The Rhetorical Situation

Thursday Musical Tribute

2011-09-01T15:49:00.002-04:00

The Ambassadors of Basketball

2011-08-19T00:31:00.003-04:00

On Thursday, the Georgetown University men’s basketball team, which is currently on a good will tour in China, forgot about the good will part and engaged in a bench-clearing brawl with the Bayi Rockets.

What I find interesting about the brawl is the way in which the Chinese players stand at the bench before a slight melee occurs and then run, almost in formation, to attack Georgetown. While I am not the blog's resident conspiracy theorist, the high level of coordination to fight and not restrain seems unfortunate to say the least.

Head Slowly Exploding

2011-07-12T22:17:00.004-04:00

So, I caught up in a research project. I have a Friday deadline.

While writing the last section of a research paper, I found myself in need of a little more research on religious exemptions concerning same-sex marriages. After feeling my mind slowly go numb from reading article after article, I found the following sentence and decided it is too good not to share:

"The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Harris is likely the most significant gay rights case since Goodridge, largely because it was decided by the supreme court of a major state."

After reading this, of course, I thought to myself: who the hell thinks New Jersey is a major state?

If your interested, the article in question is from: 30 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 939. I'm too tired for a full citation. Fail me.

Trial By Media is a Bad Idea; or, a Rant

2011-07-05T21:04:00.007-04:00

I didn't even follow the Casey Anthony murder trial because first of all wall to wall media coverage of a murder trial is stupid and base, and second of all I wouldnt have had time even had I wanted to.

That said, I am pretty sickened by the outcry against the jury's verdict today. The internet is blowing up with commenters outraged by the idea that the prosecution had to meet the burden of proof in this case, since everybody "knows" she did it.

Fuck CNN. Fuck our corporate media. Sometimes, sometimes I think Hugo Chavez has it right. Not often. But sometimes. Because Whatever sells, whatever makes money is what we get when we have a for profit media. Sell wars, sell Tiller the Baby Killer, sell guilty verdicts, sell Viagra, it's all the same to these fucking people.

Maybe I am a coward for writing this here instead of on my facebook page. God knows I havent seen a single one of my facebook friends come out and say, hey, they have to prove guilt, they have to remove doubt, and it doesnt matter what CNN anchors or Fox anchors or Dick Vitale or YOU, O Crusading American public, think about the case. So shut the fuck up. The right to a defense and the burden of proof being on the prosecution is not an inconvenience.

Anyway. Fuck it. Some things you just cant change. Most things in fact.

The Hamburger Method:

2011-06-22T16:46:00.006-04:00

A delicious way to learn the five-paragraph essay.

Father's Day Musical Tribute

2011-06-19T10:05:00.003-04:00

I love the Cat, man. This song is "Father and Son." It's one of my favorite tracks from Tea for the Tillerman, easily one of my top ten albums of all time.

This particular version is from the DVD "Yusef's Cafe."

I struggled with my decision to post this song as a Father's Day tribute. It's so sad. I mean, the father and son obviously have some communication issues and don't understand one another. But at the same time, it's happy. The son has decided that it's time for him to go out on his own, to explore the world and find himself. While we may not look forward to our children leaving home, I'm sure we will celebrate--with mixed emotions, of course--the day our sons and daughters set out to find their own way of being in the world. Isn't this what we, as parents, are preparing them to do?

For Solon

2011-06-17T10:28:00.005-04:00

I heard that you watched The Big Lebowski for the first time last night. Better late than never, I suppose.

You need to show this clip to your students. The Dude knows how to debate: "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Late Wednesday Night/Early Thursday Morning Musical Tribute

2011-06-15T23:01:00.003-04:00

Because yeah.

For Oxymoron: Share the Love.

2011-06-14T19:18:00.001-04:00

Thinking of you. Of Me. Chive On.

Album Cover of the Week: Garth Brooks's No Fences

2011-06-14T12:07:00.006-04:00

Oxymoron's recent comment reminded me of two things. One, the barbed wire fence post dovetailed (in ways not originally anticipated by the author) with solon's recent thoroughgoing treatments of privacy issues. And two, it has been more than two weeks since my last "album cover of the week." And so therefore this seems fitting:

I was always sort of "meh," when it came to Garth Brooks musically, with some songs being ones I really dug, but most being ones, again, to which I responded with a general "meh." Still, this album title, and the cover with all its invocation of the innocent, well-minded cowboy whose freedom must be preserved, oozes sociopolitical context, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously.

