Stem cell research ad-Jim Talent
The gloves are off in Missouri. Has any race gotten more attention this season than the one between Rethug Incumbent Jim Talent and Demo challenger Claire McCaskill?
This ad sure doesn't pull any punches.
Opinions?
Saturday, November 04, 2006
The Counter November Surprise
An editorial in for independent, military publications, which hit the newstands on Monday, calls for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Decretary of Defense. The publications-- Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and the Marine Corps Times-- argue that since Rumsfeld lost the support of military leadership, he should resign. President Bush, of course, believes Rumsfeld has done a great job and will not allow him to resign.
You can read the editorial at Army Times.
An excerpt:
You can read the editorial at Army Times.
An excerpt:
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
Unsubstantiated accusations?
Our moral beacon, Ted Haggard here admits that he did purchase some meth from Jones. Although he claims that he did not "sit on Pete's couch," but threw out the drugs. When asked about how he knew that Jones had meth for sale, Haggard becomes very uncomfortable and attempts to end the interview, as he realizes that he's working himself into a corner. It doesn't seem likely that his relationship with Jones was one of casual aquaitance. What are the chances that a masseur would randomly announce to a client that he had some meth for sale, without first enquiring into his occupation? I mean, wouldn't he want to ensure that he wasn't soliciting drugs to a policeman. And after learning that Haggard was not a cop but a minister, why would he offer him drugs? There are too many holes in Haggard's stories.
Our moral beacon, Ted Haggard here admits that he did purchase some meth from Jones. Although he claims that he did not "sit on Pete's couch," but threw out the drugs. When asked about how he knew that Jones had meth for sale, Haggard becomes very uncomfortable and attempts to end the interview, as he realizes that he's working himself into a corner. It doesn't seem likely that his relationship with Jones was one of casual aquaitance. What are the chances that a masseur would randomly announce to a client that he had some meth for sale, without first enquiring into his occupation? I mean, wouldn't he want to ensure that he wasn't soliciting drugs to a policeman. And after learning that Haggard was not a cop but a minister, why would he offer him drugs? There are too many holes in Haggard's stories.
November Surprise?
Why will this decision be handed down by an Iraqi Court two days before the midterm elections? (The passive voice in this sentence seems to be the essential component of the sentence.) Is there a connection between public declaration of guilt or innocence of Saddam and the mis-term elections or is this post just a conspiracy?
By announcing Saddam's sentence two days before the midterm elections, the Bush administration can claim victory in the War on Iraq because they will have brought Saddam to justice. The decision will not be hard to determine-- "Tis a Fair Court" after all.
But the move to announce the decision and close the city of Baghdad is curious in its connection to the United States'
political calendar. In 2004, Osama delivered a message four days before the elections. That was enough to sway the elections by reminding people of the great evil in the world.
Will the Saddam verdict provide enough evidence to show the administration's credibility in the War on Terror? Will closing Baghdad for the immediate future reduce the chance of violence, which would reduce the visibility of Iraq to the American public before they (don't) vote?
By announcing Saddam's sentence two days before the midterm elections, the Bush administration can claim victory in the War on Iraq because they will have brought Saddam to justice. The decision will not be hard to determine-- "Tis a Fair Court" after all.
But the move to announce the decision and close the city of Baghdad is curious in its connection to the United States'
political calendar. In 2004, Osama delivered a message four days before the elections. That was enough to sway the elections by reminding people of the great evil in the world.
Will the Saddam verdict provide enough evidence to show the administration's credibility in the War on Terror? Will closing Baghdad for the immediate future reduce the chance of violence, which would reduce the visibility of Iraq to the American public before they (don't) vote?
