Representations

I have fallen in love with "The stranger" which is a newspaper (I think it's free) in Seattle.  It's awesome and you guys should all check it out.  But.....the point of my blog is not that, though the stranger definitely did lead me to finding out about the blog called slog on thestranger.com.  

Dan Savage posted something this morning that really caught my eye.  It was about I-1000 that deals with a terminally ill patients right to end their life.  In the midst of the debate about whether or not Sarah Palin will be good for this country (she won't, but not the point) abortion gets brought up.  Does a woman have a right to have an abortion?  Yes?  Well if you can kill the unborn "baby" inside of you shouldn't you also be able to end your own life, especially if you have a terminal illness?  

I actually want to connect this to one of the readings we did and then part of a discussion we had in class last week about representation.  Abortion is at the forefront of debates, it's probably the single biggest thing Palin gets talked about for (her daughter's pregnancy is really not helping this situation), and yet ending your own life is not talked about very often in this way.  How did we decide that ending your own life is not as pretty of a subject to talk about?  What is it that makes abortion such a hot topic while ending your own life is not talked about at all?  

In the Graeme Turner article we read he made the point that what gets brought out to the public is something that "not only represents the nation: it also entertains us."  He was referring to Australian film in his writing, but I think it crosses over pretty well to the over arching idea of representation and what ideas get shown.  Abortion is messy, but it is fascinatingly messy and there are two big sides to this issue.  There are pictures and movies etc and this is "entertaining" to the general public in some kind of weird (not going to try and describe it here) way.  I think what Turner says about trying to enhance commercial viability is exactly what has happened with certain political issues.  Gay marriage is at the forefront of the California elections right now and yet I don't think I know very many people who know what any of the other props on this years ballot are.  What makes something entertaining and thus viable?  Turner's theory on this being the reason for why things make it there gives me that first step, but I'm still searching for the second.  Why do certain things fascinate us while others are of very little interest?