On the level of music? Well, I never much took Brooks seriously as a "Cowboy." I liked the class warfare implications of "Friends in Low Places" very much, however.

But you know what? I LOVE. I mean LOVE his epic song, "Two Piña Coladas," to the point that I elevate it into the top 50 stratosphere of pop song Utopia in my admittedly addled brain. But I mean really, check these shenanigans out:

Garth Brooks - Two piña coladas by taduckly_

The Rhetoric and Symbolism of the Barbed Wire Fence

2011-06-14T10:23:00.005-04:00

A few days ago I encountered a quotation in some research that I am currently doing, and it has stuck with me to the extent that I feel compelled to share it with the vaunted Rhetoricians on this blog. Quoth Sara L. Spurgeon:

The barbed wire fence is a potent and deeply paradoxical symbol in the American West. On one hand, it is the triumphant emblem of Anglo-America's conquest of the land once referred to as the Great American Desert, of the sheer force of human will necessary to empty it of those animals like the buffalo that do not serve Anglo America's needs and to fill it instead with cattle--nature tamed and controlled by the sharp-edged product of Eastern facroties. It is also, for many Westerners, the sign of some final closure, usually expressed nostalgically as the loss of the wandering horseman's right to travel freely and without restriction across the landscape. That wandering horseman, the lone cowboy with his bedroll and his rifle, is the most commonly recognized modern American expression of the sacred hunter, the lone male in the wilderness, here digging the postholes that mark his own demise and performing the final fencing-in of th natural world.

Heh. Fascinating. I wonder if John McCain was struggling to make sense of this kind of mythopoesis, when he exorted the federal government to Build the Dang Fence.

Predicting 2012

2011-06-14T09:40:00.002-04:00

After watching one debate, and really, if Reagan's 11th Commandment declares, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican," it seems clear that the Republican ticket in 2012 will be:

Romney for President, Bachman for VP.

If the field stays the same, the only alterations I would suggest is Romney President and Marco Rubio for VP or, the long-shot ticket, Bachman for President and Rubio for VP.

Just in Case You Missed It:

2011-06-14T08:51:00.004-04:00

Here is a review of the Republican Debate by New York Magazine (if you couldn't guess that the only thing mentioned was nothing other than repeal everything Obama). Some excerpts:

Most Meaningless Self-Descriptor: Tim Pawlenty saying, "I'm a husband .... I'm the father of two beautiful daughters, I'm a neighbor." Oh, so people live near you.
Time It Took for Someone to Claim That Obama Doesn't Believe in American Exceptionalism: Thirteen minutes (Romney)
Most Unsurprising Bombshell: Michele Bachmann announcing during a presidential debate that she’s running for president.

Meekest Moment: Tim Pawlenty barely defending his own assertion, made on Fox News Sunday yesterday, that President Obama's health-care reform is basically "ObamneyCare."

Time Until Tim Pawlenty Said “Meat-packing Town”: 31 minutes.

Statement Made Oddly Risky Because of the Influence of the Tea-Party Movement: “Federal government should be doing food safety.” —Herman Cain

"Oh Snap" Moment: Michele Bachmann reading a quote from then-senator Barack Obama on how raising the debt ceiling was a "failure of leadership."
Boldest Plan for Afghanistan: Mitt Romney saying that he wants a plan to safely hand Afghanistan over to the "Taliban military," as a military man in the audience visibly flinches.
Biggest Pander (tie): Mitt Romney announcing that the hometown favorite Boston Bruins were up 4-0 in the Stanley Cup finals; Pawlenty saying that what he learned tonight was that the Boston Bruins have “more heart” than the Vancouver Canucks.
Biggest Contradiction: Michele Bachmann saying she supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage while also claiming she wouldn't interfere with state law. What about the states with laws allowing gay marriage?

I would also take a moment to read the live-blog write up at Democracy in America, which was much more entertaining the debate itself.

Where Aren't We Live Blogging the Republican Debate?

2011-06-13T21:48:00.001-04:00

Seriously. I could, one, give better answers than the Republicans and, two, think it sucks that the Bruins are up 4 - 0 on the Canucks.

