my life

Thesis: 70 pages – 12 point 1.5 spaces Century Gothic font, counting bibliography. 18,310 words, counting bibliography. Still awaiting edits from advisor on last chapter.

Grad school life: Yesterday I woke up at 10:00 AM and met Anthony Braxton at 11:00. after several minutes of fussing with cables in the EMS (which had all been recently disconnected for Jascha’s concert), I played through my concert program for him. (The 4 channel version of my Fred Phelps piece has quit working for some reason.) He asked me if I was going to do a piece with DeLay attacking the judiciary. No!!! No more english text. No more american politics! I must go to France next year.
We went for lunch with Jessica and then I went home and worked on my bibliography. Angela came over for dinner and then left to go to a concert and I kept working on my bibliography (some of my favorite citations are below. I know it’s boring. I don’t care. Cola talked me out of posting all 11 pages.) I worked on it until 2:30 AM and then walked Xena, who desperately wants more exercise in her life) and then I went to sleep. This morning, err… afternoon, I got out of bed at 1:00 and then fixed all of my end notes so they go with my bibliography instead of just being urls. Now I ponder dinner, but my cover is exceedingly bare. Maybe I’ll have nutella on wonder (wheat) bread.
Random complaints: I’m allergic to the toilet paper that Aaron bought. I have skin allergies. I have to use hippie shampoo or I itch a lot. Right now, I itch a lot. Out of food. Nearly out of dog food. Raining. Pop culture seems to be at war with art music. And music seems to get singled out a lot. Why? What are people afraid of?
When I was in the compulsory period of my education, the prohibition against drinking and driving was so emphasized that I thought that wanting to drive must be one of the effects of drinking. You would drink a glass of beer and the overwhelming urge to get into a car and drive would seize you, but you had to resist. So when I finally started consuming alcohol, I was steeled. I was not going to suddenly want to go for a joy ride! Although after so much repetition if this idea, the thought would creep into my head. Sometimes when I’m drunk (which is rare) I announce “I want to go for a drive!” But I do not go, because I have the mental toughness to resist.
So last night, as I was assembling my bibliography, I was forced to revisit all my sources for pundit material. I only had about 10 citation to go. I wanted to be done. But I was reaching mental break down. Finally, I got to the section where O’Reilly was asserting that gay rights would lead people to want to marry goats. I was in a suggestible stage! This normally wouldn’t happen!
I am engaged to Billy. We haven’t set a date, as we’re awaiting the results of our court decision.
No I don’t like goats in any sort of disturbing, ASPCA-alerting or naughty way. I just feel like I should marry one.
For our honeymoon, we’re taking the O’Reilly cruise to the Caribbean, which we understand has plenty of vegetarian fare as falafel is served at every meal. All guests get a complimentary loofah.
Tag:

Hi, my name is Celeste, I’ll be your poltical football this evening.

Catholic Church Attempts to Derail Gay Rights in Spain

Can we all go back to fucking up the life of the brain dead woman in Florida again? Maybe we can dig her up and reinsert her feeding tube.

“A law as profoundly iniquitous as this one is not an obligation, it cannot be an obligation. One cannot say that a law is right simply because it is law.”
. . .
“This is not a matter of choice: all Christians… must be prepared to pay the highest price, including the loss of a job.”

They’re calling for massive civil disobedience against other people people loving each other. God is apparently anti-love. Because God is love. He needs all that love for himself. We can’t have any for each other.
It’s a not-so-secret goal of the Vatican to re-unify all Christian churches under the papacy. Maybe they’re trying to start with Fred Phelps. “The new Pope has described homosexuality as objectively disordered and an intrinsic moral evil.” Sort of a highbrow way of saying “God hates fags,” isn’t it?
“Asked about the Spanish Bill, [Cardinal Alfonso Lopes Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council on the Family] said:We cannot impose the iniquitous on people. . ..'” Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
(oh, heh, oops, I misread “iniquitous” as some funny form of “inquisitionous” which I took to mean something along the lines of “worthy of official inquiry and ecclesiastical punishment upto and including burning at the stake.” I’m standing by my pun.)
I can’t believe they made the head of the inquisition pope. I’m so upset about this.
Tags: , ,

