Bogotá Indignada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iurN495sW60

Vernacular Sounds

          To Alex Ross all American composers are invisible men. They lacked the tradition, support and audiences that composers in Europe had in the 1920's, but that was no restrain. He describes it as a freedom from tradition that allowed the American music scene to be full of diversity and incongruence, where composers created previously unheard music that thrusted American music to great heights. The lack of tradition allows people to break and set barriers that lead them to new findings.

          Duke Ellington's success caught my attention due to his exemplary deviation from tradition. Will Marion Cook, another African-American musician, told him "You know you should go to the conservatory, but since you won't, I'll tell you. First you find the logical way, and when you find it, avoid it, and let your inner self break through and guide you" (p. 165). Listening to Ellington's "East St. Louis Toodle-oo" one hears distinctive solos that distinguish from the rest of the composition with fast velocities and distorted sounds. According to Ross these innovations gave a sense of "circling like a cool crowd of onlookers". When I listened to the song I was unable to feel that circling, but I remembered another type of music that to me came out of nowhere and made me feel like I was being circled by a mashup of onlookers. I am talking about Skrillex's "First of the year", which features a blend of dubstup and electro house. I actually know nothing about these genres, but when I heard this song I was expecting something something like a rap, but suddenly the electronic part begins to and then the "bass drops". For the first time in my life I heard the crazy stringy sound effects. I have no other words to describe this because I do not even know what it is, but it feels similar to the breaking of tradition that Ross refered to. Like Ellingon, Skrillex did not go to the conservatory. Instead he created the most illogical sounds I have ever heard. 

vernacular: using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather than a literary, cultured, or foreign language

Atonality or Plain Disorder?

Atonality, the absence of a tonal center and of the harmonies from a diatonic scale that correspond to that center, has become more common since it was first commonly used. As Ross describes it, it was "destined to raise hackles" (p. 61) because it sounds illogical and brusque. In an atonal compositions the music may have no identified order and these can have any intervals without they being "wrong". Still, atonality is almost always identified due to its its liberty and that is why critics of Schoenberg were so skeptical of what he described in a letter to Wassily Kandinsky as "liberation from all forms, from all symbols of cohesion and of logic" (p. 62). 

I first encountered atonality when I began to play guitar. At first, since I knew nothing about playing and about music theory, I would play whatever my fingers could manage. That was the first time I played atonal music. I had no guiding scale that a harmony could match. Of course, this type of atonality is one that we should be real skeptical about. There was no real composition. Schoenberg's atonality represented a degeneration that cannot be truly explained, one may only speculate about its origin. Since I feel unsure about this atonality I prefer arguing about an atonality that I have heard before and that I recognize.

In King Crimson's popular "21st Century Schizoid Man" their is a definite use of atonality once the bridge enters. At first the song follows a C key with flat A's, B's and E's, but after two minutes, when the song drifts into a much more rapid and galloped rhythm,  the harmony deviates from the initial C and does not follow any particular key. This I perceive as a "liberation" similar to the one that Schoenberg embraced because it leaves the classical rock structure that the song begins with to enter a much more jazzed face. To do this, music many times emancipates from the standard it follows and follows no regular key.

 

Atonality:

Thus Spake Classical Music

Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise reminded me of classical music's quintessential role in films and also about its presence in my life. When Ross referred to one of the "most famous opening flourish in music: the "mountain sunrise" from Thus Spake Zarathustra" I realized Richard Strauss's influence in film. Then, I realized that classical music has influenced me via totally unrelated movies. First I heard Zarathustra in Toy Story 2, one of my favorite movies as a child, then in Zoolander, and finally in 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

Music has the ability to set the tone for everything it accompanies, like it does in movies. Thus Spake Zarathustra "draws… cosmic power" (p. 7), says Ross. 2001 begins with a black screen and Zarathustra playing creating a sense of anticipation before an eclipsed sun is revealed and then the Earth is shone by the sun. Later, in the "Dawn of Man" scene this same tone poem evokes anticipation, then confusion and then a sense of achievement when an early hominid succeeds in killing another tribe's leader. To me 2001 is a film of cosmic proportions in every sense that, besides its acclaim in every possible area, exposed me to classical music.

