Reading Paulville

"The goal of Paulville.org it to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty."

THUS BEGINS THE FIRST paragraph of Paulville.org, the official Website of a planned community in West Texas, devoted to the ideals and values of beleaguered congressman Ron Paul. From its bizarre vision to its contradictory mission statement to its typo five lines in ("it" as opposed to "is"), Paulville's site remains of the most bizarre projects around.

Though there are many aspects of the planned community that deserve attention, the most glaring is the tension between the idea of a "gated community" and "the ideals of freedom and liberty." Described by many as a Libertarian, Paul is a man who has made his career a devotion to the rhetoric of removing obstacles, limiting restrictions, and opening the playing field. He opposes gun control, the Patriot Act, the so-called "war on drugs," even the notion of the federal reserve. At their core, Libertarians avow the importance of freedom, and yet, in one of the most expansive, boundless areas of the country (West Texas), this group of freedom-seeking, wall-crashing, border-bashing Paulines want to erect a gated community--perhaps the most salient symbol of community exclusion, segregation, protection, and circumspection.

Planned communities are nothing new, but niche gated housing developments founded on conservative principles never really carry the zip of the more liberal Utopian communes. Take, for example, Hiddenbrooke, a wacky golf course community outside of San Francisco, where all of the houses resemble those found in paintings by the right-wing artist Thomas Kinkaide. Kinkaide, who has likened himself to Walt Disney, didn't design any of the houses, but both he and the developers of this housing project have admitted a desire to recreate the sterilized fairytale aura invoked by the paintings.

Both The Village at Hiddenbrooke and Paulville reveal a desperation to live in this kind of fairytale community--one secluded from the realities and complexities of contemporary life. This need, based more on nostalgia and invention than reality, is part of a larger right-wing belief that integration, progression, evolution, and interaction weaken communities and dilute daily life. Such projects suggest not a move forward but a move back, a retreat from the problems and possibilities of the present and future.

On a more positive note, I wonder what planned communities might be like if based on the ideals of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich. Send your ideas on these communities to The Weekly Rader, and we'll run the best in a future post.

Can't Decide Who to Vote For? It's all about the Inaugural Poem

AT PRESENT, THE MOST ubiquitous conversation in America is about the next Democratic presidential nominee. Almost every story on TV, in the news, and in the blogosphere advances a compelling reason to support either Senator Clinton or Obama. But, amidst all of the rationalization and speculation, even the most seasoned pundits dance around what everyone knows is the real determining factor for who the next president should be--whose candidacy would yield the best inaugural poem?

The most convincing evidence that George W. Bush was going to be a bad president was his decision to discontinue the use of the inaugural poem. When John F. Kennedy invited Robert Frost to write a poem for his inaugural celebration, Frost gave him "The Gift Outright." Granted, the poem is a bit of a chauvinistic paean to the tenets of Manifest Destiny, but it has its moments. Beyond the poem itself, though, is the symbolism. It made a statement. Linking poetry to the ceremony of the most important job in the world sends the message that poetry (and poets) are important. When Bush passed on this tradition, he sent the unintentional message that imagination and verbal proficiency were of little importance to him, lo and behold, how accurate that was.

The best indicator of Bill Clinton's promise as a leader was when he announced he would resuscitate the inaugural poem. Even better, his choice was Maya Angelou, an African American woman who in almost every way, was the antithesis of Frost. Her contribution, the much heralded, "On the Pulse of Morning," was more inclusive, more celebratory than Frost's. It remains one of American Poetry's best moments.

And so it is that pundits from Tim Russert to Rush Limbaugh to Keith Olberman to Katie Couric to Markos Moulitsas have been secretly discussing who each candidate will select to read the next inaugural poem. Las Vegas oddsmakers refuse to release their betting lines. Rumors have it that Li-Young Li, Adrienne Rich, and W. S. Merwin are near the top of the list, but no one will confirm.

My own hunch is that both candidates have already selected their respective poets. I heard the names had been leaked to The Drudge Report, but even he knows not to go public with such explosive information. Until something final happens, The Weekly Rader is your best outlet for this story.