A defense of Haggard? Only if you reject principles
From Andrew Sullivan: David Frum defends Haggard here. And what an intellectual activity it is. Here are a few quotes from Frum's article and some refutations to his arguments:
Passage One:
In this first paragraph, Frump, I mean Frum, I hate it when I make that mistake, reminds his listeners that the evidence needs to be tested and offers an ad hominem attack against the left. It seems that if you are on the left you cannot discuss this without being "gleeful" (no hasty generalization here; nothing to see here, look away). Frum's position is that we need to be reasonable but that does not mean he has to be reasonable (only you need to live by the law and be fair to others; he does not have to). Liberals are wrong for attacking Haggard; but since Frum is not a liberal, he can defend Haggard and attack liberals. This opening seems to reflect the intellectual honesty of the entire article.
Passage Two:
There are a three ideas that need to be discussed in this point. First, it is okay to hire male prostitutes if you are married. It seems you can live a life of indiscretions as long as you present a correct public face. Is that not true Young Goodman Brown? Again, these moral principles only apply to you and not to your leaders. It is very hard to be a leader. It is "Hard Work!"
Second, is this not relativism? Frum's criteria is "more moral." In this hypothetical, if individuals were to adhere to "traditional moral principles" then both men needed to be condemned because neither one leads the moral life. Our "traditional moral principles" would frown upon both individuals. The conclusion to reach is that these traditional moral principles are not principles, just a means to an end, convenient only when useful.
Third, an important phrase appears in Frum's text: "Inclined toward homosexuality." Does this mean it is an orientation? The connotation is not clear, but it is incredibly important. Think of of this: If humans are inclined toward homosexuality then God created this inclination, (wouldn't that be the necessary connection between designer and designed?) If there is a designer, then biblical interpretation against homosexuality is blasphemy-- as humans, how could we condemn something God made? Furthermore, to not adhere to the "inclination toward homosexuality" would be to reject the talents given by a designer. Which human is to say that it is not a homosexual's purpose to develop a loving, stable relationship even if it violates "traditional moral principles." In 1 Samuel 18 - 20, David and Jonathan have a deep spiritual relationship that could serve as a foundation for a "traditional moral principle" about the way in which a relationship should develop. In our world today, we may eve consider that relationship to be homosexual.
Passage Three:
This is a good redefinition of the situation- "turn the tables" in refutation. Yet, though Haggard is living a virtuous life by turning away from a moral evil (that may not necessarily be an evil), he also engages in an affair and purchases Meth. You cannot remove these from the equation. There is a reason people turn to drugs and, in this case, his "living in a closet" while bashing his desires or "inclinations" in public leads to worse vices. And besides, isn't Meth illegal? Where is the virtue in this? And speaking of Hawthorne, maybe Haggard and Frum should read The Scarlet Letter. Maybe an education in the classics would not be a bad thing.
Passage Four:
What is the "public good" here? Speaking out for the protection of marriage would be a public good only if the speaker's actions followed his words. If not, then he violates his own ethos of a speaker and the ethos of his community. Is the public good to rise above personal desires for the interests of the community? Haggard does not do that. Is it a public good to forget about party politics and support "national interests," and in the process allow for torture, which detracts from the "national ethos?"
Even worse, the text suggests that speaking out against homosexuality, I mean defending traditional marriage, is exactly like speaking out against segregation. This is a valid analogy? If homosexuality is designed, then the opposite would be true. Those who speak out against it act in a manner that reflects segregationists- they deny the humanity of others.
Passage Five
His moral firmness depends on his interpretation of the Bible. First, I am all for defending the institution of marriage by engaging in affairs. Maybe affairs do save marriage. Sure there is a Commandment that addresses that, but it is not as if Evangelicals think they are "Commandments." They are just suggestions, right?. It is not as if they interpret the Bible literally.
Second, the concept of homosexuality did not exist until the 19th century-- to apply a concept from modern times to the bible is problematic. To apply a text that one or multiple authors prepared for a specific audience that existed hundreds of years ago seems equally as troubling. There is a reason that Jews were commanded to not eat shellfish-- the lack of knowledge on food preparation a few thousand years ago made many people sick. Today, we do not follow those prescriptions since we know how to prepare food.