Music also creates bonds between the different media. To me, both Toy Story 2 and Zoolander allude to the superb 2001: A Space Odyssey and when I see and hear this, I sympathize with these movies. They not only create feelings of expectation through sound, but also mock and reference the innovative work of Kubrick's film. Toy Story 2 does not mock Kubrick's film because it uses Zarathustra very briefly, but Zoolander totally mimicked the "Dawn of Man" scene I talked about earlier. To me, this allusion simply reminds everyone who watched Zoolander about 2001: A Space Odyssey and it makes me think (possibly I am wrong) that the makers of this movie praise it even more than I do. Besides Zarathustra, I can immediately say I also remember Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" in a handful of movies. Most notably, in Apocalypse Now, Watchmen and even The Hangover. Definitely classical music makes its way into pop culture. 

swath: a broad strip or area of something

vexatious: causing or tending to cause annoyance

Divine... By Gartenzwerg

For better quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgRN61e0Azk

Fallacious Video by
Cristina Escallón
Daniela Ríos
Benjamín Sánchez

Bogotá, Crackhead Bogotá

     Reading Stephen Marche's "Toronto's Hot Mess-What Mayor Rob Ford Knows About Toronto" made me reflect on the mess that Bogotá, the Colombian capital city, is. Marche describes a transformation that Toronto is undergoing in parallel to the degradation he sees in Mayor Rob Ford. Is Bogotá "making a spectacle of itself" the way that Marche says Toronto is? No, it is not. Maybe even Toronto is not decaying in such manner, but I have no basis to comment on a city that I know almost nothing about. Instead, I can discuss the trivialities and quintessential events that occur in Bogotá and their intricate relationship to another very curious mayor, Gustavo Petro.

     Before I go on over Petro I will make note about something I saw in Bogotá. When Marche described the absurdity of the citizens of Toronto when many of them left their tickets and change on a subway turnstile that was damaged in order to pay for their tickets I had a flashback of an opposing image. A couple of weeks ago I saw three "Bogotanos" infiltrate into the Transmilenio (huge public buses) station without paying. Instead they crossed the street where the station is located, when they should cross by a bridge, and they opened one of the automatic doors that opens for the bus. Undoubtedly they do not pay for this service. Of course, Toronto is no "hot mess" while Bogotá is. In Marche's eyes Bogotá is very interesting and meanwhile I wonder if Toronto is "starting to get interesting". 

     Going back to Petro there is a lot to talk about. He is currently being impeached and he could be removed from office. Wether or not he will be discharged is up in the air, but his inefficiency was proved when his sanitation policy failed to efficiently dispose of wastes. Another interesting element in his character is that Petro is a demobilized guerrilla fighter. To some this is an aberration, but it is necessary to say that what he did is legal. The part of Petro's story that remind me of Toronto's Rob Ford has nothing to do with his mandate or his political beliefs. Like I said, I can discuss the trivialities that occur in Bogotá. While Petro has not smoked crack, there have been other scandals around him. 

     The last of these scandals was one of marriage, mystery and jealousy. A couple of months ago Leszlie Kalli, a district consultant, was told that she could not get near the mayor's office anymore. Then she was anonymously called and threatened with rape on the same account. Apparently, or at least that is what Daniel Winogard (Petro's personal consultant), Petro's wife was jealous about the threatened consultant and the mayor did not know what to do about it. This may appear like yellow journalism, but their is no doubt that this is relevant to a mayor's conduct. Like smoking crack. What would Stephen Marche say about Bogotá? What transition is this one? 

Rob Ford and Gustavo Petro

Dinkin Flicka

In Thank You for Arguing Heinrichs defines rhetorical figures and explains their accessibility for arguers. One may think that these are not very common in speech, but watching The Office I realized that they are much more common than I thought them to be. More specifically, figures of speech, figures of thought and tropes may make an arguer better to an audience. In The Office there is no direct arguing (or rather debate), but as a viewer one may sympathize more with a character's ethos depending on the figures that each uses. I was not expecting The Office or any show to have that many rhetorical figures since I had usually seen these in literature, but the episode "Casino Night" surprised me with a variety of idioms, clichés and twists. 