So, the question is, who will the candidates select? Hillary Clinton, a candidate who respects traditions and institutions, will likely go with a prominent, storied, and vetted poet. Rich and Merwin are both strong possibilities but perhaps too left leaning. A more conservative choice would be John Ashbery, the most distinguished living American poet, and the only one I know of to write a poem about Popeye and rutabagas. Clearly, it would be hard to go wrong there. Alice Notley would be a great choice, but she now lives in Paris, so that won’t do. If Clinton is set on selecting a woman, her best option would be either Jorie Graham or fellow New Yorker Sharon Olds, but I don’t see that happening. She will want a man to put people at ease, and she’ll want to interject some levity into her ceremony. She’ll also pick a New York poet. That means . . .
CLINTON PICKS: BILLY COLLINS

Beloved by writers, academics, and cultural critics, Obama is under far more pressure to pick a cool, visionary poet for his inauguration. If Clinton is under the gun to tap a woman for this honor, then Obama is certainly feeling the heat to return an African American poet to the dais. But Obama is often all about defying expectations, changing traditions, and charting his own course, so for him, it is harder to speculate who he’ll pick. Nikki Giovanni, who survived the shootings at Virginia Tech, comes to mind right away as does Yusef Komunyakaa, one of America’s best poets. However, the Senator’s advisors will likely talk him out of picking anyone whose name has even the most remote trace of sounding Muslim. Terrance Hayes would be a surprising but smart choice. He is a fantastically talented poet, and he would appeal to the younger generations. It is possible Obama will pick an Anglo poet to downplay race. If so, his smartest option would be the beloved Robert Pinsky. There is no doubt Pinksy would write a memorable poem. But I predict that Senator Obama will want to honor the cultural contribution of African Americans and appease women at the same time by selecting an incredibly talented former Poet Laureate.
OBAMA SELECTS: RITA DOVE

The Weekly Rader invites readers to leave their comments, suggestions, predictions, and nominees in the comments option below. Or, simply complete the poll in the right-hand column. I'll post the results here and on The Daily Kos.

Plagiarismgate: Preparing for the Next Six Months

THE RESULT OF TUESDAY'S Democratic primaries means that the campaigns, speeches, and the scrutiny will last another six weeks, maybe more.

Without question, Senator Clinton's campaign will be looking closely at pretty much everything Senator Obama says, no doubt, hoping to catch him in some sort of transgression, like plagiarism.

Last week, my letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle generated some correspondences and questions that I thought I would address here and at The Daily Kos.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/01/EDHEV8GID.DTL&hw=Dean+Rader&sn=001&sc=1000)

When Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton’s campaign communication director, accused Barack Obama of plagiarizing a speech by long-time Obama friend governor Deval Patrick (D-Mass), it set off a cross-posting conflagration in the blogosphere that has acquired the moniker “plagiarismgate.” Wolfson’s snarky charge prompted columnists like Maureen Dowd, Bob Cesca and others to excavate phrases, passages and entire portions of Clinton speeches that seem to suggest she stole from Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and even Obama himself. Nothing burns in cyberspace more than the combination of global text search and scandal. It is the blogosphere’s Duraflame, and these issues may flare up for the rest of the campaign.

Amidst this great back-and-forthing, however, no one is asking what it means to plagiarize a speech or even what the consequences might be for such a transgression. It’s a rare but glorious moment with the Venn diagrams of writing and literature professors merge with that of political discourse. Plagiarism is our purview; we deal with it every day in our classes, in our student papers, and in our own scholarship. It may be the most important ethical code of our profession, and yet, it can confuse the most persnickety, especially now.

As the world digitizes and YouTubes and blogs, the rules of who authors what and who owns what complicates traditional notions of theft, piracy, and appropriation. For example, Obama and Patrick use the same campaign strategist (David Axelrod), and both men admit they regularly share ideas with each other. Obama even joked in a speech last year that he was “stealing” a line from “his buddy Deval Patrick.” There is no question that a portion of Obama’s speech about “words” echoes one Patrick gave in 2006; in fact, certain passages are verbatim. But the fuzzy nature of political speeches problematizes the hard-and-fastness of plagiarism because of what I call “authorial invisibility.”

We know James Joyce wrote Ulysses, and we’re certain Wallace Stevens penned “The Snow Man,” but, in political discourse, authors are almost always invisible. Who writes Mike Huckabee’s speeches? Hillary Clinton’s? President Bush’s? Did Axelrod write the 2006 Patrick speech? Did he write or consult on the recent Obama speech? If so, is he guilty of self-plagiarism; what we in academic circles call “double-dipping?” If so, does that exculpate Obama? Could Patrick have actually stolen the idea from an old conversation with Obama?

Part of the problem lies with the cultural associations endowed to written and oral discourse. Oral discourse carries an ephemerality that somehow excuses it from the same ethical codes as written texts. There is something about the impression of printed material, its permanence, and its three dimensionality that makes its theft more egregious than parroting a speech in a speech. When an author steals from another author, that act carries a pre-meditation that violates the sanctity of printed, copyrighted, authored material.

But, what of material whose owner or author is unknown and unknowable? What does this do to the question of ownership and theft?

In the world of oral political discourse, asking if Obama’s speech plagiarizes Patrick’s is a bit like asking if Lebron James’ drive to the basket plagiarizes Michael Jordan’s. Words, concepts, performances, gestures, and clichés are the threads that weave the ever-expanding tapestry of digitized free media that we wrap ourselves in every day. Now and then, we’re all going to be guilty of stealing the covers.

