My post modern family experience

I can’t help but think of what a post modern world really means in life or in my life in particular. The modern interpretation of my life was the life I had with my live in girl friend and our son. At the age of two we split and I have been existing in a post modern world since - much to my detriment. WHile I like the freedom which comes with being single - I miss the modern feel that our relationship gave me. Now, I exist in a personal new world order where  things not only feel different but actually are so. I pay my bills now. Before, I was the bread winner but she paid our bills. Now I find myself in school, working and paying my own bills, cooking my own meals and spending the majority of my week alone. The nuclear family which I was accustomed to is gone and a new type of family exists in it’s place - representing a new world order. My son lives with his mother for the majority of the week. He learns at school. I have little to no say in his daily life and deal with his temper tantrums on the weekends. I do not blame him. I blame myself and his mother for being unwilling or unable to work through our problems. Now, she is dating a Harley Davidson riding, double timing piece of trash. that too is a new world order of a sorts. My son has contact with this pot smoking, philandering, uneducated ape and that about just sets me off. I wish for my son to have a role model in his life who is not biker trash. I hope that my son will surpass me in every way, in particular I hope he transcends my inability to tolerate trashy people. He will grow up in  a new world order home - much like I did. It was my hope to avert such a fate for him as I know first hand what such a childhood brings. I grew up with my mother and step-father who was a very interesting person. He would preach one thing and do another. The contradiction was difficult to understand.

New world order relationships are nothing new. They are less frowned upon in our new world order world. It is better accepted to be alone in a relationship. I suppose that I long for the days f the old world  when it comes to relationships. I long for the nuclear family. Perhaps it is such a strong feeling due to the fact that I myself was deprived of it as a child. Perhaps I still love the mother of my child. One thing is certain - new world order relationships make for a stronger individual because you are often on your own.  Perhaps I speak only for myself. Many men say to hell with their women and move on. I regret to say that I am unable to do so. I have not found a way to move on from my hopes of returning to a nuclear family. Sad, I know.

Transition to post modern journalism

Mike Wallace passed away at nearly a week ago. He was a pioneer in the news interview business. He was arrogant, egomaniacal, aggressive, intelligent, assertive, and didn’t take no for an answer during his interviews. I bring Mike Wallace up because he represents a post modernist approach to the telling of the news. Wallace pioneered 60 Minutes in the nineteen sixties and it continues even today. Why is he post modernist? It is not really his doing. The fault lies within a predecessor’s actions - Edward R. Morrow. Morrow broke with the tradition of telling the news when he challenged the junior Senator from Wisconsin - Joe McCarthy. McCarthy accused many American of being communist infiltrators into the American government. This destroyed lives. Families. To even be accused of being a communist left a stigma which even the highest economic level of American in ruins. Murrow took the opportunity to break away from his colleagues and used his show to publicly challenge McCarthy and his accusations. Before this action, the news served as served solely as a reporting function for our society. Murrow’s challenge of McCarthy was the breaking moment where the news agencies transcended into the post modernist era of journalism. You have only to look at the current news agencies to find whether this has become the truth. Granted, there is still Frontline and other sorts of agencies conducting news in a reporter style fashion. However, Ted Koppel is a prime example of Murrow’s legacy. Nightline which Koppel helmed for over two decades was a forum used to interview people of the day. Mike Brown - the head of F.E.M.A. was considered a punching bag by pundits including Brian WIlliams of N.B.C. news. Brown didn’t have a reasonable answer as to why FEMA responded so poorly during the events directly after Hurricane Katrina passed through the gulf region. Koppel went to work. Relentless questions. Not taking “no” or “I don’t know” for a answer propelled the fact that Mike Brown was incompetent and more important - a crony in the Bush administration. Brown was subsequently “replaced.”