The first idiom that I identified was Michael's and Daryl's "dinkin flicka". Michael suggests to Darryl that he may steal company property because he is Black, to which Darryl responds saying "Cause' I'm from the hood" (note another idiom) and there Michael says, "dinkin flicka". Darryl then privately told the cameras that this expression was something "us negroes say". One may interpret it similarly to "C'est la vie" or "that's life". This idiom builds on Michael's reputation as a racist person since he implies that Darryl, a black man, will unavoidably steal. Besides being a totally erroneous stereotype, it does not argue a point and it rather defines Michael's character. To many, he is funny and appealing. I will not deny that I laughed a lot watching this episode.

The most striking figure I encountered was the surprise ending, which is actually new to me. Heinrich explains that to use it one should "concede your opponent's cliché and then mess it up deliberately": exactly what Stan, a disheartened employe, does to Michael, his boss. Michael does a casino night for his employees and as he wishes them luck he invents the idiom "Lady fortune is your boss", to which Stan responds with, "Will lady fortune give me a raise?". Stan's twist surprised both the audience and his opponent (Michael) and he immediately won the argument: Michael's response was "shush". Besides twisting the ending, Stan's response was also a rhetorical question. He suggested there was no fortune that he could get working at Dunder Mifflin. As a viewer I know that Stan is right and he won the argument, but at the same time this (again) builds on Michael's character: his invented idioms and his irresponsibility is quite funny. Apparently figures are everywhere. Besides, seeing them in The Office, my favorite comedy show, makes me realize how present rhetoric is around me. 

Intense Attack

In The Daily Show's argument between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly about Muslim terrorism there are a various rhetorical fouls. One of them is seen when O'Reilly employs innuendo, a suggestive form of humiliation, to "gain the upper hand" (p.167) on Stewart when he asks Stewart if he is going to the Middle East to set up an exchange program. O'Riley knows that Stewart is not going to set up any program in the Middle East and that he is not involved with any terrorist, but he is suggesting that Stewart is sympathetic with terrorism. The argument then becomes inarguable and in a failed attempt to save it Stewart plays on with O'Reilly's bantering by giving him reason. Proving Heinrich's point, this type of humiliation makes impossible any type of consensus or determination so the argument end's up with O-Reilly shoving his arguments jokes on Stewart and appearing to be stronger and decisive. Needless to say, this technique is not utter stupidity. These were not gratuitous insults, instead they were suggestive comments in a non-stop rhythm.  

In Stewart and O'Reilly's argument rhetorical virtue is also present. O'Reilly loses his virtuosity when he drifts of with the extreme choices he proposes to Stewart. By saying that if Stewart was sincere and cared for the Muslim community he would have a Muslim replace him when he was away, O'Reilly lies in the extreme and not the mean. In Aristotelean virtue it is ideal to propose the extremes and then stick to the in-between, not being too reckless or too careful for example. What O'Reilly proposes to Stewart in order to mock him is extreme right from the beginning. Of course, this is satire, where that lack of virtue is the spotlight. 

There could be a variety of ways for the argument to get serious as Heinrichs would probably want, but that is not the point. Insisting, one could say that more aristotelean arguing could have occurred if instead of bantering O'Reilly had questioned Stewart's absence and then asked what would be of the show without him. There, when he switches to future tense, he would deal with the specific problem or choice. That would be serious arguing. Yet, The Daily Show mocks news with a very ironic and witty humor that builds with great pathos. One that arguers should make note of

Powerful Wit

In my everyday life I should probably use more rhetoric than I do. There is no doubt about its effectiveness, yet one needs to know how and when to use it. I barely use its more sophisticated tools and instead I use humor in conversations with my friends. When I am able to pull off a with joke it is probably best, but usually these are facetious. Situational humor is hard to spot. My lack of rhetorical speaking is undeniable: the most humor I use is a "relatively ineffective form of persuasion" (p. 97). Fortunately I never say jokes while I argue or talk with a special audience. I mostly say these jokes when I am with my friends… Oh, and there is also some bantering when we get too childish.  