The Death of the Author

2011-06-13T11:32:00.003-04:00

In the postmodern sense, not literally. More like Barthes and Foucault than Theo Van Gogh or even Hemingway.

A prominent female blogger in Syria goes missing:

Abdallah's cousin wrote on the blog that Amina was taken Monday by three men in their 20s "assumed to be members of one of the security services or the Baath Party militia."
"One of the men then put his hand over Amina's mouth and they hustled her into a red Dacia Logan with a window sticker of Basel Assad," Rania Ismail wrote.
Abdallah describes her blog as "An out Syrian lesbian's thoughts on life, the universe and so on..." -- this, in a country where homosexuality is not just taboo, but illegal.

But, maybe not after all. The first apology and the second apology:

I never expected this level of attention. While the narrative voıce may have been fictional, the facts on thıs blog are true and not mısleading as to the situation on the ground. I do not believe that I have harmed anyone -- I feel that I have created an important voice for issues that I feel strongly about.

I only hope that people pay as much attention to the people of the Middle East and their struggles in thıs year of revolutions. The events there are beıng shaped by the people living them on a daily basis. I have only tried to illuminate them for a western audience.

This experience has sadly only confirmed my feelings regarding the often superficial coverage of the Middle East and the pervasiveness of new forms of liberal Orientalism.

However, I have been deeply touched by the reactions of readers.

If there were ever a time for lit crit, now would be that time over the issues of sexuality, gender, voice, identity, and appropriation.

Update on Greg Fultz, or, the First Amendment v. Privacy Rights

2011-06-10T14:20:00.006-04:00

I just wanted to update my previous post.

According to ABC News, the billboard in questions can be found at the main thoroughfare in Alamogordo, N.M (according to the 2000 census, Alamogordo has a population of 35,582).

Fultz admits that he does not know whether or not Nani Lawrence, his ex-girlfriend, had an abortion or a miscarriage but he knows that when the six-month relationship ended, the baby was lost, or as he says, “there was a pregnancy, then there wasn’t.” He claims that the intention of the billboard concerns the public presentation of a pro-life message rather than an attempt to defame or harass his ex-girlfriend. According to ABC News, he states that the billboard is a general pro-life message that is inspired by events in his life. Describing the political nature of the message in question, he states:

"“It’s my belief that fathers should have a say regarding pregnancy....Women have all the power when it comes to pregnancy. The men get no say when a woman wants to go and have an abortion without the say of the father.”

Time reports that when Greg Fultz purchased the billboard, he paid $1300 for the space. He paid for the billboard through his own money and from donations from private individuals. No other organizations helped fund the project.

Originally, the billboard possessed two endorsements. N.A.N.I., the National Association of Needed Information, endorsed the billboard. Of course, N.A.N.I. is a not so clever and way too cute acronym for his ex-girlfriend, Nani Lawrence. Additionally, the Right to Life New Mexico endorsed the billboard. Both endorsements have been removed. Fultz removed N.A.N.I. as the name of the organization interfered with the message. The RLNM removed their endorsement when the organization learned that it was unsure whether or not Lawrence had an abortion or miscarriage.

In response to the Billboard, Nani Lawrence sued Fultz. As ABC News reports, Lawrence brought suit against Fultz for "a petition for domestic violence and charges of harassment and invasion of privacy." Lawrence's lawyer, Ellen Jessen, states that, "I think Fultz's right to free speech ends where Nani Lawrence's right to privacy begins. ... We have to balance one's right to free speech against one's right to free speech."

According to a court order, Fultz has until June 16th to remove the ad or he faces jail time for the billboard.

Fultz plans on fighting the order based on his First Amendment rights under the Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps, which protects repugnant and offensive speech, even if it causes emotional distress, over the right of privacy, e.g. a funeral service.

After thinking about this, what do I think?

First, under Synder v. Phelps, the tort case should not stand as political speech should trump the emotional injury.

Second, I have a hard time accepting the line that the privacy rights of Lawrence trump the speech rights of Fultz. The real controversy is not the difference between freedom of speech and privacy (freedom from speech) but in form. The speech in question is quite sophomoric but, nonetheless, quite important political speech. If this message were in an autobiography, a movie, or a Facebook status update, then there would be no problem with Fultz's message. Fultz could walk door to door to tell his story to all 36,000 people in Alamogordo and this would be protected speech. However, since it occurred on a billboard or a non-traditional form of personal and political advertisement for this issue then someone finds it offensive.