Can't Decide Who To Vote For? Base It On The Banners

WITH ONLY A FEW days before the March 4 primaries, a substantial percentage of American voters still remain undecided about who to support: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Last night, both candidates laid out strategies for why he or she deserves your vote, but did that really convince anyone? In fact, if you swing a hanging chad in any direction, you’ll hit someone who thinks he has a well-reasoned opinion about who you should vote for.

But why rely on the bad advice of others? Why concern yourself with platform promises that will go out the window as soon as the new president discovers all the foreign currencies Karl Rove managed to topple while we thought he was buying ties. Forget the texts of debates and speeches; instead, base your decision on the least revised and most honest texts—the campaign logo.

Amidst all the discussion about the qualifications of the candidates—their wit, charm, intelligence, and experience—no one has talked about the visual iconography that frames their candidacy. Think of how often you have seen the t-shirts donned by their posses, the banners draped behind them during speeches, the logos affixed to the podiums, and the placards waved by their supporters. These logos are everywhere. They insinuate themselves into the visual landscape of the campaign more frequently than Tim Russert.

Scientists claim that viewers are affected by one out of every seven advertisements, so it is fair to assume that, whether we know it or not, we probably respond to the semiotics of campaign logos without even knowing it. This begs the question—what, exactly, are we responding to?

Of the two, Clinton’s is the most conservative:

The first thing one notices is the presence of an absence: the last name. At quick glance, this banner could be mistaken for Sir Edmund Hillary swag, but the “for President” and the URL give it away soon enough. Is this a conscious decision to downplay her Clintonness? If so, should the URL be HillaryForPresident.com? Either way, downplaying the “Clinton” seems the oddest decision, since it would seem her affiliation with Bill would, by simple name recognition alone, do more good than harm.

Speaking of doing no harm, the white traditional font against a deep blue background might soothe, but it doesn’t inspire. To be sure, we are to associate this combination with the blue field and white stars of Old Glory; a smart patriotic move. Indeed, it’s hard to go wrong with blue here; plus, Senator Clinton has to like the associations of blue state (as opposed to red state) when imagining wooing her constituency.

Sadly, politicians refuse to break up with the wind-tossed ribbon. It’s a dysfunctional relationship that may never end. For decades, the wavy ribbon has been a divider between the main message of the logo and some other text, like a slogan or a web address. As in most ads, the ribbon does little work. Is it supposed to be a mini-flag? The entire ad already evokes the stars and stripes. Do we need it again?

And then there is the URL. It’s a tough call about what to print along the bottom: website or slogan. In this case, the Senator from New York probably made the right decision to eschew cliché and foreground technology.

So, how does the logo do as a constructed, value-heavy text? Overall, it’s a relatively flat logo. There is little movement, little panache. But, it is regal, safe, presidential. It won’t get anyone worked up, but it won’t scare anyone either.

Senator Obama, however, goes in a different direction:

More is at work in the Obama logo. More colors, more shades, and more shapes. Where Hillary obfuscates her last name, Obama downplays his first. This is a smart decision because he gets to reinforce his last name with the hallucinogenic “O.” A rainbow “B” would have looked ridiculous, but the O carries many positive associations—a globe, the world, the horizon, the future, unity, circularity, cooperation, a coin, a sno-globe, Life Savers.

I’m not sure what, exactly, the rainbow O is supposed to be, and in truth, I don’t love it. The top does resemble the dome of the earth, and that’s, you know, nice, but the stripes look too much like badly painted roads or railroad tracks. Is the rainbow O supposed to be the future? A bloody future? Is it Captain America’s shield? The world’s most patriotic life preserver? I assume The O with the red road barreling through is designed to symbolize a sunrise over America (promise, hope). But, for me, it’s too vague and evokes too many other possibilities.

Another aspect of the logo that puts me on edge is the azure font. While I love the deep dark blue of “Obama,” the hazy, fuzzy, sky blue of the “’08” and the top of the “O” softens more than it should. It’s too new agey, too wispy. I want more emphasis. On the other hand, I love the gray URL. Here the colors and the font exude confidence and modernity, while Clinton’s “for president” font feels traditional.

I do, however, love the logo’s balance, and unlike Clinton’s it tells a story. Its horizontal sweep takes the eye from the O (the future) to the ’08 (now), suggesting the future is now.

Ultimately, the Obama logo is more edgy, more ambitious, and more creative. It also looks forward, whereas Clinton’s looks back. Worst of all, it shares too much with the Bush-logo of 2000.

We are a visual culture in an increasingly visual society. Those of you who are undecided, trust your visual literacy here, and go with the logo that best embodies the values you want in your president.

Or, just vote for the best t-shirt. After all, you may only get to live with the president for four years, but you can live with that logo t-shirt your whole life.