How to cite a blog

Karlsberg, Jesse. “I had to open the bruise up to let some of the bruise blood come out to show them.” Silversand. December 09, 2004. Assessed April 21, 2005. <http://silversand.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-had-to-open-bruise-up-to-let-some-of.html>

online magazine

Bowman, David. “Citizen Flynt.” Salon.com. July 8, 2004. Assessed April 21, 2005. <http://www.salon.com/books/int/2004/07/08/flynt/index.html>

web page

Kuntz, Marcia Ed. “Who We Are” Media Matters For America. Assessed April 21, 2005. <http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html>
“Truthful Translations of Political Speech.” DiyMedia.net. Assessed April 21, 2005. <http://www.diymedia.net/collage/truth.htm>

Discussion forum

Kahn, Doug. “Re: Burroughs and Burrows” Online Posting. Jan 31, 2005. d_cultuRe : panel > The P0litics of S0und / The Culture 0f Exchange. Tate Online: British and International Modern Art. Assessed April 21, 2005. <http://www.tate.org.uk/contact/forums/onlineevents/thread.jsp?forum=43&thread=2471&tstart=0&trange=15>

More info

A Guide for
Writing Research Papers Based on
Modern Language Association
(MLA) Documentation

Outstanding Questions

Ok, let’s say you quote Coulter as her comments were reported on Media Matters . . . Would that look like:

Coulter, Ann, “Coulter labeled Dems who question qualifications of Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas as ‘racist'”. Ed. Marcia Kuntz. Media Matters for America. November 18, 2004. Assessed April 21, 2005. <http://mediamatters.org/items/200411180009>

Or would you omit the “Coulter, Ann” and list it as “Kuntz, Marcia Ed.” ?
You know, i’ve kind of fudged bibliographies in the past and nobody has noticed, but this is going into the library, so I want to get it right.
Tag:

goddamn it, i want a beer

Thesis: done, pending advisor comments (I don’t really expect anything serious) and still needing bibliography. 60 pages.

Awareness: I showed up to work today and dutifully sat in the lab and answered questions during my office hours. It wasn’t for over an hour later until I remembered that I don’t have office hours on thursdays
Health: as a horse, but consuming alcohol in moderation (and not so moderation) every night is probably ungood.
Stress Level: see title
Recent Activities: Went for lunch at a place in town called the English Tea Garden. Doilies covered every surface. Jessica and I were the youngest people there by 40 years, easily. The food was really good. Last night: saw Andrew Dewar et al in concert. Brought Xena. She was kind of too loud. Party at my house afterwards. I drank aperitif instead of Jagermeister to stay sober, but it didn’t work. Tuesday night: Jascha & Philip’s concert. (I have no idea if Phillip spells his name with 1 or 2 l’s)
other updates: um, my attention has no wandered away from this blog post
Tags: ,

Press about Pope

Many gay Catholics disappointed with cardinals’ choice for pope, seeing Ratzinger as church’s most outspoken foe of equal rights

Talking about how the gay catholic group Dignity was effected by the 1986 “Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” The Chronicle says that “Local chapters of DignityUSA used to meet on church property, but after members publicly rejected the Vatican’s 1986 letter, they were no longer welcome, said Sam Sinnett, the national president.”
The letter to the bishops was released in English. Not latin or any other language. It’s extremely unusual for Vatican texts to be released in English. Since the letter warns against letting gay people talk to each other, it was clearly aimed directly at Dignity. It’s understandable why they would want to be perceived as having agency, but they would have been banned from catholic churches no matter what. Catholic churches are only for opposite-sex married people and celibate people. Everyone else should leave. So I did.
You know what the word “catholic” means? Universal.
Tags: , , , ,

new pope!

Not but barely over an hour ago, the vatican announced the selection of a new pope. after the traditional white smoke rose from the chimney, a spokes person came forward to announce “popus hablam” “we have a pope.” The crowd burst into cheers as Pope Archie Bunker II made his first public appearance, blessing the crowd.