Third, the type of speech in question, that "abortion is murder" is typical political speech, especially in relation to pro-life protests. I would say that this is quintessential political speech as the people who employ it desire a change in the law. While I know that Harrogate disagrees with this type of discourse, it is a rhetorically valid definitional argument for certain audiences. The strength of the argument rests on upon the emotional aspects of the message, i.e. the anger within the claim abortion is murder. And, under Cohen v. California, the emotional aspects of the message can be as important as the message itself. To punish this type of speech is to punish the content and form of the message and the government should not be able to punish either.

Further, though the claim is quite reductive and rests an appeal to pity, i.e. the manipulation of the emotional aspect of the message, I do not see how it would be slander unless she had a miscarriage. The standards for slander for a private citizen are much lower than a public citizen and since acted recklessly, i.e. not knowing the facts of the case before publishing them on a billboard, it seems like a defamation case against Fultz would be easy.

However, knowing this, if she mad a miscarriage she would not be arguing a right to privacy. Why argue the harder case when you can argue the easy, winning case? You don't.

Fourth, in this case, the right to privacy seems to mean that Lawrence ought to be free from hearing or seeing a message and that Fultz ought not to speak out on certain messages. I find that in the first instance, Lawrence has no case. While the second instance is quite complex, I am not sure if she has a case based on notions of privacy.

Privacy, in this case, seems to rest on an understanding that medical decisions, especially abortion, occur only between a woman and her doctor. While abortion rests on the woman's decision but that decision does not occur within a social vacuum. By arguing privacy, it seems that Lawrence is trying to frame the controversy that Fultz is trying to take away her rights. However, Fultz's argument criticizes Lawrence's decision and a person is not free from criticism over this type of decision.

Though this is just conjecture, it seems that Lawrence chose to discuss the issue with Fultz. What Lawrence and her lawyer ask is that Fultz remain silent on this issue in public, which means that Fultz must separate this relationship and an aspect of this relationship from the rest of his life and beliefs. Her privacy includes his life and this would be true for any partner that she had.

The irony is that, if Lawrence forces Fultz to take down the sign, Lawrence takes ownership of Fultz and requires Fultz to be silent and autobiographical aspects of his life. I think that this means no one personally wins.

Fifth, as to whether or not he is harassing her, the billboard should not be considered harassment. Maybe he is doing something else though I am not sure. But the speech in question does not constitute harassment.

Should Fultz have been more judicious about what he disclosed about his personal relationships? Absolutely. But it is best that the First Amendment does not require a level of judiciousness as not much, if anything, would be said.

Unfortunately for Nani Lawrence, Fultz seems like a very terrible, vindictive person. I hope that as people hear about this controversy, he never finds a date again. Since he places politics over personal relationships, he doesn't seem to deserve another date. But maybe he will find a nice pro-life woman and settle down and start a nice pro-life family. I really don't care.

Yet, I find his speech and actions constitutional.

An Important Annoucement

2011-06-09T20:31:00.001-04:00

When an RTS blog post goes up, it's kind of a big deal. Because yeah. We're that sexy.

For Harrogate

2011-06-08T10:43:00.001-04:00

I hear he's feeling lonely....

I do not know what this means....

First Amendment Versus Privacy Rights

2011-06-07T18:57:00.011-04:00

I am still unsure where I stand in relation to this case. Here goes:

Thirty-Five year-old Greg Fultz, with the help of pro-life activists, paid for a billboard to lash out against an ex-girlfriend. According to Yahoo News:

The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"

Fultz argues that, under the Supreme Court's recent Westboro Baptist Church decision, that even though this may be offensive it is protected political speech. I do not think that I, or anyone else, can deny him this claim as this is certainly political speech in relation to the abortion war. There are other rights involved but, nonetheless, this is important political speech.

It seems that Fultz argues that his ex-girlfriend did not discuss whether or not she would get an abortion. This factual claim is in dispute as his ex-girlfriend, who is not named in the article, her lawyer, and her friends claim that she had a miscarriage. This raises a few additional issues:

What happened: Did they discuss this? Did she obtain an abortion without his consent? Is the spousal notification relevant in a legal or moral sense?

What, if any, are the parental rights of the father? When do they begin? Would they even apply in this case?

