The End.

After looking back at my first post, I still agree with my definitions of a protest. I said a protest expresses opposition to something (policies, events, etc) through words and/or action. This definition is pretty flexible and after studying different examples of protests in the class, many, if not all, of the protests fit my definition in some way or another. I also said there are no specific requirements in order for an act to be considered a protest as long as it's protesting something. We've looked at Malachi Ritscher, who self-immolated at the side of a highway to protest the Iraq War; we've looked at Critical Mass, a monthly gathering of bike-riding people; we've also talked about Aliza Schvartz, who used abortion as a medium of art and many, many others. There's no common thread that goes through these acts other than the fact that each of them is protesting something.

However, I've changed my mind about what makes a protest successful. I said at the beginning that in order for a protest to be successful, it needs to raise the public's awareness about the issue at hand and rouse people to join its cause. I've learned that while getting people to join your protest (or change their minds) is nice, it doesn't have to be the primary objective of a protest. Gaining attention also doesn't necessarily mean a protest is successful. For example, Aliza Schvartz's "art" garnered a lot of attention. But what did it prove? Her intention wasn't really clear to me. If the person/group who is protesting feels passionate about his/her cause and believes that he/she is making an honest stance, I would consider their protest successful.

This Is a Protest Song Because...

I picked "Mosh" by Eminem as my protest song example. Moshing refers to people shoving/pushing/slamming/whatever against each other at live music performances and Eminem's song is basically calling for a big mosh against George W. Bush and his administration. The song and the video accompanying it was released just a few weeks before the 2004 presidential election to inspire the younger generation to vote against Bush. Eminem says we put him in office ourselves 4 years before and that now it's our responsibility to put him out of it after all the things that have happened in Bush's first fours years in office.

Mosh pits outside the Oval Office, someone's tryin'
to tell us somethin' maybe this is God just
saying we're responsible, for this monster
This coward that we have empowered

Eminem also says Bush is waging the Iraq War for his personal gains and criticizes the government for condemning those who speak out against the war:

No more blood for oil, we got our own battles
to fight on our own soil, no more psychological warfare
to trick us to thinkin' we ain't loyal

"Mosh" is a scathing indictment of President Bush and the War in Iraq. It calls for people to vote and start the change on their own rather than waiting for somebody else to fix the situation. It is an angry, intense, and emotional call for people to come together for a same cause. The song was an admirable effort by Eminem and it certainly got me hyped up when I first heard it. But ultimately, I think it did little to bring about real changes he desired.

I think protest songs can be effective to a certain extent, but I don't believe they can bring about a significant change in the society. Songs like "Mosh" can get people amped up and make people think about certain issues, but that's about it. The 2004 election saw a significant increase in youth votes compared to 200, but as we all know, G-Dub won the reelection and the rest is history.

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore

I don't consider either Coulter or Moore to be a protester. Like many Americans, they're from two opposite sides of the political spectrum who believe very strongly about certain issues and beliefs. Coulter and Moore just have very loud and obnoxious (?) way to voice their opinions. They're not protesting anything, but rather trying to persuade people from other sides to join their causes. However, Moore might come off as a protester because popular liberalism has been taking beatings in the recent years.

American public supports them because many people DO have exactly same opinions about issues that Coulter and Moore speak about and people are glad that someone is out there speaking out for the causes they believe in. They capture the public attention by using sensationalistic methods. Coulter is attacks anything and anyone who doesn't agree with her and is very rude about it. And some people actually enjoy Coulter's antics. Michael Moore uses jokes and seemingly incriminating evidence against his opponents, complemented by choice music. Neither of them bothers to acknowledge that there is another side to their stories. Even though their rhetoric is obviously flawed, many people, including myself, are fascinated by it because it's funny and entertaining.

Fallacies and Ann Coulter

I don't think anyone can Ann Coulter seriously, whether he/she is a liberal or a conservative. Some people might agree with her basic positions, but the way she presents those positions and the way she defends them does not lend much credibility to the audience. And her positions are what any typical right-wing conservative would take. The difference is that Coulter stirs up controversy by making rash, unfounded comments and constantly resorting to personal attacks and twisting what others have said, as proved by the video clips. When someone tries to rationally argue with her, Coulter just repeats what she'd been saying (begging the question) and keeps on making hasty generalizations. I think what people find interesting is the controversy, not the politics.