“My fellow Catholics,” the new Pope addressed the throngs, “My work as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has prepared me to take up this new role. I am prepared to take this church forward into the 21st century, by promoting celibacy, scapegoating gay people, stooping the evils of condoms and letting mysogony thrive wherever it’s seed lands, like the sewer spreading the word of the lord.” He then raised his hand in blessing over the crowd, “May God bless you and lead you from sin, keep you heterosexual. Amen.” the new pope then retreated into seclusion.
While pope Archie Bunker II was head of the CDC, they issued documents on a number of social issues, among them a tract On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons which stated that such persons were “insitrinsically disordered” and in no case worthy of approval. The document recommended against allowing homosexual persons speak to each other, lest they become overwhelmed by temptation. The document was widely criticized as “pastoral” usually refers to loving care and avoids making condemnations. The CDC followed up to it’s controversial document with a tract On the Doctrinal Care of Homosexual Persons which called for public stonings. The then-head of the CDC, now pope told reporters, “You want hard line? you haven’t seen nothing yet! We would have called for the death penalty in the ‘pastoral’ document, but I guess we’re against that now.”
Tag:

Lock Up Your Children

Despite the visibility of the same sex marriage movement, queers are not usually the focus of right wing pundits’ ire. Homophobia is often used as an aside. Alien others are compared to homosexuals to emphasize the otherness of the target group and the degeneracy they must therefore represent. Gayness is a symbol and gay people themselves are usually invisible. Therefore, because it was never a focus, I collected samples of homophobia, but did not engage it directly as an issue until late in my time at Wesleyan. My own status as an alien other informed my work, but was not directly represented.
During the spring of 2005, a furor erupted over a children’s TV series called Postcards from Buster. In one episode, a cartoon rabbit meets real life kids who have two moms. Nothing is ever said about this fact and the women are not identified as lesbians. The focus of the episode is on sugar production in Vermont. The show was so innocuous, that the left treated the situation as a joke. The Wonkette, with typical irony, described the episode as disappointing in its lack of objectionable content. (http://www.wonkette.com/politics/culture-war/too-hot-for-pbs-buster-does-vermont-035656.php) A Slate columnist jokingly questioned, “Is ‘maple sugaring’ actually code for some sort of sexual practice between women?” (http://slate.msn.com/id/2112706/) Most left wing commentaries seemed to ignore the entire event. Wesleyan’s own undergraduate queer community seemed to be entirely unaware of the controversy. A message to the campus’ queer mailing list, “endless acronym.” urged people to watch the episode when it aired locally, but never mentioned the controversy.
Much ado, however, was made of this issue by some right wing media figures like Bill O’Reilly, who frequently who has cautioned his viewers on multiple occasions that the recognition of same sex marriage will lead to the legalization of people marrying goats (http://mediamatters.org/items/200504150005) and thus bring about the destruction of our society as we know it. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503310004) Most of the commentators seemed to be special homophobic guests, like spokespeople for Focus on the Family and not TV fixtures like O’Reilly.
O’Reilly was careful to explain that he wasn’t homophobic, but would equally block out all similar, heterosexual forms of degeneracy and perversion.

It’s not only about homosexuality . . .. I wouldn’t want Buster hopping into a bigamy situation in Utah. I wouldn’t want him hopping into an S&M thing in the East Village here . . . let’s keep Buster out of the sexual realm in all areas. Wouldn’t that be the best thing to do? (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502170007)