Since we do not know the name of the ex-girlfriend, we can assume she is a private citizen rather than a public figure, meaning that she may not be open for public criticism in the same way a celebrity or government official would be. The woman's lawyer argues that this is not a public concern but a private decision. This seems to be one of the ironies of the abortion debate as it is of great public concern that we only discuss in the abstract.

Incidentally, typing "ex-girlfriend" bothers me since we only know her in relation to him, which makes it seem like he has ownership over her. I know that she wants to respect her privacy, hence the anonymity, but typing "ex" bothers me. Is the public/private distinction the most important distinction? Or does the nature of the public, political speech trump this distinction?

If this case solely involves privacy, what is the nature of that privacy and what are the limits to that privacy? To what degree should a medical decision remain private between a doctor and a patient? What happens when a medical decision involves a third or fourth person? (I do not know the law on this but I would be very interested in researching this). Does the medical decision trump other rights, including the parental rights and/or free speech rights of the father? It seems under Roe and Casey that the decision would remain the woman's however this does not concern criticism of the decision.

Is one of the most important aspect of this case involve whether or not the woman in question suffered emotional distress or damage to her reputation? In light of the Westboro decision, political speech, no matter how repugnant, that causes emotional damages is not enough to suppress the speech.

If emotional distress does not matter, does this case concern the damage to her reputation?How does the woman in question show that her reputation was "damaged" (necessary for libel and defamation)? If the story is factually incorrect (libel per se) than she may have a case (and, again, the facts are in dispute.) But, since truth is a defense in libel cases, would she have a case if the speech in question is true? And, remember, the facts are contested. Of course, for political speech, the true or falsity of the claim has no bearing on whether or not the utterance would be protected under the first amendment. However, for defamation cases, the true and the intent of the speaker (the reckless disregard of the truth by the potential defamer) may matter

This seems more like libel per quod (which depends on the context and interpretation of the listener) since you would need to know the identities of the person in the picture and his ex-girlfriend for their to be damage to the woman's reputation. For example, if a former employee wrongly claims to your employer that they saw you drinking in a bar this may be libel if the person knows that former employer and your employer knows that you were court-ordered to stay sober (see more here). In terms of the abortion debate and the medical community, there may be no legal requirement that you cannot say anything though there may be moral or social requirements. Further, I think we need to know more about the woman, her work, and how this damages her. This is necessary for to help prove the contextual aspects of this and not in order to set up more hurdles for a woman to jump through before she could prove her case.

And I am not ruling out that this billboard may have damaged her reputation. But it is unlike other types of public claims. What would matter is the relevant state law on disclosure torts though I am not sure what would be comparable in this case e.g. claiming that a person is an embezzler, which would matter in relation to the context of employment? Claiming that someone is gay? That a person has an STD? Cancer? And yet, in some of these examples, a warranted or unwarranted revelation that another person has cancer is not the same as the facts in this case because this case necessarily involves more than one person.

Or is this more like the standards of freedom of speech or of the press in relation to posting on Facebook or Twitter? Or writing an autobiography where you can reveal some personal information about others? Or writing a movie?

Of course, if the woman in question claims that this is about privacy but not defamation then the facts may be what Fultz claims. Further, even if it is privacy, the woman's privacy still involves Fultz's life. There is no way to neatly demarcate his life out of her privacy. It doesn't seem right to say that if the woman claims privacy he can no longer discuss his own life.

Finally, this seems to be oddly reminiscent of "survivor stories." I do not think the analogy is exact (so please, I am not making a moral equivalent so you do not need to have comments with the words "culturally hegemonic," "patriarchy" or anything else along those lines, thanks in advance). Each "story" seems to be a method of empowerment that potentially damages the reputation of another. Both types of stories ought to be protected speech. But types of stories may rely factual situations can be murky, highly controversial, and potentially damage the reputation of an other. Both types of speech go beyond the normal methods of speaking to raise the issue.

After walking through this, I think that the factual questions need to be resolved before approaching the normative issues on whether or not this is constitutional or good speech. I would add that I do not think it is prudent or productive speech though.

An Ode to Oxymoron

2011-06-07T18:53:00.001-04:00

In case you don't know what I mean by "the Carnie Wilson treatment"...

2011-06-06T21:11:00.000-04:00

For all the ladies

2011-06-06T13:09:00.000-04:00

For Oxy and Harrogate

2011-06-06T13:06:00.000-04:00

I thought you two might like this one.