Third, there are multiple ways to interpret the bible and the passages that concern "homosexuality." Since there are a lot of issues with his interpretation of the Bible, why should we praise his "intellectual firmness?" Is it good to praise a person for their intellectual habits when they reduce complex issues through simple, dogmatic interpretations that deprive others of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Is it "intellectual firmness" to speak out against who you are? Is it "intellectual firmness" to defend Haggard's actions when his actions clearly violate the ethos of his community? Further, is it "intellectual fairness" to live according to a few of the 600 hundred rules discussed in the Old Testament?
Passage Six:
The hardest victory is over the self- to make sure the self preserves in the face of great social conformity and against the desire for power. Haggard denied his self to ensure his own rise to power. The desires he needed to overcome is the desire for power and his desire to bash others like himself to achieve this power.
Passage One:
A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!
In this first paragraph, Frump, I mean Frum, I hate it when I make that mistake, reminds his listeners that the evidence needs to be tested and offers an ad hominem attack against the left. It seems that if you are on the left you cannot discuss this without being "gleeful" (no hasty generalization here; nothing to see here, look away). Frum's position is that we need to be reasonable but that does not mean he has to be reasonable (only you need to live by the law and be fair to others; he does not have to). Liberals are wrong for attacking Haggard; but since Frum is not a liberal, he can defend Haggard and attack liberals. This opening seems to reflect the intellectual honesty of the entire article.
Passage Two:
Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.
One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.
The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.
Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?
There are a three ideas that need to be discussed in this point. First, it is okay to hire male prostitutes if you are married. It seems you can live a life of indiscretions as long as you present a correct public face. Is that not true Young Goodman Brown? Again, these moral principles only apply to you and not to your leaders. It is very hard to be a leader. It is "Hard Work!"
Second, is this not relativism? Frum's criteria is "more moral." In this hypothetical, if individuals were to adhere to "traditional moral principles" then both men needed to be condemned because neither one leads the moral life. Our "traditional moral principles" would frown upon both individuals. The conclusion to reach is that these traditional moral principles are not principles, just a means to an end, convenient only when useful.
Third, an important phrase appears in Frum's text: "Inclined toward homosexuality." Does this mean it is an orientation? The connotation is not clear, but it is incredibly important. Think of of this: If humans are inclined toward homosexuality then God created this inclination, (wouldn't that be the necessary connection between designer and designed?) If there is a designer, then biblical interpretation against homosexuality is blasphemy-- as humans, how could we condemn something God made? Furthermore, to not adhere to the "inclination toward homosexuality" would be to reject the talents given by a designer. Which human is to say that it is not a homosexual's purpose to develop a loving, stable relationship even if it violates "traditional moral principles." In 1 Samuel 18 - 20, David and Jonathan have a deep spiritual relationship that could serve as a foundation for a "traditional moral principle" about the way in which a relationship should develop. In our world today, we may eve consider that relationship to be homosexual.
Passage Three:
Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?
This is a good redefinition of the situation- "turn the tables" in refutation. Yet, though Haggard is living a virtuous life by turning away from a moral evil (that may not necessarily be an evil), he also engages in an affair and purchases Meth. You cannot remove these from the equation. There is a reason people turn to drugs and, in this case, his "living in a closet" while bashing his desires or "inclinations" in public leads to worse vices. And besides, isn't Meth illegal? Where is the virtue in this? And speaking of Hawthorne, maybe Haggard and Frum should read The Scarlet Letter. Maybe an education in the classics would not be a bad thing.
Passage Four:
In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.
What is the "public good" here? Speaking out for the protection of marriage would be a public good only if the speaker's actions followed his words. If not, then he violates his own ethos of a speaker and the ethos of his community. Is the public good to rise above personal desires for the interests of the community? Haggard does not do that. Is it a public good to forget about party politics and support "national interests," and in the process allow for torture, which detracts from the "national ethos?"