Dissecting the heteronormative nature of that remark is an exercise left to the reader. These comments, however, clearly are homophobic while he rather ridiculously claims that they are not.
O’Reilly’s comments made me yearn for the honesty of an honest-to-God homophobe. The obvious choice was Fred Phelps. This preacher became famous for showing up with picketers to funerals of AIDS victims. The signs the held said things like “God Hates Fags” “AIDS Kills Fags Dead” and sometimes would feature the name of the deceased and proclaim that he was now in hell. He showed up to Randy Shilts’ funeral in 1994 and was greeted by counter protesters armed with eggs. Phelps was an early adopter and has had a web page for the last several years at godhatesfags.com. He posts sermons there in mp3 format, all about one hour long. The tone of his sermons matches the tone of his protesting. Nevertheless, the words “lesbian” and “gay” have crept into his vocabulary, in addition to his preferred terms, “fags,” “dykes,” and “sodomites.”
Phelps is entirely occupied with the issue of queer civil rights and when he talks about political issues in other areas, he tends to see it as it pertains to the evil sodomite agenda. He tends to view anyone that does not spend as much time occupied with hating sodomites as much as he does as pro-gay. Therefore, he pickets Catholic churches, Billy Graham and other fundamentalists that most queers would perceive as homophobic. Phelps would affirm O’Reilly’s claim of tolerance and attack him for it. O’Reilly pales in comparison.
Phelps’s hour longer sermon was too long and too meandering to process automatically. It also was extremely distorted. He recorded it much too hot, which made the spaces between phrases fairly loud. I selected emblematic homophobic phrases from one sermon and created several shorter audio files containing those phrases. I used automatic processing on my O’Reilly sample, which came from Media Matters with other Buster- related content of “Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway [asserting] that it’s not an issue of ‘right versus left, but right versus wrong’ and that people ‘don’t want their kids looking at a cartoon with a bunch of lesbian mothers.’” (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502170007) I took the phrases pre-loaded from Phelps and the ones automatically discovered in O’Reilly and used the pitch finding algorithm that I developed for my Rush Limbaugh piece. I also used the same marimba sound. When that sound expands to the time scale of a spoken phrase, it becomes much more gamelan or gong-link.
I was concerned that re-using my Limbaugh code would make the pieces sound too similar. I went to Professor Kuivila for feedback. He told me that the pieces were adequately distinct and suggested that I take the Phelps piece further. Instead of merely showing similarity between right and far right discourse, Ron suggested that I add in mainstream commentary to show how all discourse contains homophobia, as we all have some degree of internalized homophobia. I found content from PBS’s News Hour commenting on the Buster controversy and incorporated it.
I then added in other commentary clips discussing Buster and other homophobic audio files I had been collecting, including the president excluding same sex marriage, an initially puzzling comment that poor school discipline was the fault of queers (this comment is discussed in a previous chapter) and a Fox News correspondent badgering Disney’s president about “Gay Days” in the theme park. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060012) All of these clips had in common an idea of incompatibility between queer relationships and ‘normal’ family life. Queers are unfit for marriage and, perhaps more importantly, we are dangerous to children. Children at Disneyland are not protected from us. Children in New Jersey cannot be educated because their governor is gay. Children across the nation are irreparably harmed by Buster commenting that one of the kids on the show “has a lot of moms.” (http://slate.msn.com/id/2112706/) The danger doesn’t seem to be just that the kids will turn gay, but they will become every kind of alien other. Violent, sexual, dangerous, perhaps animal, not quite civilized monsters, who exist outside of social norms.
I finished this piece only days before my concert. My original plan was to realize all of my pieces in stereo, so that I could use the chapel’s installed speakers, thus saving myself setup time and creating pieces that could be played virtually anywhere. I plugged my laptop into the chapel’s sound system and was met with Rev Fred Phelps screaming about fire and brimstone and sodomites burning in hell. The chapel setting gave him authority. Church is his own turf. His damnation seemed almost reasonable. I could not compete with him through the architectural speakers. Instead, I routed all the voices through two small speakers on the stage. The gong sounds went through the architectural speakers alone. They are introduced slowly as the piece progresses and linger after the voices end, getting the last word. The greater authority of the musical sounds and their persistence fills an allegory of music triumphing over politics.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Guess who is on the Cover of Time Magazine!

I’ll give you a clue. This person wrote (according to the article), “that court-ordered school-desegregation plans have led to ‘illiterate students knifing one another between acts of sodomy in the stairwell.'” Oh, that ignorant, violent and sexually untamed alien other has come for our children! *shriek!* Yeah, Time also identified Protest Warrior guys as lefties. Time‘s capacity to screw up facts, do terrible surface treatments and get things wrong ought to be legendary if it is not already.