TRS is heating up

2011-05-24T00:14:00.002-04:00

Don't be the last to know.

Sunday musical Tribute: "Hay Fever" by the Kinks

2011-05-22T12:46:00.002-04:00

I still like this song but nowhere near as much as I loved it when I was a small child. There are better songs on Misfits but maybe none that are quite so much fun from the perspective of a child that likes to boogie and giggle at the same time. And these lines here are pretty damn good:

I can't stay cool 'cos I'm starting to sneeze
I can't make love when I can't hardly breathe
We start to dance and my nose starts to bleed
There must be a cure for this hay fever
Is there a pill or a powder I can take
I must get a cure, for my romance is at stake

"Rapture Schadenfreude Turning Sinister"? Socially Healthy Joviality? Both?

2011-05-22T12:31:00.004-04:00

Oxy's billboard image made me think about this recent post by conservative blogger Ed Morrisey of "Hot Air."

Morrisey follows a report by Tiffany Stanley, a reporter for The New Republic, which charged her with following the reactions of the Camping crowd after the Rapture deadline had come and gone.

Snippet from Stanley:

Yes, there was a certain humor to this. But the more I looked into the story, the more it began to turn my stomach to think of spending my Saturday evening in someone’s living room, waiting for that gotcha moment when they realized it was all a lie—leaving me to file a story the next day, poking fun at their gullibility. I decided I couldn’t do it.

Yet the media coverage has continued, and now to me, the schadenfreude has turned sinister. Based on the high traffic the articles are garnering, it would seem as if many of us are intrigued voyeurs, gleeful in knowing the exact day when these people will experience their life’s greatest disappointment. We feel superior, knowing that even though they told us we were heading for death and destruction, now, they get theirs.

Snippet from Morrisey's response:

Well, that’s not totally unjustified. Camping first predicted that Christ would return in 1994 — in fact, he published a book predicting it, although the title 1994? included a very convenient question mark. People who follow doomsday demagogues even after a spectacular failure put themselves in position for some ridicule, not to mention the false prophet himself.

Still, these are real people, and their individual stories are troubling. One mother with three children stopped working and saving for their college tuition, and her apathy about their future has become all too apparent to her kids. Another young couple with one baby and another on the way have spent all of their money in anticipation that they won’t take it with them. For most married couples, pregnancy is a time of hope and optimism, but not for this couple. And there are hundreds or thousands of people just like them who will face very difficult times indeed for having believed in a charlatan.

Both Stanley's and Morrisey's prose are worth reading in full, though I flatter myself that these snippets are well-chosen. Readers might also get a kick out of the comments section.

Hmmmmm. Is it true? Does the post-Rapture rhetoric, such as that in the billboard Oxymoron has shown us, reflect something mean-spirited our mendacious about the secular crowd? Or are there other things at work here?

Um, yeah...

2011-05-22T09:32:00.003-04:00

It must be difficult for Camping to address his congregation today. Well, what's left of his congregation. As Harrogate says, heh.

Road-Themed Songs Deserve to Be Taken Seriously

2011-05-19T15:31:00.003-04:00

Here is Springsteen's celebrated Dublin performance of "Further on up the Road." It's a beautiful thing. I listen to it as much as possible.

Album Cover of the Week: Misfits, by The Kinks

2011-05-19T14:15:00.006-04:00

For some time, now, I have been paying homage to album covers on my Facebook page but the level of engagement possible on a social networking site is so much more limited than it is on a vaunted blog such as The Rhetorical Situation. So this is the first of what will be weekly installments of Harrogate's Album Cover of the Week.®

Most if not all of these album covers are going to be gleaned from those which in my estimation contain great music--this one certainly fits that bill. But sometimes the cover art of an album which one detests muscially, may still merit attention. I encourage other contributors and commenters to get in on the discussion not only of the album covers that I place here in these installments, but also of those which you would like to share, or talk about.