Was the transition a bad one? Interesting question. Yes and no. Is the news being told? Yes. However, It is being told from a subjective perspective. Fox News is the conservative view. MSNBC is the liberal view. Pundits have made a career out of stating their opinion (some of which lack quality and or education - see Tea Party). The news has become entertainment - with corporate sponsors. They still tell the truth but more than likely refrain from doing in depth stories of said sponsors due to the obvious conflict of interest.

Mike Wallace was the poster boy for this idea. He did tell the news through interviews. He also made himself part of the story with his candor and temper. In the modern age of  journalism - broadcasters would speak into a micro phone and relay facts to the public. Things have changed to the point where the news can be interpreted on the air by pundits with differing prospectives. You only need to watch to understand this process. It occurs daily. Murrow and Wallace were pioneers. They told the news, then became part of the news. That is the where the transition to post modernist journalism occurred. Was it a good one? Yes, and no.

Moment of pause...

Oh what shall I discuss today? Perhaps the fact that I watched Annie Hall last night is why I am flustered. Perhaps it is the fact that there was a scene where an adult school teacher was called out for being a ego centric fool who feels that he is master of his micro cosmic universe from which he rarely deviates. Perhaps it is the fact that I am irritated with the fact that there is no clear thesis in this class. Perhaps I am irritated with the fact that terms are rarely defined in this class. Terms are introduced and students are asked to define them. This classroom situation could be likened to an episode of the Twilight Zone. I find myself waiting for Rod Serling to appear and tell me that I have been partaking in an episode where the students run the class and the Teacher asks questions in a buffoon like manner. There are no clear answers. Only questions. No defined parameters. Only loose stated interpretations. “Don’t worry about sticking to the primary text. Show me that you understand the theories.” Then when papers are turned in - another perspective rears its ugly head. “This is not what I wanted.”  Of course it is not what you wanted. You don’t know what you want. That much seems clear. Perhaps the truth can be found in the works of Derrida? Maybe truth is so relative that nothing actually matters? Right? This is the theory which you introduced to the class, right? Maybe a student were to take this idea and approach his midterm with this perspective? Or maybe, they gave enough thought to the midterm to think outside the box Yes, Jerry Maguire does not work in a factory. I get it. You made a great point. But he does package deals. He does work his clients like a factory machine with the same bull shit and smile with slight variations as needed for each. Correlations could be made in the factory using Jerry as a prime example. I was thinking outside the box. Practice it sometime. It is nice. And another thing. Why do you think that only five to six people actually participate in the class? The rest of the class is silent. Waiting for the class to end. Hour by hour, minute by minute and second by second. What does that say about the class itself? Is it interested in the material provided? Does the teacher share the material in a clear and concise manner? I do not have the slightest clue. Perhaps this should be explored before the next semester starts? Just a thought.

Perhaps you feel that you are being disrespected with this blog? Maybe those thoughts are justified. But no more than the disrespect I felt when you accused me and another student of being high in your class. Why? Because I laugh in class? Because I am a jovial person? Are you that suspicious of another person’s happiness that you feel the need to accuse them of such an outlandish act? I am a father. For that reason alone, I do not do drugs. I am explaining myself not for your information but because you took it upon yourself to attack my integrity. I allowed this to go as I understand that bringing a dean into the situation would have been stupid and could have caused you to be reprimanded. I chalked it up to you having a bad moment. But then you wrote on my mid term exam “have you written a paper before?” That is the second time I feel that you have singled me out to make what I deem a personal attack. I didn’t ask for a take home exam. You changed the rules the day of the exam. Were I in class - I would not be able to use citations. Granted, I could have used citations. I chose not to do so for the afore mentioned reason. Is that a justifiable reason on my part, probably not. But I don’t even what I have earned in this class so in a post structuralist sense - it doesn’t matter.

 Not very cool. Respect is not given and maintained through reciprocation. Ask yourself, why is most of the class silent throughout the class? Have you actually asked your students if they understand what you are teaching ? I have. In short, attitude reflects leadership. So far, leadership is lacking. But like Derrida would say, truth is relative, right?

Citations will be available upon request, sir.