspace!      

Deconstruction vs. Exposition

Fellow classmates! How are ‘ya? Are your brains fully-cooked from this week’s reading? Mine is. I’m glad this is our last one and must admit that although, a lot was learned from these readings; it’s definitely time to chill-out with this stuff.

Our first night of class started with a discussion about exposition. “What is exposition?” Cheryl asked. I remember our discussion leading to some consensus that clear, simple, straight-forward writing is best. And that to fully understand what the writer is trying to communicate is probably the overall goal in writing. This is exactly what Reddick proposes is the purpose for expository writing, to communicate new information from a text that the reader will understand.

I can’t help from feeling the need to try and summarize Reddick. I admit this is over the top but I want to try something here. I will attempt to explain my understanding of the reading with good ‘ol fashioned bullet-points and include my questions at the end.

Key

writer = interpreter

reader = student

teacher = analyst

subject = discourse 

• Pg211: The concept of expository texts is challenged. Does a true expository text exist? 
• Pg212: Texts seem to suffer the need for the reader to already have some previous knowledge of the subject or its point is lost. 
• Pg213: In order for a text to fulfill its goal it must take form of some recognizable object for the reader. 
• Pgs214-215: The writer and reader must relate to each other’s perception of reality in order to move forward in another area of explanation. Some object of reference must be established, perhaps something from everyday normal life, in order to communicate. 
• Example: Markels’ paragraph shows how referencing an object can be used to convey an understanding. 
• John likes Columbus. He likes its low inflation rate and its very low crime rate. He enjoys its many foreign food stores. He likes the city's extensive park system. Finally, he likes the cultural and sporting events that the city provides. 
• Pgs216-218: A text does a lot to confirm the writers own understanding of the subject but what about the reader? The reader must already have some connection with the writer in order for information to be exchanged. Example: Spivak’s piece on the human psyche may only be understandable to the reader if they had previously read Derrida, Lacan and Freud. 
• Pgs219-220: Our main experience with an expository text comes from scholastic textbooks. These texts must be accompanied by the ‘mastery’ of the teacher or the intended lesson is lost. The text cannot deliver the information on its own. It must come with an interpreter who essentially has the same knowledge as the writer. 
• Conclusion: An ideal scenario where the teacher and writer share the exact same knowledge of a subject is probably not possible. An expository text will always be somewhat vague. Thus, to learn from a text is not exact. This type of academia is perpetual.
• (Reddick)

How do you feel about learning from a textbook? How much can be learned about a subject from reading?

Are the traditional ways of teaching using texts flawed? Outdated? Better than ever?

Is there such thing as a non-biased expository text? Are texts becoming more narrative?

Does postmodernism deconstruction kill expository discourse?

---

Reddick, R.J. "English Expository Discourse." (1992).