I don't think Coulter is very persuasive at all, especially to someone who does not know her that well. I'm somewhat familiar with Coulter's basic arguments and positions and I agree with some of them, but the way she argues them almost makes me want to switch my positions just to oppose her. People who might find Coulter persuasive are probably those who are staunch supporters of conservative values and do not trust in liberalism one bit.

However, one other thing you have to consider when watching some of the clips is who's hosting/presenting the discussions. On couple of the clips we've seen, she was on MSNBC, which is known for promoting liberal/left-wing values on its shows. Would the hosts or anchors have so contentiously argued with her were she on a different station such as the Fox news channel?

Jesus Camp

Jesus Camp follows a group of Evangelical christians from a christian children's conference to a camp called "Kids on Fire" held in North Dakota. It shows the kids going through "born-again" experiences, with their parents and minsters as their guides. I thought it was very objective and allowed the viewers to form their opinions about the topic presented.

I found the documentary very interesting, but I was perplexed at the same time. Being raised in a devout Catholic family, I know what it is like growing up with religion and God as a major part of someone's life. But I think the families in the documentary took this to a whole another level. Seeing kids who aren't even in their teens almost obsessed with religion and spirituality made me feel a little weird. Granted, the documentary focused on the religious sides of the families, but I wonder how I would've taken such an upbringing. While I don't doubt the existence of such intense experiences (speaking in tongues, crying, feinting, etc) because I've witnessed/experienced them myself when I was in high school, I think it's wrong for the ministers and the parents to force the children accept that kind of life at such young ages. It was my choice to accept God and go to the conferences, not my parents'. I think the children should be given that same choice.

My Writing Process

When I'm writing a paper, I like to be in my room with my headphones on. It really bothers me if my music isn't playing when I'm writing a paper, or any other assignments for that matter.

The first thing I do when writing a paper is research my topic. I usually go online to do my research, but if I can't find enough information on a given topic, I'll use the library services. After I have done the research and gathered enough information, I think about what direction I am going to take with the paper. Once I sort of have an idea of what I want to do with my paper, I take some time to develop a good thesis that'll guide my writing. Then I write a very rough outline that more or less serves as the backbone for the whole paper. Then I sit down and start writing using the outline as a guide.

The hardest part about writing a paper for me is starting the whole process--choosing a topic, thinking about a general direction of the paper, and just getting off my butt and doing the research. The easiest part is actually writing the paper. Once I have come up with a thesis and have made an outline, writing the paper itself is relatively easy for me.

How does appearance affect protest?

The appearances of the Yes Men and those of the punk movement are very different. While the Yes Man cultivate a business-like image in order to pull off their pranks, punks construct their clothing, music, and lifestyle to oppose the dominant norms of the society. Both groups' appearances are beneficial in their own way and make their protests much more effective.

In the documentary, one of the Yes Men says that what they are trying to do is "identity correction." Whereas identity theft criminals steal citizens' personal information to commit crimes, the Yes Men hijack the identities of corporate "criminals" to humiliate them for conspiring against the public good. When they give fake presentations, the Yes Men impersonate the normal businessman; they wear suits and ties and generally look like people who we'd expect to be a part of corporate America. This appearance allows them to attend conferences and give presentations. No matter how outrageous their claims and statements are, no one really questions the Yes Men's credentials just because they look and talk like representatives from the WTO. I think that says a lot about the effect appearance has on people.

The punk movement just goes against most of the established societal norms. They wear torn shirts, dog collars, "aggressive" jewelry, etc. The movement's alternative fashion is meant to be subversive, but I don't think it achieves anything other than creating shock value. I doubt many people outside of the group particularly care about what message punks are trying to convey nor will be swayed by their opinions. I do think the punk movement's fashion is a protest, but not a particularly effective one.