Even worse, the text suggests that speaking out against homosexuality, I mean defending traditional marriage, is exactly like speaking out against segregation. This is a valid analogy? If homosexuality is designed, then the opposite would be true. Those who speak out against it act in a manner that reflects segregationists- they deny the humanity of others.
Passage Five
If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality - and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children - why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?
His moral firmness depends on his interpretation of the Bible. First, I am all for defending the institution of marriage by engaging in affairs. Maybe affairs do save marriage. Sure there is a Commandment that addresses that, but it is not as if Evangelicals think they are "Commandments." They are just suggestions, right?. It is not as if they interpret the Bible literally.
Second, the concept of homosexuality did not exist until the 19th century-- to apply a concept from modern times to the bible is problematic. To apply a text that one or multiple authors prepared for a specific audience that existed hundreds of years ago seems equally as troubling. There is a reason that Jews were commanded to not eat shellfish-- the lack of knowledge on food preparation a few thousand years ago made many people sick. Today, we do not follow those prescriptions since we know how to prepare food.
Third, there are multiple ways to interpret the bible and the passages that concern "homosexuality." Since there are a lot of issues with his interpretation of the Bible, why should we praise his "intellectual firmness?" Is it good to praise a person for their intellectual habits when they reduce complex issues through simple, dogmatic interpretations that deprive others of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Is it "intellectual firmness" to speak out against who you are? Is it "intellectual firmness" to defend Haggard's actions when his actions clearly violate the ethos of his community? Further, is it "intellectual fairness" to live according to a few of the 600 hundred rules discussed in the Old Testament?
Passage Six:
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self."
The hardest victory is over the self- to make sure the self preserves in the face of great social conformity and against the desire for power. Haggard denied his self to ensure his own rise to power. The desires he needed to overcome is the desire for power and his desire to bash others like himself to achieve this power.
Friday, November 03, 2006
This Man is Not a Decent Human Being: Perfect Judge Material In Dallas
The "liberal" Dallas Morning News
endorses Judge Keith Dean for re-election Tuesday despite . . . well, just check this up-Dean's-ass excerpt out:
Judge Keith Dean quietly dispensed thousands of sentences, yet he hit Page One this year because of the shocking disparity in two handed down several years apart. A white, politically connected killer received unsupervised probation; a poor, black robber of $2, sent to prison for life after violating probation.
Democrat Mark Stoltz, 55, of Dallas says that should be enough for him to unseat Judge Dean, 50, a Dallas Republican. While the story left Judge Dean vulnerable after nearly two decades on this felony bench – and we expect him to redouble efforts to be fair on each and every case – Mr. Stoltz did not make a case that he's the man to replace him.
Judge Dean continues to rank near the top in the Dallas Bar's judicial evaluation poll, including an 88 percent overall approval rating. In fiscal 2005, his court was the most efficient in total costs, jail costs and cost per disposition among Dallas County felony judges. He is the superior candidate.
Harrogate just doesn't understand. Here's this judge going to events, posing for photo-ops, living well, shaking hands, smiling, playing with grandchildren, being respected as a decent human being even though the smug bastard has consigned someone to life for violating probation after stealing two dollars (BTW, the young black man's crime? He smoked a joint--visited Pete's couch--while on probation).
Those who reserve some pride in this country's institutions, Harrogate envies you but still thinks you've spent a little too much time on Pete's couch yourself. He just thinks that in general, any decent human being you find in the halls of power in Uhmerrikah, why that person would be like a dewdrop in a cesspool.
And that's the Memo. Now to Harrogate's top story....
Van Halen news
It was announced today, and confirmed by TMZ, that Van Halen have named Eddie's fifteen-year-old son Wolfgang the new bassist for the band. "Wolfie" replaces founding member Michael Anthony, who left the band ealier this year to tour with former Van Halen frontman Sammy Hagar.My favorite Austin radio station reports that "Wolfie" is rehearsing with the group in preparation for a 2007 tour. While no lead singer has been named, Eddie and the group's original frontman, Diamond David Lee Roth, have both expressed a willingness to put their differences aside and work together again.