So here is one of my very favorite album covers ever, from the Kinks Misfits (1978):

Misfits as a Rock 'N' Roll Album really is a wonderful piece of musical art that one can listen to endlessly and never feel cheated. Here is the song list, a few of which I will probably post through the week:

1. "Misfits" – 4:42
2. "Hay Fever" – 3:33
3. "Black Messiah" – 4:08
4. "A Rock & Roll Fantasy" – 4:58
5. "In a Foreign Land" – 3:02
6. "Permanent Waves" – 3:48
7. "Live Life" – 4:47
8. "Out of the Wardrobe" – 3:37
9. "Trust Your Heart" (Dave Davies) – 4:11
10. "Get Up" – 3:22

So, what do you think of the cover? I have always been able to look at it for long periods of time and keep noticing different things about it.

Monday Morning Response to Last Monday Morning's Video Response

2011-05-16T08:42:00.004-04:00

Oxymoron posted a wonderful video a week ago today, and I want to honor that here. It is also making me think about how many great songs there are out there with the governing metaphor of a Road. Here is one that I like a lot:

Oh. And BTW. The album is Youthanasia, the cover art for which ye see above. Dovetailing with my previous post, I just think this is some seriously fabulous cover art!

Question of the Day: Are Album Covers Dead?

2011-05-16T08:15:00.006-04:00

As many of ye know from The Facebook®, Supadiscomama recently got me a turntable and I have been having a lot of fun with it, rediscovering some music that I haven't listened to in over a decade (by the way, I also hooked up my Tape Deck and have simultaneously begun a cassette-gathering endeavor, but that is a different story....). One thing I have noticed while going through all this vinyl is the vividity of the album cover art. The covers are just so very much bigger than what any of us are used to looking at any more. You take a record like Hendrix's Axis Bold as Love, and look at the 12 X 12 version and it really does seem to lay the CD cover in the shade.

As once again testified by my The Facebook® page, I have long been a huge fan of Album Cover Art anyway, and I have always said one of the reasons that I didn't want to give up on CD's and go totally digital (one of the many, many, many, many reasons), was that I would miss the physical object that also includes the Cover Art. Think about the cover to Nirvana's Nevermind. I mean, good God. That's a work of art right there. But what if the art form really did diminish to an irrevocable point wih the emergence of the CD, and the newest Digital formats are simply the final blow?

Now, I guess I don't have that sensitive of an ear, but in the end I have decided that I cannot REALLY tell that much of a difference between the sound put out by Vinyl and that by a CD or even in the digital format--not enough to justify some of the absolute scorn I see being heaped upon CDs on audio forums. But the album cover art is another issue.

So with all these ruminations out of the way, here is my Question of the Day: What do you guys think of this quote, which I have posted from an audio forum I have been reading around in lately?

LP covers were great. The art aspect of covers was really lost with CDs, which have less than 20% of the space of LPs to work with. The art and originality of the covers was often as important as the music, sometimes more so. Even covers that were "just" photographs, needed great photographs when they were blown up to 12" by 12" size. I have a Best of Mississippi John Hurt gatefold album that has two great photographs inside of Hurt smiling while playing, and gives you a wonderful perspective of his wizened, Buddha-like face and the sheer likability of the man. Something that cannot be achieved with the postage stamp sized photos in CD booklets. Not just sound quality has diminished with CDs, but the whole magic aura surrounding albums from the 60's and 70's. This was a time when music was more than just music, but entered and influenced your life. Album covers were a big part of this. Would the Beatles, and others, have had as big an impact on the world if their music had first been released on CDs rather than LPs (how many would spend time examining the Sgt. Pepper cover if its size was 5" by 5"—get out the magnifying glass)?

Monday Morning Video Response

2011-05-09T09:47:00.002-04:00

I wonder if Jackson Browne ever looks back and sees that his journey was not as arbitrary and without purpose as he indicates below.

Saturday Night Musical Tribute

2011-05-07T22:19:00.000-04:00

In honor of Oxymoron:

Some Thoughts on The Social Network, and a Question of the Day

2011-02-25T11:39:00.005-05:00

Not too long ago, we watched The Social Network for the first time, and I was very impressed with it.

My interest in the movie going into it was twofold: on a personal level, as an enthusiastic facebook user who nevertheless maintains heavy skepticism about the ultimate healthiness of social networking; and also on a professional level, as a writing teacher who more and more has been bringing issues surrounding digital culture into the classroom. I had my rhet/comp classes this semester read Time Magazine's writeup of Mark Zuckerberg, and in the process of breaking down the article my interest in how facebook came to be was much heightened.

