The Twitter Election

As if the millions of conferences and brainstorming the nastiest thing that can be said about the opposing candidate aren't enough to keep the presidential candidates busy, add conquering the Twittersphere to that list.
      Yet, while this article by Dr. Janet Johnson talks about Twitter as another setting for candidates to use, SNARK - Twitter's winning trait - might just be changing the Election rhetoric, as well as the rhetoric of candidates as well.



Now, looking at the stats, there's no doubt that Twitter is a medium that people use in order to discuss politics, but it's actually the sound bites that leave the biggest impact. With trends like #horsesandbayonets dominating the Twittersphere, the audience is evidently keyed into the snark aspect of the election. In fact, according a Vancouver Sun article, people are more interested in what the Twitter feeds are saying more than the actual articles or accounts in the news.

This leads us to ask, what kind of impact is this leaving on the candidates themselves?

Because the one liners lead to much more satisfactory trends than some statistic or a long-winded, sophisticated speech, President Obama, according to this article has changed from a tone of hope to to one of snark.
Even Governor Romney agrees in the power of snark, as he told New York Times that ahead of the first debate his strategy was to memorize one liners.

And despite some critics, the snark rhetoric is winning. According to most pundits, the final debate, where President Obama scored multiple one liners, was considered absolutely a win for President Obama.

So, what kind of snark are we talking about? Let's recap...

At the final presidential debate, President Obama showed a true transition from the hope rhetoric that he has for a long time exemplified, to the more Twitter approved, snark rhetoric.

1. President Obama's Seinfeld experience.
While discussing Russia in foreign policy, in response to Governor Romney's statement that Russia is the #1 geopolitical foe, President Obama channeled his inner George Constanza.

"The 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years." - Obama

 2. “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We also have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on and submarines that go under water.” - President Obama

This particular one liner was so "snarky" that more than 100,000 people tweeted about it within a minute of the president's saying it. In other words, in the Twittersphere rather than remarks about the statistics of the actual number of ships in the navy, it was Obama's snark that dominated. As a result, for those who have resorted to Twitter as their news source, that puts Obama in the lead or at least in the forefront of people's minds.

3. “[Romney is] changing up so much and backtracking and side stepping we’ve got to name this condition he’s going through, I think it's called... Romnesia." - President Obama

#Romnesia has for a while circulated the Twittersphere, indicating the impact of the snark rhetoric.

This particular shift and importance of Twitter even in our elections, might be a tad troubling. After all, how are we changing the rhetoric of elections? Debates?

Is President Obama's snark rhetoric what we need to hear? Is Twitter ultimately healthy for our elections? I mean sure, the candidates can get more coverage, but if it changes how they're talking then, is it really all that great?

Although there is a typical positive response to snark, does it in the end affect how people vote?

Please share your thoughts or any particular tweet/trend that you found to be satisfying!

Joan d'Arc of Our Decade

Words cannot describe the horror of what happened to Malala Yousufzaii, and as a female living in the US being handed my education, it's given me a lot to think about...

Last night, however, as I was reading different articles about the event, I noticed two things:

1. The power of the phrase "Daughter of the Nation"
2. Westernized word choice

The first article that I stumbled upon, described the new name that was created for Malala, "Daughter of the Nation." Despite the brutal context of the event, I think there's some romantic aspect to the name. From spurring demonstrations by the tens of thousands to becoming the rallying cry for the heroine, the use of this phrase has done something for Pakistan that hasn't been achieved in a long time. Unity.

Now, knowing a little a bit about Pakistan might help to see just the extent of the unifying power of this rallying cry. For the longest time, Pakistan has been a country torn among different religious groups all under the larger umbrella of Islam.

Different religious groups in Pakistan

 
And even up until Malala, protests against violence against women striving for an education have been small and negligible. Yet, both this phrase and Malala have brought together Pakistanis of all different stripes.

"So what is it about the phrase that could make it so powerful?" I asked myself.


I saw that in the phrase, "Daughter of the Nation," the use of the word nation implies a representation of Pakistan as a whole. Rather than, for example, "Daughter of not Taliban or Freedom or Education," which would alienate Malala from the people. Instead, this phrase gives the Pakistanis an idea that they can identify themselves with. At the same time, it's also an identity that they're sharing with the world, albeit a different one. For a while, other countries have viewed Pakistan solely through a religious lens or even as "the place where the Taliban are located," but this time Pakistanis are rallying behind someone who represents the larger idea of rights as a human being, which is something almost everyone can agree with.