Keep your fingers crossed and start saving your money. If this thing works out, tickets won't be cheap. But I'm willing to take out a second mortgage if necessary. Whatever it takes to see Eddie, Alex, and Dave together again. Of course, this will likely prompt Mrs. Oxymoron to take a new lover. I will miss her.
Still on Pete's Couch
A tightly written and exuberant analysis of the Rhetorically Unstable Pete's Couch commercial can be found here. Note Harrogate's concurring comment to what Baseball and Brioche sets forth: The point being that, however unintentionally, there is a solid reading of this commercial whereby Pete (and not the preppy narrator who, by the way, has enjoyed the fruits of Pete's Logos only to sell him out in support of the Federal Government's Mythos) emerges as the true hero of the piece.
Harrogate invites--no, implores--readers to follow his link for some context on this culturally crucial topic.
More Double Entendres (Contributions Welcome)
From the world of Journalism:
1)This just in
2)Behind-the-scenes look
3)Coming to you live....
4)Wall to wall coverage (okay, you have to use your imagination a little for that one)
From the restaurant business:
1)Behind you
2)Backup meat sauce
3)My name is ______ and I'll be your server this evening
4)Can I get that on the fly?
5)Waiter, there's a hair on my sausage!
1)This just in
2)Behind-the-scenes look
3)Coming to you live....
4)Wall to wall coverage (okay, you have to use your imagination a little for that one)
From the restaurant business:
1)Behind you
2)Backup meat sauce
3)My name is ______ and I'll be your server this evening
4)Can I get that on the fly?
5)Waiter, there's a hair on my sausage!
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The Scarlet H
First, I hope his family is well. There is tragedy in this story. A lot of it.
Second, via Andrew Sullivan, Do you know what "H" stands for? Want to guess?
There are multiple words begining with H that apply. We could play madlibs with this story.
In a comment about the times in which we live, the story is already on Wikipedia.
What wikiality? Wikiality, What?
Third, who possesses the burden of proof and burden of rejoinder in this debate? Right now, there is very little evidence to suggest that this is true. Further, the evidence is from a close source to the cituation though it may be "tainted" [pun, pun, pun] Does the accuser possess the burden of proof or Pastor Ted?
Fourth, this is a story about ethos, especially good moral character and the presentation of that character. By posting on this topic, do I lower our ethos since I am focusing on the troubles of others?
Second, via Andrew Sullivan, Do you know what "H" stands for? Want to guess?
There are multiple words begining with H that apply. We could play madlibs with this story.
In a comment about the times in which we live, the story is already on Wikipedia.
What wikiality? Wikiality, What?
Third, who possesses the burden of proof and burden of rejoinder in this debate? Right now, there is very little evidence to suggest that this is true. Further, the evidence is from a close source to the cituation though it may be "tainted" [pun, pun, pun] Does the accuser possess the burden of proof or Pastor Ted?
Fourth, this is a story about ethos, especially good moral character and the presentation of that character. By posting on this topic, do I lower our ethos since I am focusing on the troubles of others?
Harrogate Implores Readers to "Feel the Love" in Mandarin-Chinese
An Argument Against Uniliateralism
Harrogate couldn't resist. In ways, this video, too, is dedicated to Oxymoron, whose musical taste--unlike Clinton's taste in women--remains unimpeachable.
Harrogate couldn't resist. In ways, this video, too, is dedicated to Oxymoron, whose musical taste--unlike Clinton's taste in women--remains unimpeachable.
Zone, the Twilight....
I saw this ad some time ago. I still am perplexed by it.
Republicans possess the executive, legislative, and judiciary. Yet, liberals create all of the problems in the United States.
I don't know who republicans can be the majority but have no power; hold the offices but get nothing accomplished. Why don't the republican constituencies hold their representatives accountable to issues like same-sex marriage in flag burning in odd years? Why is it only in even years republicans push for these initiatives?
I wish I could figure out the answers to those questions.