I am trying to recall any jokes I have said in the last days, but it is difficult to remember what exactly these were. Probably they were not even funny. The only one I can remember was not wit, facetious, or even bantering. It was actually an urbane joke that a friend pulled off by paying with two totally unrelated words. This was actually a very bad joke that him and I laugh because we have a very childish and immature sense of humor. Unfortunately this is the only joke I can remember right now. When a classmate asked if an assignment had to have fallacious language my friend asked back, "fellatios". The adjective "fallacious", which describes an argument that has fallacies, sounded very similar to the noun "fellatio", which describes a sexual behavior. The (bad) joke was asking back that word. It was a very stupid joke, but I cannot deny that we instantly began laughing. My friend did not even think what he was saying, it simply came out because some perverted part of his brain automatically commented on a mispronunciation. Or maybe it was even pronounced correctly, but he unconsciously made that very bad joke. It was out of context, yet it reminds me of the purpose of rhetoric. 

An arguer should aim to persuade the audience and in this case my friend got me to think he was funny. Still, humor is most important when one must convince an audience that one is better than another arguer. Possibly when one must outwit an opponent. 

Life Skills Assessment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggKMIwAZMkk&feature=youtu.be

My Linguistic Conundrum

         As I began reading Silvana Paternostro's memoir My Colombian War: A Journey through the Country I Left Behind, I was unable to abstain myself from feeling a familiarity in her language. It is not a familiarity that I praise. Instead it is a feeling of familiarity and knowing that I dislike. I felt I had read texts written with a very similar voice and language at school. This is no coincidence: Paternostro, most of my classmates and I are Colombian. Still, I felt this was not the way I want to write like. I fell its too Colombian for a memoir written in English. Yet, this is the essence of the memoir. My Colombian War is not meant to be a regular memoir written by an American. It is a Colombian memoir written in English by a Colombian woman that was swayed by the American culture and language.

Paternostro's memoir caught my attention because her stories have a lot to teach me. Like her, I am curiously interested journalism so I thought her story my interest me. This story is one about the blending of two cultures through journalism, therefore there is much to learn for me. Yet, I could not resist from thinking how Paternostro wrote her memoir. After some research I found no indications that her work was first written in Spanish and then translated to English. This is the untouched voice of Paternostro's Egnlish. Even though she has lived most of her life in the U.S the Colombian influence in her narration is obvious. Paternostro declares, "the life of freelance journalism is made of that: looking for ideas that can become stories," (p. 6). In no way I am saying this is incorrectly written, but I feel skeptical as I read it. I can perfectly imagine hearing a Colombian saying what Paternostro writes, but when I read it in English I feel it does not correspond to the language. I imagine someone saying, "de eso se trata el periodismo. De buscar ideas que se pueden convertir en histories," but I feel awkward imagining someone saying it in English.

I have read very little of Paternostro to be judging her writing, but enough to question my questionings. Perhaps my questions arise from trying to think in English when I actually think in Spanish, therefore I feel identified with Paternostro's writing. At least I have identified her Colombian roots. If this problematic is one that Paternostro also faces remains a mystery for me, but I feel her writing has a noticeable influence from Colombian speaking manners. Paternostro's extensive explanations and casual comparisons such as "The visit to Cartagena in 1996 had left me curious and hungry and I had started doing what I call "a little research", similar to what happens when you start developing a crush on someone," (p. 2) feel very familiar to me. It may be because I am accustomed to hearing and speaking in similar ways, but I feel confused with her descriptions. These are things I have seen in Spanish, but not in English. Not in text or speech. 

Freedom in the Combine

The approach Douglass takes on the ending of his narrative is a very peculiar one. He decided to abstain from telling the story and details of his escape in order to protect any fellow slaves that might have a chance like his. Even though some may perceive this as disappointing or unfulfilling, it is not. Douglass closes by depicting the reconstruction of his life as a citizen and not a slave. He finishes with a joyful and compelling ending instead of a bitter and intricate one. Yet, Douglass communicates his major interpretations of the system he was subjected to. 

