Up, Simba

Sorry for the late posting.

While I was reading Up Simba (better late than never) I was, like I said in class, bored. The author exhausted every detail of his following McCain's campaign trail. The only that kept me reading was my own curiosity of WHY the author was hanging on to every detail in his narrative.

So there's this account of what he experienced during his following. How he saw the people around him, how they interacted with each other. The chemistry of the campaign trail in it's purest form. How can anyone argue with him? He's just telling it like it is, right? Dubiatio- make them think you don't have any tricks.

Young people is the target audience, and young people don't care. They will all probably flip through this edition of Rolling Stone looking for pictures of Steven Tyler and Snoop Dogg and articles about Courtney Love's latest overdose. These people aren't going to care about the people that follow John McCain around the primary campaign trail. Maybe that's the point he's trying to make- young people don't care, and that's exactly what their strategy is. Make it uninteresting and appalling to the young population and they will keep with the status quo- don't vote, don't care. Really? Who cares what is in McCain's iPod?

Up, Simba

Perhaps it was the Jay Heinrichs sarcastic feeling, or even all the ethos that indulges me in Up, Simba. First, in the foreword, Wallace establishes himself as "NOT A POLITICAL JOURNALIST," which is followed by many other claims, but that he is solely a Rolling Stones magazine writer. This is important to me because by stating this, I was then inclined to believe that he is an average American writing on what he sees and experiences on the campaign trail.

The use of sarcasm brings a notion of informality, but the way that he uses this sarcasm is in an educated, structured way establishes credibility and ethos.. Most people use sarcasm as a way to express a feeling or thought, but use it in a way that doesn't truly serve much purpose. Wallace, on the other hand, gives the sarcasm in a way that pulls me into the article much deeper. For example, he says,"Do you give a shit whether McCain can or ought to win. Since you're reading Rolling Stone, the chances are good that you are an American between say 18 and 35" By presenting the cold, hard truth of most young Americans, as well as establishing ethos to his name by presenting a statistic, he is able to get his point across without having to beat around the bush. Another prime example is when Wallace states "The two press buses are known as Bullshit 1 and Bullshit 2, names conceived as usual by the extremely col and laid-back NBC News cameraman Jim C." By naming the campaign buses as "Bullshit 1" and "Bullshit 2" that adds humor to a rather dry subject of politics.

In its entirety, this work reminds me of Jay Heinrichs, due to Wallace's frequent notion that he is speaking directly to the reader, rather than solely stating facts without any personalization. Because of the personalized feeling, this leads me to give Wallace credibility for his writing.

McCain's Layers

This extremely long article has so many layers to talk about, just as McCain has so many layers to talk about. However, the two things I keep coming back to as a reader who can look back over the past nine years and feel regrets for my country, is the “what ifs” and the irony of the 2000 election juxtaposed with the 2008 election.

First, I cannot help wonder how the Iraq War would be different, or whether it would exist at all if McCain, a POW, would have been chosen as the Republican nominee over Bush, who avoided the draft. If McCain would have somehow managed to win the presidential election, certainly this man who experienced the worst of Vietnam first-hand would not have made the same mistakes of that war again. I feel like McCain has just been screwed over by Bush so many times: from negative campaign ads to how Bush’s conduct with Iraq has altered the way that many Americans think about Republicans, or even politics in general.

McCain, was the wrong layer of who he is at the wrong time. In 2008 America was calling for, well, a change. Obama quickly gobbled up this concept with his “Change we can believe in” slogan. And then who was the original master of change, John McCain, suppose to be?

I went to a presidential rally for Obama. I skipped school for Obama. I was in aw of the feeling in the crowd. A rock concert response to a president. The ironic thing is that this was how people my age were treating McCain back in 2000, but it wasn’t enough for McCain to get nominated back then.

I feel bad for McCain. He seems to never be able to catch a break. In the 2000 election he was too different from his own party to beat out Bush as his party’s nominee. He bashed the right wing televised church groups that supported Bush, he refused bundled and soft money, he was open with reporters allowing them to ride with him in his campaign bus. BUT, America was not ready for him. Then in 2008, I honestly thought of him as a bitter old man who seem like he would just be more Bush, although he fought hard to portray himself as not being like Bush. This was the first election that I could vote in and honestly, me along with most of the people my age were uninformed about who the McCain of 2000 was. He was called the “Maverick” to try to regain some of his glory in 2000, but to me, a maverick just sounded like a nice way to old and outdated. For the America of 2008, McCain was not different enough.

Perhaps if more people would have been able to read “Up, Simba” before the republican nominee was chosen in 2000 or bothered to read it before the presidential election of 2008, our history may have been completely different. Better or worse, who is to say? I’m only speculating.