Republicans possess the executive, legislative, and judiciary. Yet, liberals create all of the problems in the United States.
I don't know who republicans can be the majority but have no power; hold the offices but get nothing accomplished. Why don't the republican constituencies hold their representatives accountable to issues like same-sex marriage in flag burning in odd years? Why is it only in even years republicans push for these initiatives?
I wish I could figure out the answers to those questions.
Refutation
I was trying to find a video clip that explains refutation for one of my mass lecture classes. My office mate suggested a clip from West Wing. We found this online, but I did not show it. This is an excellent clip but it would not work for a mass lecture class. It would only work for a small class in which you could discuss all of the implications. If you didn't, a charge of "indoctrination" would soon follow.
The Kerry Incident and Intellectual Honesty- from a Conservative
Over at The Corner at NRO:
And...
Yes, But [John Derbyshire]
John Kerry is awful, and anything we can do further to degrade his political prospects is worth doing. But really, I saw a clip of him making the much-deplored remark, and it was obvious that the dimwit in Iraq that he referred to was George W. Bush, not the American soldier. It was a dumb joke badly delivered, but his meaning was plain. My pleasure in watching JK squirm is just as great as any other conservative's, but something is owed to honesty. There's a lot of fake outrage going round here.
Posted at 9:46 AM
And...
Outrage [John Derbyshire]
...from several readers — and, obviously some of my Corner colleagues — that I would dare to suggest that John Kerry was not slandering our troops.
But he wasn't. He may regard them with contempt (my personal impression is that JK regards most of the human race with contempt); he may despise them; he may think they're dumb crackers; but T-H-A-T-'-S N-O-T W-H-A-T H-E S-A-I-D.
What he said was: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Who is stuck in Iraq? Not the common soldier, who just does a tour of duty, as Kerry himself knows from (sorry to bring it up) experience. Who's stuck in Iraq? George W. Bush is stuck in Iraq. That was the point of Kerry's joke. Which he botched. No fair-minded person, watching Kerry deliver those lines, could think otherwise.
I'm not carrying any water for John Kerry. I wrote this about John Kerry, and a good deal more uncomplimentary stuff besides. I don't like John Kerry. I didn't vote for John Kerry. Truth is truth, though, even when applied to John Kerry. If you can't handle the truth, that's your problem.
Posted at 10:21 AM
Good Night and Good Luck
This is from Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Follow the link; this is a must read.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/01/olbermanns-special-comment-there-is-no-line-this-president-has-not-crossed-nor-will-not-cross-to-keep-one-political-party-in-power/
or here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/
Here is the video, in two parts:
Part I:
Part II:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/01/olbermanns-special-comment-there-is-no-line-this-president-has-not-crossed-nor-will-not-cross-to-keep-one-political-party-in-power/
or here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/
Here is the video, in two parts:
Part I:
Part II:
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Less is More. So They Say.
Wired magazine recently asked sci-fi, fantasy, and horror writers to compose a short story (or many in the case of some authors) in just six words -- an explicit homage to Ernest Hemingway's story: "For Sale: Baby Shoes, never worn." A truly impressive list of authors answered the call with varying results. They also asked graphics designers to take them to the drawing board (one example seen here).
Some of my personal favorites:
Gown removed carelessly. Head, less so. - Joss Whedon
Longed for him. Got him. Shit. - Margaret Atwood
Democracy postponed. Whence franchise? Ask Diebold... - David Brin
Osama’s time machine: President Gore concerned. - Charles Stross
You should definitely check out the full list here.
I tried all afternoon to come up with my own and did not come up with anything inspiring. My best effort so far: "Quals. Prelims. Defense. Still no job?" Given my paltry efforts, I encourage you to post your own or your favorites.
Ok, so apparently, the image does not want to load, so you can check out the designs over at Wired.
Some of my personal favorites:
Gown removed carelessly. Head, less so. - Joss Whedon
Longed for him. Got him. Shit. - Margaret Atwood
Democracy postponed. Whence franchise? Ask Diebold... - David Brin
Osama’s time machine: President Gore concerned. - Charles Stross
You should definitely check out the full list here.