What else am I learning from Time? Um, Ann Coulter is really quite huggable and blushes sometimes in public! Of, and she’s soooo sexy! She’s complicated! Misunderstood! Humorous! Ironic! Full of witty satire demonizing black people and queers! (The demonizing black folks and queers line is my added sarcastic bit, you see, Ann’s just trying to push buttons, tee hee)
“And of course the biggest case Coulter ever helped handle as an attorney (she got her law degree from the University of Michigan in 1988) was a sexual-harassment claim of an unsophisticated woman against her powerful former boss.” Three guesses what this is referring to! Three guesses about Ann Coulter’s softer, more female-friendly side! Who is the boss? That’s right! Bill Clinton! The woman helped by Coulter is former playboy model Paula Jones! Remember the Starr Report? The impeachment? Oh yeah . . .
The verdict? Coulter rules! ” The officialdom of punditry, so full of phonies and dullards, would suffer without her humor and fire.”

Update: Media Matters Smackdown. Unlike the “smackdown” in Coulter’s latest column where she claims that the folks who threw pies at her had their bones broken by conservatives. Not true. Latest column. Too much work for time. Maybe they rely on “Communists for Kerry” to do their research for them.
Tag:

no THIS is fucking bullshit

In another example, some of Rush Limbaugh’s distortions surrounding the Iraq prison abuse scandal clearly rise to the level of bullshit. Frankfurt writes:

Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled . . . to speak extensively on matters of which they are to some degree ignorant. (P 63)

Therefore, any circumstance where someone claimed authority on a topic that he or she had not adequately researched, would constitute bullshit. Limbaugh, by virtue of his position as a radio commentator, implicitly claims authority on matters he addresses. He often explicitly claims authority as well. On one of the many occasions he addresses the torture scandal, he claimed authority while making an assertion that was not factually correct, saying

Even this latest picture of a dog and a nude Iraqi . . . the picture caption “Dog attacks Iraqi.” No, the dog isn’t attacking anyone, the dog’s on a leash. The dog is scaring an Iraqi prisoner. . .. The dog didn’t attack anybody. The dog’s not attacking anybody. The dog’s on a leash. Both of them are. I’ve seen the pictures. …
(http://mediamatters.org/items/200405110002)

He claims authority with his statement, “I’ve seen the pictures.” However, his assertion that the dogs did not attack is incorrect and he was forced to withdraw it later in the program.

Apparently, ladies and gentleman, I need to offer a modification . . .. apparently uh, well, there’s another picture later where . . . he’s writhing on the floor with a pool of blood. Apparently, the dog did bite his leg, but there’s no picture of that. I have just been, uh, informed of this. (Ibid)

If he had really seen all the pictures, he would have known that a subsequent picture in the same series showed that the dogs did indeed attack. He claimed authority without actually doing adequate research. Because the refuting picture was in the same set of photos, he could not claim that the prisoner was actually unhurt and lie (or bluff, or bullshit) his way through. His ignorance of this indicates that he was bluffing his way through the entire segment. When he was informed that he would not be able to get away with his bluff, he was forced to retract it. This bluffing is clearly bullshit.
I would go further to claim that it is not an isolated incident. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, the sheer number of hours he is on the air every day would almost make it impossible for him to avoid bullshit. Having a call-in radio show for five hours a day would be virtually impossible to adequately prepare for unless the conversation were limited to a very specific topic, and even then, it would be a Herculean task to come up with so many hours of insightful and factually correct commentary. Rush Limbaugh’s pattern of bullshit, especially surrounding the prison abuse scandal, is addressed in more detail in a subsequent chapter.

I feel happier about this now. And I want to not write about it so much. For x’s sake! This is fucking bullshit. (the irony of this chapter is not lost on me)
I went to Dave Ruder’s thesis concert a couple of weeks back and he sung a song which repeated the lyrics over and over again of “This is fucking bullshit. There’s a werewolf in the flower bed.” It’s been stuck in head since, especially as I write about bullshit. He must give me a tape! I’m trying to get it out of my head by listening to my iPod on random. Strangely ecclectic experience. The content is about the percentage of “i’m a composer” as i would have expected. Plus some pop music that I really like. Plus totally generic but still pleasing bland pop like Oasis. Sorry if you really like them. They’re very much examples of their genre, which is to say generic.
UPDATE: Hey, with some work, I could automatically generate my thesis! But seriously, this code could be hella useful for fake punditry or real poetry/ text sound/ cut-up applications.
Tags: ,