It was impossible not to recall Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in the quintessential moments preceding Douglass's freedom. These two works parallel the constraints of a system and illustrate similarities in the breaking of the human spirit. I was reminded of the insurgent R.P McMurphy when Douglass reveals his examinations. He analyses how slaves were made thoughtless by their owners and eventually they ceased being human, all in order to have owners and slaves "content"(p. 98). Correspondingly, in Kesey's novel McMurphy serves as a conduct to depict the annihilation of the human character in mental institutions. When man is most fragile and impotent they lose reason and succumb to the restraints of their system. Douglass recounts how he confronted slavery and overcame its dehumanizing character, but Kesey shows how McMurphy failed to overcome the system. Slavery is a ruthless practice that has seen the destruction of many and unfortunately it has extended to present day. The psychiatric institution that Kesey portrays is just one of the many similar institutions to slavery.

Unfortunately Douglass's (and every freed slaves') suffering did not end with emancipation. It was impossible for Douglass to be calm after he freed himself. He had to rebuild his life in a new world where he "was afraid to speak to any one for the fear of speaking to the wrong one, and thereby fallen into the hands of money-loving kidnappers,"(p. 104) and cope with the threatening life of a free slave. In the end there was rest for Douglass, but the menace of slavery prevailed. It was always reminding him of what he had been and Douglass never forgot: he "felt myself a slave"(p. 112). 

Drive: an Elusive Detraction

       Reviving his most vivid memories, Frederick Douglass exposes a slaveholder's most feared revelations in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Mr. Auld, one of Douglass's former masters, struck Douglass's curiosity to learn how to read when he said teaching Douglass would make him "unmanageable, and of no value to his master" (p. 45). Consequently, emancipating from a slaveholder, probably a significant fear for them, was easier for a slave if he or she was educated. Eventually Douglass's grasped his master's fears and turned them into his drive for many future pleasant experiences.

  As Douglass saw his master abhor the education of a slave, he found a treasure in his speech. Hearing this triggered Douglass not just to read, but also to acquire a cleverness he lacked before learning to read. Similarly to a child who constantly acts in an opposing manner to that which a parent instills in, Douglass embraced opposing manners to his master's desires. He learned that "that which to him was a great evil… was to me [Douglass] a great good, to be diligently sought" (p. 46). The argument which discouraged Douglass's learning to read actually inspired him profoundly and convictively to learn. In order to confront slavery Douglass resiliently seized his biggest difficulties and in the end he came stronger, wiser and even as a free man.

It is common that the most unexpected contradictions ultimately become great discoveries. This was, at least, in Douglass's case. He learned to read while he was detracted from it. The more Douglass was dragged away from reading, the more he was attracted by it. Douglass even recognizes the greatness in his obstacle because this was what ultimately gave him the desire to learn. He acknowledges he owes "almost as much to the bitter opposition of my master, as to the kindly aid of my mistress," (p. 46) while he explains the foundations of his drive. Sometimes the power needed to develop strengths lies in the opposition and if one learns to understand it, it may result useful. Douglass discovered the medium to his passion by understanding the nature of his greatest detractions: the curb of knowledge.

An Appropriate Comparison

Wondering what to write my blog about, I came across the article  "When Blaxploitation Went West", written by Aisha Harris. The author assesses D'Jango Unchained's actual status as a western or a blaxploitation film in a very interesting take, yet, I do not want to talk about my views on D'Jango Unchained. Instead, I want to comment on the "mandingo fights", which Harris briefly mentions. I found a minor event in Frederick Douglass's narrative that made me reflect on these.

The brutality of "mandingo fights" is inconceivable for anyone, yet Quentin Tarantino exploits this myth to bolster his film's crudeness. The existence of "Mandingos" is uncertain, but still some claim similar fights did exist. Frederick Douglass's narrative makes me wonder if something along the lines of "nigger fights" or "mandingo fights" could have existed in a minor way. Douglass describes the impassioned discussions and fights slaves had with slaves of alien plantations while debating the greatness of their masters. How could any of them be better than the other? "They seemed to think that the greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves. It was considered as being bad enough to be a slave; but to be a poor man's slave was deemed a disgrace indeed!"(p. 33) says Douglass as he dooms the brutality of his fellow slaves. "Mandingos" are complete aberrations to anyone, but fighting for a slave's master too. It does not differ much from "mandingo fighting". Either way, slaves represented their masters' status, wealth, and "greatness". 