At the same time, I've been wondering, is this phrase appealing to other countries because it can be seen as very westernized word choice?

Speaking of westernized word choice, did you know Malala was Christian? Yes. Nor did I. But a better question to ask might be, does it matter? And if it were added what would it bring/not bring to the conversation?

I'll give you a couple seconds to ponder that...
...
...
...
...
...
...


Well?

I guess for myself, I saw this event larger than religion, which was precisely why I thought it transcended the discontinuity among religious ideologies. Yet, the second article I happened by took me by surprise. Unlike the title of the first article, which was "Pakistani teen shot by Taliban becomes 'daughter of the nation', the title of the second article was, "Christian girl hailed as 'daughter of nation' by senior Pakistani cleric."

Yes... both titles include the phrase "Daughter of the Nation," however, one describes the teen as Pakistani and the other as Christian. Although, both are exactly 9 letters, they imply and add very different ideas to the conversation. Associating Malala as Pakistani, reestablishes the intent of the phrase, using her as a mascot of representation of what the Pakistani people believe in, which is the idea that it's wrong to have bullets settle disputes. On the other hand, describing Malala as Christian, who comes from a country where Islam is the major religion, could be possibly detrimental and beneficial. For instance, by adding that she's Christian, it provides the opportunity for people to compare Islam and Christianity. Perhaps, even to the extent of saying Christianity is better than Islam because Malala was Christian, and look she was standing up for ideals championed by Western societies: education and rights, while the attackers are based on an extremist form of Islam. 

A less pessimistic take on that might be that defining Malala as Christian actually allows others to relate to the cause and to Malala. Since, some of us won't necessarily understand having to fight for our education or risking our life to simply have the chance to learn.     

But at the same time, comparing the two articles, is there really a significance in mentioning her religion? Wouldn't that create more of a separation between Islam and Christianity in the minds of readers?


My heart goes out to Malala and her family, and wish her a swift recovery~

    

Stop Licking Watermelons

Mistranslated Phrase of the Day:

At a Budapest Zoo: "Please do not feed the animals. If you have any suitable food, give it to the guard on duty."

I never realized the true power of languages until I, Elizabeth Woo, was a victim of it. It was in 4th grade when rather than studying for a Math test I had that week, I boasted that because I was familiar with the format of the tests, studying would be unnecessary. My mom responded with the quote, "수박 겉 핥기" (soo bak gut halki sheek). Directly translating this phrase to English, I was left with "Stop licking watermelons." Yum.

It turned out that the phrase actually signified the idea of making judgments before experiencing or knowing the deeper layers. She was warning me of assuming the nature of the test before having truly taken it.

Despite not earning a good score on the Math test, I instead became aware of the power and role of languages. Without knowing the Korean language, I would not have been able to access or even understand the wisdom that my mom was sharing with me. Ever since then, through my adventures to Germany, France, Finland, etc. I've pursued learning the languages.

I was shocked to see how many different expressions existed that couldn't be translated from one language to another as well as the importance of one single word. This got me thinking. How does the English language influence us?

Historically, I saw the country split over the wording of the Declaration of the Independence. I saw the country go to war over the de Lome letter. I saw Lincoln bringing people together through his Gettysburg Address. I realized history in part repeated itself because of the same mistakes or successes that were made through the rhetoric and the language.

Language continues to be influential, even today. With the election on its way, the presidential candidates must not only have policies, but they must also be able to wield the language in their favor in order to attract the American public. Languages also play a key role in the lives of immigrants. As I saw with my Korean language, languages shape a culture and there are values and ideals that can't be easily transferred from one language to another.Outside of our borders, the language we use to engage with other countries on a daily basis naturally contributes to our ability to trade and to collaborate.

From my high school perspective, there's even a difference in my language of the texting, facebooking, tweeting world and that of my parent's generation or that of the next generation's. It's from those differences and even similarities that values and priorities are reflected.

Languages are the silent movers. They can poke holes in our foundation or make it stronger, without us even knowing.

For too long we have deceived ourselves of the taste of the watermelon solely by licking the surface. Join me in investigating just how deep the layer goes.