confused nation
gettin' famous
on the internets
since 2001
2009 print edition

Some things just aren't meant for print


Note: I pumped this out over the course of two hours a few days ago with the intention of submitting it to the student newspaper I've come to love so much. However, after facing the grim reality that it's too pompous and the very subject matter makes it unpublishable, I decided to slap it up on my blog instead. Enjoi!

As 2008 sheds the diaper of January and heads into the hormone-driven, lovey-dovey adolescence of February, you're probably noticing a shift in the student dynamic all around campus. Things seem more tense. Undergrads are pounding their fists and sharing some ill-toned sentiments at dinnertime. Graduate students trudge on per the usual, but that trudge has seems slightly affected by worldly happenings. Your Facebook account has probably become awash with invitations to support political candidates. That's right, kids: The election season is ramping up, and the very Thresher you're holding right now is bound to become a battleground of political nitpicking in the months to come. You may even become part of the madness.

But let me save you the trouble.

There's a certain clockwork mechanism to writing about politics and politicians during an election year. First you pick a topic, you write about it with varied degrees of fervor and one-sidedness, consider the opposing viewpoint for about two or three lines, and then dash it into freedom fries before your eloquent and thought-provoking send-off. Then you wait a week for some angry alumni or tenured professor to dash you to shreds using words so incredibly long, you'll wonder if they only teach them at the Ivies. Such is the process at every print institution in this nation, from the Podunk Press to the New York Times. And after you notice the doldrum process repeated article after article, election after election, you start to wonder as I have-- what's the point?

There is no point, besides maybe trolling the campus for attention. Take a look around you. We live in a world of instant information access, not a world of cheesy "I Like Ike" parade floats creeping through downtown with loudspeakers blaring campaign slogans. The age of the "elect this guy" political column came to an end after Al Gore plugged in the Internets so many ages ago. And likewise, the archaic concept of thoughtful political discussion has given way to armchair experts flinging quotes from their favorite blogs in order to sound smart. Today, people turn to blogs, web sites, iPhones, and even their make-believe online friends to decide which lever to pull on November Fourth. The decision is not made by the best-versed columnist or politico anymore, and perhaps that's a good thing.

This attitude towards political opinion applies most definitely at Rice. Consider the audience, for example. Professors and academic staff have been voting for the same party for the past fifty years. Likewise, students are pretty set when it comes to the issues that matter (i.e. drinking age, the right to carry firearms at school, whatever Ron Paul says) and had their minds made up months ago concerning which candidate to support. You can thank the Internet and national media outlets for starting campaign coverage back in 2005 and forcing opinions on us before we knew, say, anyone's actual stance on the issues. And don't forget that smart people, whether they're actually smart or just told they're smart by their friends, are usually some of the most thick-headed people you'll ever try to persuade. Good luck doing that in six hundred words.

So what's an op/ed page-- nay, the entire campus-- supposed to do with itself if one-sided, Crossfire-like bickering has become moot? There is such a thing as healthy political discussion, of course. It requires a mindset akin to a typical Rice student after a couple of drinks-- just enough to get them talking but not quite enough to get them shouting obscenities at their loved ones.

I believe this campus should spend less time worrying about which tuckus is going to fill the Oval Office throne come 2009 and more time reflecting upon what this country actually needs: Open minds, friendly spirits, and the return of the rational-thinking voter. Or we could all reflect on this campus' many needs: Communication between the administration and the student body before major construction projects are undertaken, a sense of identity that can hold tight in the wake of the Second Century speedboat, and, of course, a Waffle House.

7 comments:

Jbrd said...

There was nominal communication about the construction before it happened. From what I've heard it wouldn't have mattered what the students said, but there was at least communication - remember all those meetings we could have gone to, when the Second Century was just a whisper in the winter grass on the peaceful, efficiently diagonal walk to the RMC? Everything was presented and we had chance upon chance to air our concerns. I'm not saying the people who did accomplished much, but if we were in the dark, it was of our own volition. We could have read the stars.

ALR said...

what a sploogefest

Kyle said...

Hey Julie, quit trying to argue with me already and just tell me how you feel about the damn article!

But seriously... uh, you can't believe what you're writing. Take the TOTAL REPLACEMENT OF THE BOG ACROSS FROM THE 90S WITH GRAVEL (WHICH WILL START VERY, VERY SOON) as an example. Or the uprooting of the concrete patio our freshman year. The University does a SHITLOAD of things without giving a second though to what the students want, because we're young and stupid, and grass costs like 4 minimum wage hours a week to mow.

Seriously.

Kyle said...

I like to think that Leebron's limp handshake is a metaphor for his concern for the students-- sure, he and the university invite us to attend midweek meetings "to talk about things that concern us," but that's a far cry from communication, and a Columbia Law grad knows this well. Making a half-assed attempt to "get our concerns" just to say that he did is NOT communication. Putting a box in the Thresher that says HEY WE'RE FUCKING REPLACING SIDEWALKS WITH UNLIT MUD WALKWAYS, HOPE YOU DON'T MIND would be better communication.

Jbrd said...

Yeah, I had forgotten about the patio fiasco, thanks for reminding me ... I was pretty furious about that. AND THEY'RE REPLACING THE BOG WITH GRAVEL??????????

Okay, fair enough, new asshole ripped.

Did they discuss the bog replacement at that diet when Leebron talked to us? Did you go?

How could anyone replace the bog???

Jbrd said...

Oh, and my opinion on the article -- you could prevent comments like mine by providing more examples in the first place. Like when you talk about how the admin doesn't communicate with us, the reader is just watching you get worked up. You can emotionally involve the reader by giving a laundry list of specific examples that remind the reader of the times (s)he has been furious (patio) and possibly provide new information (bog). Of course that wasn't your main point, but ending the article on a vague, frequent complaint you assume your readers take as legit and feel as deeply as you do isn't that powerful. Work me up like you just did and I'll call it excellent ranting and maybe even decent journalism :D

Jbrd said...

And yes, I do take joy from bullshitting out pompous critiques at you.