One could argue that slaves fought for their masters because of fear and the hope that the masters would reward them some way. Still, it is unbelievable that slaves would say their masters were good. Douglass suggests the most logic answer to these fights as he says, " …he was snatched away, and forever sundered, from his family and friends, by a hand more unrelenting than death.This is the penalty of telling the truth, of telling the simple truth, in answer to a series of plain questions." The ferocity of fighting for a slave's master was due to their intimidation and savagery. Slaves would lie and fight anyone to satisfy their masters' needs. After all it was them who could continue ruining them, or as Douglass describes, "promote" them to a more dignifying (or rather less savage) job.

After watching again the dehumanizing "mandingo fights" I assert these were too extreme. How could they not be extreme? They are Tarantino's deeds. But also, I wonder if these serve as hyperboles of somewhat similar fights like the ones depicted by Douglass.  Before reading his narrative I had never thought a slave could really fight in the name of his master. 

Endearing Pain

Frederick Douglass, a former slave and later an abolitionist, depicts the dawn of his anguish as a slave in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. One comprehends what he felt because one has had some repressed feelings, yet these do not compare to Douglass' misery. "A want of information concerning my own was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood. The white children could tell their ages. I could not tell why I ought to be deprived of the same privilege," (page 17) says Douglass explaining his unhappiness. When one has a desire of information there is a possibility of learning the truth, yet sometimes we frustrate when it is impossible. Knowing nothing about one's origins must generate continual desires about these, but Douglass was unable to learn much about them. Knowing where I come from gives me assurance and comfort: I have a family I can rely on. Douglass and innumerable amounts of slaves had none of these because knowledge was restricted for them.

The restrictions in Douglass' time were so vast that slaves never learned a variety of humane behaviors. Douglass recognizes  he lacked the affection of a mother when, "Never having enjoyed… her soothing presence… I received the tidings of her death with much the same emotions I should have probably felt at the death of a stranger" (page 19). This hollowness in someone's life projects the "glimmering conception of the dehumanizing character of slavery" (page 28). It deprives men of affectionate qualities and they suffer under savage conditions. Douglass struggled to alleviate his afflictions and recognized the dehumanization around his time. Yet, this is just one of many cases of exploitation where humane qualities were lost. For example, the Belgian exploitation of rubber at the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the 19th century was characterized for the enslavement and abuse of natives. Slavery not only deprives men of proper social and humane development, but as Douglass narrates, it makes men confuse real happiness with sorrow or pain. 

The lack of knowledge, affection, and humane behavior makes slaves deviate from proper human behavior. They do not simply suffer. They learn to cope with pain and cherish the lesser torments because they had no real pleasing occurrences. 

Dreams in the Green

                                          Reading of The Great Gatsby

Bloggers' Common Mistake

Blog: a Web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites.

"This Is a Blog Post. It Is Not a "Blog."", by Forrest Wickman, thoroughly argues about the misconception between a blog post and a blog. Right from the beginning of the post (article, piece, or blog post) Wickman illustrates the determination of his arguments by capitalizing "is" and not" in the tittle. While some may perceive this as a mistake, it is not. This irregularity is a simple overstatement that blogs are not the same as blog posts. Titling the article "This is a Blog Post. It is not a "Blog."" would also be correct, but the unusual capitalization encapsulate the whole article's point: blogs are web sites were blog posts can be found. 

I had never thought about the difference between blogs and blog posts, but actually it is very clear. As Wickam says, it must be stopped. Seeing Roger Ebert, a notorious film critic, was misusing the word "blog", notes how common this mistake is. Moreover, it shows a great error that Ebert should have avoided: this blemishes his work in the eyes of scrupulous readers. As a writer and a reader I agree with Wickman: a simply mistake like calling this post a blog, will undermine a writers writing. It proves carelessness in a writer's work, whether it is a successful one like Roger Ebert or a simple high school student. One should write correctly whether one is chatting, writing an article, or writing in any other medium. 

Wickman did me a favor by posting his blog entry and probably saved me from getting "judged" by one or two scrupulous scholars. They are right to do it. Confusing a blog with a blog post is just as wrong as confusing "that" and "who". Lastly, this is the last blog that I will write. From now on in this blog only entries and posts will be posted. Like Wickman "blogs blogs" all the time, I have done so before, but from now on I will write and post blog entries.