I tried all afternoon to come up with my own and did not come up with anything inspiring. My best effort so far: "Quals. Prelims. Defense. Still no job?" Given my paltry efforts, I encourage you to post your own or your favorites.
Ok, so apparently, the image does not want to load, so you can check out the designs over at Wired.
For Oxymoron (Still Can't Find the Rhetorically Revolutionary St. Louis Scene!)
National Lampoons Vacation I: For Oxymoron
Thoughts?
National Lampoons Vacation II: For Oxymoron Again
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
National Lampoons Vacation II: For Oxymoron Again
Thoughts?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Bob Barker's Retirement
One of Harrogate's absolute favorite sites for getting the latest on vital information in the world of popular culture is indeed The Slug. You can always count on Derrik J. Lang to provide the scoop, and he has been among the first blogs to jump on Bob Barker's retirement from The Price is Right, the show Harrogate watched religiously whilst a small boy staying with babysitters in the summertime. Since The Slug provides such a great AP picture of Barker at his virtuosic best (Come on Down!), Harrogate (left) depicts Barker contributing to one of the great achievments of modern cinema, Happy Gilmore (send the ball home).
Go to The Slug, readers, for all the relevant links and information regarding Barker's retirement, and indeed for many of your pop culture needs that we just can't get to here on The Rhetorical Situation.
A question for our readers does emerge from all this: wonderously, amazingly, almost orgasmically (hat tip Andre Lepecki)! What precisely are the parameters, what is The Rhetorical Situation of the Game Show, as a genre? How do we intellectuals tackle Game Show culture, which has been such an integral part of America (Harrogate in his infinite wisdom of course realizes that other nations have a history with game shows but then, now that Bush has shown us the glories of unilaterality, Harrogate can simply reply: Who Cares about Old Europe?)? Does the genre represent, exploitatively tap into nascent national desires to score the quick buck? Is it simply the voyeurism of the scantily-clad women and the brand new STUFF (can't you just hear Barker, readers, intoning "A NEW CAR!"?) parading in front of the daytime television day after day after day, doing the bidding of one highly charismatic white guy named, simply, Bob?
Review of Raw 10/30
Last night's edition of Raw totally vindicated Harrogate's high hopes for the program. Week by week, new life bubbles beneath the surface of what was only a month ago bad programming. Reasons? Among the many: The "K-Fed" stuff has played a big role, and Bischoff's entry into the fray has played an even bigger role in its own way. Bischoff has done a wonderful job cashing in on our memories of the WCW excitement he created in the late 90s, giving us the NWO--probably the most effective heels of all time.
But really, John Cena has to get the most credit for the current upsurge. It's getting to the point that his entrance is the most scintillating moment on television, even better than Brit Hume's "Grapevine"--Indeed, Harrogate is deeply impressed with Cena's ethos-crafting ingenuity. It's impossible for those who don't watch the program to understand what Harrogate's talking about here--but YOU, the legions of readers who tune in to Harrogate's piercing analyses week in and week out--you know exactly what he's talking about, don't you? Last night Cena delivered once again, exploiting the Coachman joke to the fullest (and in Harrogate's view, setting up Coachman's eventual conversion to good guy--vote Coachman for Cyber Sunday!), and then intimidating Booker and Big Show to such lengths that Harrogate half expected them to both bow out of the pay-per-view altogether. While it could be anybody's game at Cyber Sunday, Cena is going to be the top draw of this program for months to come, belt or no belt. But Harrogate implores Vince--leave the belt on Cena for a while, let him ascend to the epic proportions to which is is capable of going. Let this title run mean something!