this is fucking bullshit

Frankfurt does not provide a formula for clearly identifying bullshit, seeming instead to rely on an implied “I know it when I see it” approach. He does identify sources of bullshit. “The realms of advertising and of public relations and the nowadays closely related realm of politics, are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they can serve among the most indisputable and classic paradigm of the concept.” (P 22) When he was interviewed on The Daily Show, he was asked if political “spin” constituted bullshit and he replied that it was a type of bullshit.
The job of pundits is to create spin, so it seems fair to label them as bullshitters. The anti-Clinton fairy tales reported by Brock were so divorced from reality such that they could correctly be called bullshit. (Clinton murdered Vince Foster, is one such claim, the “evidence” was that he murdered hundreds of people in Arkansas and Hillary Clinton’s affair with Vince Foster. Lies built upon falsehood, built upon imagination.) In another example, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, the level of distortion created by Rush Limbaugh surrounding the Iraqi prison abuse scandal is so complete that I would characterize it as bullshit and would go further to claim that it is not an isolated incident. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, the sheer number of hours he is on the air every day would almost make it impossible for him to avoid bullshit. Frankfurt explains:

Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled . . . to speak extensively on matters of which they are to some degree ignorant. (P 63)

Having a call-in radio show for five hours a day would be virtually impossible to adequately prepare for unless the conversation were limited to a very specific topic, and even then, it would be a Herculean task to come up with so many hours of insightful and factually correct commentary.
In another example, in the movie Outfoxed, Al Franken recounted a conversation he had with his lawyer about suing Bill O’Reilly for libel. His lawyer advised him that O’Reilly lied so habitually about everything that it would actually be more difficult to prove a slander suit because O’Reilly had created a lower standard of truth for himself that would protect him in a court case. This certainly implies a lack of concern for the truth. Frankfurt warns of one danger of habitual bullshitting, “Through excessive indulgence . . . a person’s normal habit of attending to the way things are may become attenuated or lost.” (P 60)
Those who trust Limbaugh and O’Reilly must necessarily distrust media outlets that report conflicting truths. This creates a lack of confidence in the media.

Edit: Yeah, this is a fucking music thesis. what the fuck? suddenly, i’m in philosophical discussions about bullshit, but you know, this is kind of linked to William S Burroughs tape cut-up pieces:

William S Burroughs influenced Kahn, like many cut-up artists. “My sense of Wm Burroughs’ cut-ups is that they were parlor entertainments if not, at times, magical devices. The two are not mutually exclusive, and neither parlor nor entertainment should be taken in a derogatory manner.” (http://www.tate.org.uk/contact/forums/onlineevents/thread.jsp?forum=43&thread=2471&tstart=0&trange=15) Burroughs has two pieces out in the newly re-released Ou archives. Valentines Day Reading is Burroughs reading phrases that seem to come from the news. Phrases are read in between short, screechy, alarm-like sounds. No effort is made to change the meaning of the news. It seems as if the purpose is to obscure the meaning rather than reframe it in any way. In his book The Ticket that Exploded, Burroughs talked about tape cut up as a way to replace and ultimately destroy discourse.

Nobody has to be there at all – So why ask questions and why answer? – Why give orders and why make speeches? – Why not leave your take with her and dispense with sexual contact? – And then? – Since no one is there to listen, why keep running the tape? — Why not shut the whole machine off and go home? (P 168)

He enthusiastically supported such an idea, especially how it pertained to political discourse. “Splice yourself in with newscasters, prime ministers, presidents. Why stop there? Why stop anywhere? Everybody splice himself in with everybody else. Communication must be total. only way to stop it.” (P 167-8) This idea of total information remixing, with everyone speaking interspersed with and on top of everyone else, as being the absence of information could be as much an analysis of “cross talk” as it could be an idea for art destroying media. This method of non-communication has become the norm in televised political discourse. It is one of many ways that communication is halted through punditry.

Tags: , , ,