All Talk & Trousers

Let’s see how well this copy-pastes from Word. Yes, there are footnotes and end notes.

Raquel Breternitz, who definitely didn’t stay up all night writing this thing.

HIPSTERISM & CONSUMERISM
As Shown Through Urban Outfitters’ Online Marketing

Hipsters are being discussed in a great amount lately, with a great deal of confusion and vague derision. Like any “alt” movement, Hipsterism can be traced back an untold number of ancestors; if we begin in the 90s, we have the residual pop punk-ish types giving way to the Goths, and then the Goths eventually to the Emos, who branch off and live concurrently with Indie (something of a murky, transitional subculture) for awhile until Emo finally dies out and the Hipster emerges from Indie’s ashes. However, unlike those before it, the defining aspects of what makes a Hipster, where one could easily point out a Goth from pale skin and baggy black cargo pants with chains, or an Emo from their black dyed hair that sometimes with a shock of color, straightened and spiked, the visual cues of a Hipster, while obviously there—some consensus indicates Pabst blue ribbon beer, vintage clothing, ironic clothing and tattoos, fake nerdy glasses, fixed-gear bikes, —are more varied, often contradictory, and muddled by a new tendency in people to accuse everyone one doesn’t like, or who dresses somewhat differently, of Hipsterism. Furthermore, the question arises: with this obviously cyclical nature of youth cultural movements, why are the Hipsters any different or special? “Hipster” has become an umbrella term for alt culture in the most recent contemporary world because that world has forced alt culture to be a fast-shifting one; subcultures are changing too quickly to develop well-formed individual styles and postures, so they are all considered hipster. However, there are some overarching philosophies that influence how Hipsters act and think, and these philosophies are shifting from the previously cemented one-two punch of apathy and irony to a more complex negotiation of the postmodern and proto post-postmodern world[1].

Read More

The president’s duty, expanded to a politician’s duty, and updated.

Raquel Breternitz, who likes to rewrite things.

The constitution dictates that each president-elect takes an oath which reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” thus ensuring its own protection and survival. I find this an interesting facet of the constitution’s self-preservation. In light of this oath, what about the far-right campaign to repeal the 14th amendment (and things like it)? Though it’s perfectly constitutional to advocate the repeal of an amendment, provided you follow the proper channels, in this case the amendment is being attacked, not on legitimate grounds, but rather by being wielded as a fake platform to galvanize votes. Could this possibly be considered an attack on the constitution the president has taken an oath to defend? Perhaps “attack” is a strong term, but I feel that it is appropriate. Freedom of speech allows everyone to disrespect the constitution as much as they want, but if one is an office-holder, one should be held to higher standards of conscientiousness…right?

This isn’t a totally parallel analogy, but it may shed some light on what I feel “protect, preserve, and defend” should mean: If you had a little sister, and her boyfriend begins to talk about beating her just to gain the approval/support of a local gang, then wouldn’t you would take measures to protect her and remove the boyfriend, even if you knew he wouldn’t actually do it? Likewise, if congressmen are advocating amputating a part of our constitution just to get angry, white racists (along with the sad babies in this bathwater: the naive who believe the illogical justifications and just aren’t thinking things through when they vote), it seems clear to me that we ought to be taking steps to reprimand them.

Senators, representatives, and other government office-holders take an oath to uphold the constitution, too; are they also breaking their duty? Yes, and not only through inaction, but directly. Right now, there are Republicans who are fully admitting in the national media—as if it were no big deal, just business as usual—that they’re just being stubborn and blocking everything Obama and/or the democrats try to do in order to make them look bad and to get the Republican Party back in control. That is, there are politicians who are intentionally hurting America in order to get their party back in power. The worst, most absurd part of this is that these admissions aren’t being met with outrage or uproar; in fact, the tactic served them fairly well in the mid-term elections.

I’m not advocating legislation against politicians who are doing this, nor am I calling for their removal from office; I recognize those expectations are impractical and unrealistic (and may result in removing every last person), as much as I’d like them to happen. But I do contend that those people who are, in their professional capacity, using and abusing their constitution—and the political system in general—for their own gain ought to be met with disdain, disapproval, and disapprobation, not just from we the citizens, voters, and constituents, but also from the President and from their political peers. After all, these politicians have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, not their own party. What has happened in our society that it’s become okay (not just okay, it’s considered good politics, in the same way inhumane and ruthless business practices are praised for being successful) not only to practice, but to fully admit these harmful and blatantly petty practices?