Tears welled up in Harrogate's eyes when Dusty Rhodes took the microphone last night. Not only did hearing The American Dream talk trigger legions of childhood memories, but Rhodes was absolutely right when he said that this is our historic chance to see him and Ric Flair team up for the first time in their epic careers. Harrogate would love to see these two take the World Tag Team Championships from the anemic Spirit Squad. Really, Vince, it's time you let the Tag Titles Mean something again. For God's sake, man, what with the problems in Iraq and with North Korea and the broken health care system and the impending theocratic revolution in this country, the least you could do is give us a Tag Team Champion that we can be proud of. :-)
Finally, Triple H's Pedigree is by far the smoothest and most violent finishing move on record in WWE at the moment. Only Diamond Dallas Page's Diamond Cutter rivalled this move in terms of Harrogate ancitipating is arrival on the scene. Depicted above, Hunter Hearst Helmsley delivers the crushing Pedigree onto a hapless Edge, who would return later only to be beaten up again. The show appropriately belonged to DX, even though Michaels was nowhere to be found. Harrogate believes DX will continue to doiminate until the vaunted return of Hall and Nash (NWO), and with them the conversion, yet again, of Hulk Hogan to bad guy. NWO Renaissance is coming! But as one rhetorically powerful front row sign put it last night, Where Oh Where is Sting?
In the words of Ron Simmons, "Damn!"
Monday, October 30, 2006
Previewing Raw 10/30
"K-Fed" in retrospect learned a lot from his Raw experiences of the last two weeks. Check out the link. Harrogate's favorite quote:
Britney was definitely watching, my whole family was watching,” said a serious K-Fed. “She can’t have someone beating up her husband all over the place. I’ve got to stand up for my family and hold it down.
Now, don't that say it all? And some people thought this couple wasn't a real family values kind of family. Pshaw!
Harrogate isn't sure whether or not the great "K-Fed" will grace the squared circle tonight, but he feels certain that things are going to happen tonight the likes of which none of us have ever witnessed. Edge's award-winning talk show, "The Cutting Edge," will feature Bischoff, Coachman, and Mr. McMahon himself as they discuss the democratic process and their individual election hopes. Remember, vote Coachman. For now anyway. Harrogate may change his endorsement after tonight's events.
Stay tuned for in-depth analysis on Friday at the latest.
Rethugs and Art
Webb, as many of you know, is the doomed Democratic candidate for Senate in Confederate Virginia. George Allen has a Confederate Flag in his office, has made prodigious use of the word "nigger," and recently referred to a minority staff member for Webb as "mukaka"--then too we have Allen's consistent support for the GOP misadventure in Iraq, his contempt for Uhmerrikah's pooor, his enthusiasm for torture, his virtuosic performance as a gay-basher, and his impeccable record as a Mexican-hater.
Harrogate is confident that with all these striking creds in tow, Allen will win quite handily in Virginia (it's going to be a long humiliating Tuesday for those who dared to dream, and Harrogate plans to delightfully rub it those do-gooders' faces with his post-election analysis).
Anyway, as if Allen's own ersatz ethos weren't enough to get him the win in VA, that bastion of truth and justice, The Drudge Report, helped out a little by beginning what has turned into an all-out media frenzy over Jim Webb's novels, which approach such provocative subjects as rape and incest. And as everyone knows, if you represent something in Art, then you must be literally endorsing it.
So Webb's novels will be the nail in the coffin for his chances of pulling off the upset. What price art, eh?
Go, Troglodytes, go!
Sunday, October 29, 2006
George Will, the liberal?
He can no longer be a conservative, can he? He just criticized the the Administration's treatment of the war here.
A few quote:
"A surreal and ultimately disgusting facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge that fact. Iraq's civil war has been raging for more than a year; so has the Washington debate about whether it is what it is."
And the midterms will change?
A few quote:
"A surreal and ultimately disgusting facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge that fact. Iraq's civil war has been raging for more than a year; so has the Washington debate about whether it is what it is."
And the midterms will change?
Rhetoric and Music
A professor, Leon W. Couch III, examines the conncetion between rhetoric and music. It is heavy reading but the paper explores the ancient Roman style of organization in music.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)