Up Simba

After reading Up Simba, I was impressed by Wallace’s use of rhetoric, specifically his presentation of his ethos, and the representation of the political process especially the behind-the-scenes show. Even though Wallace mentions his position as a RS writer and the neutral position of the article, the most impressive focus for me was directed toward the online audience. He mentions “whether it works on your screen or Palm or not, for me the whole thing ended up relevant in ways far beyond any one man or magazine. If you don’t agree, I imagine you’ll have only to press a button or two and make it all go away.” He sets up his position, yes as a neutral writer, however he understands that this audience, the one willing to actually read through despite the distraction of a web browser or streaming, will adhere to the ideas he’s implanted in the article. The forward is an interesting element to the entire article. He already discusses very heavily in “Who Cares” whether “[you] even give a shit whether McCain can or ought to win.” The millennials, as this current generation is called, is one that has developed a dependence on the use of technology to learn whether it be politics, economics, and especially academic. Hence this demographic, this “generation who has cared less about politics and politicians than yours” , is composed of millennials, a group composed of digital technology users and as a rhetorical element to include this new audience was an interesting and strategic technique. Most importantly had I not found this article through this class and stumbled online, this foreword would’ve captured me. The inclusion of all the difficulties of the campaign trip as well as the definition of certain terms helped include the audience in the surreal world where you hit “the rack at 0130 and get up at 0600 and do it all again” merging in a progressive perspective where Wallace includes the audiences, depicts the main subject, reveals the background, and shows the “Negativity” that occurred – hoping we “stay awake” during the entire process.

Up, Simba

Much like Maya Lin's article Making the Memorial, I felt like Wallace's Up, Simba was very conversational. He seems to make it clear that this article is just him describing the election exactly the way it went down through his eyes. Wallace takes us behind the scenes of the rhetoric used by the politicians in this election. It seems to me that Wallace is trying to say that the whole process is just a bunch of politicians scamming people into voting for them because they ultimately are trying to "become the most powerful, important, and talked-about human being on earth." I think he is trying to point out that it is important to look into what a politician like McCain is really trying to achieve when he says "I run for president not be Be Somebody, but to Do Something." So pretty much he wants the youth of America to be less selfish and more involved with the issues of our country or is this just another way get the youth of American to vote for him. This reminds me of Kennedys line "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Isn't it all just a big scam to get us to believe in something that the politicians themselves probably don't even believe in. I think Wallace does a good job of pointing out how ridiculous some of the candidate's one liners are that often persuade a whole audience to think that they are supporting something miraculous. When McCain says he will always tell the truth, the whole audience cheers but why? Wallace points out that many of us won't agree on his truth that the gun laws are safe or that MLK's birthday shouldn't be a holiday in Arizona but who cares, as long as he is telling the truth everything will be ok!

Up, Simba

Upon completing “Up, Simba” I was impressed by the ethos that Wallace builds for himself at the beginning of the article. I think they way he presents himself not only caters to the right audience but also is effective in creating a non-biased representation of the John McCain’s campaign. Since this article was written to be included in an issue of “Rolling Stone” the colloquialisms and phrases he uses properly fits into the foundation of the magazine.

For example, numerous times in his article, Wallace uses curse words like “bullshit” and “shit”. While this fits in with the decorum established by “Rolling Stone”, it wouldn’t be acceptable in a formal newspaper. I think this is why this article is so fascinating. In the foreword at the very beginning of the article, Wallace establishes himself, in a very similar way to Sontag’s “Trip to Hanoi”, as “NOT A POLITICAL JOURNALIST” and has “no partisan motives or conservative agenda behind [his] article”.

Both of these elements help to improve how enjoyable the piece is to read. By having Wallace establish that he is not a qualified political journalist and that he can cater to a younger audience just by the language he writes with, brings a fresh perspective to a topic many citizens consider uninteresting. This hooks the reader at the beginning of the article and slowly transitions to talking more about campaigns and politics.

Fortunate Son

I like "Fortunate Son" because the lyrics are easy to understand, and it reminds me of O'Brien in The Things They Carried. O'Brien was drafted into the war against his wishes and talks about how he didn't even believe in in it. He hated the "simpleminded [patriotic]" people, which is similar to "star spangled eyes" in the song. The song also talks more about how some people were "born" to fight for their country no matter what, but others, like O'Brien, aren't rich, lucky, nor can they force themselves to believe in fighting.

et tu brute?

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes

Bob was comparing the Masters of the Vietnam war to Judah. This was the character in the book of Mark that betrayed Jesus and gave him up to the Romans in exchange for money.

For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch

He highlights the distance that these masters have from the war and the comfort that is granted by this distance.

The most powerful line in this song:
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

This relates to what Krzys was saying about the decline of the English department and the rise of power in the Business school. Maybe we are just all out to make money and get power? Does that always have to lead to war though?

Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Bob gets into forgiveness. Bob emphasizes that these sins committed by these masters of war are unforgiveable. Like Judah, they will never be forgiven by Jesus and granted eternal life. Bob will be standing over their grave making sure they make it straight on to hell.

Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan's Master of War has a direct message. He is singing about how politicians send off soldiers to war, and "hide in their mansions." I like this song because he's not hiding his message behind any fluff. It's to the point. Masters of war are the politicians, and I think a good example today is Karl Rove and George Bush. I like "Blowin in the Wind" because it is an anti-war song about how pointless war is. How many wars must we fight before we learn that the end result will be death and suffering. It also made me think about why there is war. What are the reasons as to why we are currently in the Iraq war and to what extent will this war take us? In a way, Blowin' in the Wind reminds me of how people can be swayed so easily by politicians to enter war. They're like feathers in this whirlwind.

Master of War and Born in the USA

Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. and Bob Dylan's Masters of War show but a small depiction of the Vietnam war and though they use different lyrical schemes the messages is still received. Born in the USA uses more repetitions to tie the entire theme of being "born in the USA." Rather than a positive encouraging theme, being born in the USA comes with obligations which stem forth consequences. The upbeat music contrasts very heavily to the messages of this song after all he was "going off to kill the yellow man" but "they're still there he's all gone." The words rings after the hype and the flash of the song are over and maybe that was the intended purpose: after the hype and flash of the Domino Theory and yet in the end we were still left wondering.Masters of War takes a different approach. The repetitious scheme of the chorus is absent and instead ventures on a narrative like most good songs do. Songs venture to establish a theme, an ethos, and while the logical message of the lyrics are important, a song with its background music to fill in the void unlike reading a book or seeing a billboard, tends to sway especially if the genre fits the person. The message at the end if very heavy and dark. It begins with the establishment of what the masters have created, what they've resulted. Masters targets a different audience with its lyrics as a warning, a critique. I feel that due to Christianity's awareness the references to Jesus and Judas and the link they provide is apt after all the lyrics implied that Judas, who betrayed and sold out Jesus, is forgivable as opposed to the war mongers who have "all the money made" yet "will never buy back [their] soul." While instead of being distracted, the background music ties each verse one after another leaving me only to follow the progression of creation, consequence, warning, and lastly judgment. From creation to judgment, Bob Dylan proves he knows how to present an argument as well.

Songs of Vietnam

Although some of the selected Vietnam songs may seem "simple" like Maya Lin's memorial design, there is much more thought and devotion rooted in them than I realized before. I have heard many of the selected songs before, but now that I have a deeper understanding of the time period during the war, they are more than just a catchy tune.
Fortunate Son and Born in the USA were well known to me as a child but I overlooked the idea that they are about your average man who is pushed into the war. In John Fogerty's Fortunate Son, he speaks of the American government who wanted more and more men to make sacrifices to go into the war. But yet the "senator's son" is able to escape such pressures. The song may seem "simple" because the chorus is repetitive, but it effectively shows how deeply angry Fogerty was about the men who did not enter the war because of their social class. Bruce Springsteen speaks of a similar situation in his song, "Born in the USA." He came from a small town and eventually "they put a rifle in his hands" and sent him to Vietnam. Much like Fogerty, I think he was trying to show the unfairness the average man felt for being forced into a war he didn't understand.
Arlo Gurthrie embellishes his story in his song Alice's Restaurant much like O'Brien did in his stories throughout The Thing They Carried. Alro attempts to show how ridiculous the draft had been. He explains how he couldn't go to war because he littered and the draft found that immoral and cruel. But who said you have to have morals to go fight in a war that is cruel and unjust itself. Ultimately, the artist's of these songs show their disapproval over different aspects of the war and they connected to middle class Americans by portraying themselves as one of them.

Eve of Destruction/Blowin in the Wind

The songs written during the Vietnam era reveal many interesting things about the uncertainty and turmoil in the American people towards the Vietnam War. In the song “Eve of Destruction” , McGuire writes that many of the soldiers are “old enough to kill, but not for votin”. This comparison tries to put things in perspective for the American people, by emphasizing the youth and innocence of the young soldiers that were being sent to Vietnam. It goes on to list many other crazy things that are going on in the world, using deductive logic to say that the world is on the “eve of destruction”. The evidence he provides is the conflict in Vietnam and its effects in the United States.
Although McGuire’s song was in protest of the war, Bob Dylan’s song took a different step rhetorically. Rather than try to logically break down the reasons why the world is on a self-destructive path, Dylan uses “Blowin in the Wind” to explain that during this period of time there are many unanswerable questions. Most applicable is when he asks “Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?” His answer is that it is “blowing in the wind”, meaning that there often is no answer, or if there is one, it is often very hard to find.