One interesting thing about the movie, on a rhetorical level, is the irony of the title. Very little time is devoted to facebook, facebook use, or the exploding phenomenon of social networking. The "social network" of the movie, rather, explores the (pretty ruthless) tendrils emanating from Zuckerberg and his activities, both on the Harvard campus and then later, by virtue of Napster co-found Sean Parker, Zuckerberg's "arrival" in silicon valley.

As many have noticed, the Zuckerberg charcter that this movie gives us comes across as quite socially incompetent--if not actually sociopathic. That is, Zuckerberg is represented in the movie as someone who is a genius but who seems to lack the capacity to even imagine the impact of his actions on others, let alone truly care about others. Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Zuckeberg in this regard was quite good, as were most all of the supporting cast--especially Justin Timberlake's portrayal of Parker, which I believe deserved every bit of hype it got--really, his performance may have even been underrated.

However. For me, the movie's overt representation of Zuckerberg as a quasi-sociopath raises, I think, very serious questions about the ethics of making movies about public figures in their own time. The Time Magazine writeup pretty much demolished a key premise of the film: more specifically, that Zuckerberg's rise was triggered by having lost, and wanting to impress, a girl that, for all the millions he made, he could never get back (this motif was rendered even more heavy-handed by the fact that the movie explains Sean Parker's Napster achievment on the same terms. Parker has gone on record saying that the movie's portryal of him is almost wholly fictitious). But in truth, as Time's writers made clear, Zuckerberg already had the girl when he started Facebook, and he is still with her today. Further, the magazine writeup went out of its way to demonstrate that Zuckerberg is actually quite socially adept--unless he feels like someone is wasting his time, at which point he tunes them out.

Time's worries about Zuckerberg were mostly aimed at his cavalier posture towards Privacy and Privacy Rights. But that's perhaps another topic, for another post.

What I am interested in asking here is this: How serious of an ethics problem is it, when a movie projects a highly stylized, and for that matter very unflattering, interpretation onto a person--public figure or not--in their own lifetime? The last line of the movie features one of the legal team saying to Zuckerberg, before walking out the door: "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be."

Enter the Miscarriage Police

2011-02-22T19:39:00.004-05:00

The triumphant return of the famous Assy McGee Award®. The Award possibilities these days are endless. But wow. You really cannot, cannot, cannot make this stuff up. In addition to the usual attempt to overthrow Roe v Wade:

Franklin wants to create a Uterus Police to investigate miscarriages, and requires that any time a miscarriage occurs, whether in a hospital or without medical assistance, it must be reported and a fetal death certificate issued. If the cause of death is unknown, it must be investigated. If the woman can't tell how it happened, than those Uterus Police can ask family members and friends how it happened. Hospitals are required to keep records of anyone who has a spontaneous abortion and report it.

This country is losing its fucking mind. The fact that someone, even one person can attain political power with such an agenda, suggests that the nation in which that it a possibility might well be a hellhole. Combine that with the fact that there is nothing extreme about Rep. Bobby Franklin in the context of the party to which he belongs. Combine that with the fact that there is only the barest legitimate opposition to this bad craziness in the US political system, and you've pretty much got a good probability that this country is a hellhole.

Scott Walker and Women

2011-02-22T09:21:00.004-05:00

Here's an interesting writeup on Scott Walker's "crusade" against women's rights.

Before linking to Mother Jones, Charles Johnson pithily notes:

Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker is not only trying to destroy public employees’ unions. For years, he’s also been working hard to force women back into the Dark Ages

Heh.

Wisconsin: Not a Last Gasp, but a Homage

2011-02-22T08:33:00.006-05:00

Why has the situation in Madison, Wisconsin, emerged as such a galvanizing issue for liberals nationwide? While the specific dispute over the collective bargaining rights of workers would seem to be enough, I have a feeling that there is something deeper to this that has, hitherto, gone mostly unexplored--namely, the presense of a widespread sense that what we are witnessing is a last gasp, of sorts, for liberalism in the United States.

On a policy level, it is hard to imagine the dispute in Madison ending in any way other than with a victory for Governor Walker. All they have to do is wait for the protests to quiet down, the media cameras to roam elsewhere, and the Democratic legislators to return. And I think that at bottom, the protestors and those of us who sympathize with them, know this. But still there is something to the fact that they are playing out the string. That is the nature of a last gasp. That is, on all except a few red meat social issues like abortion and gay rights, I believe that we are in the early stages of a broadcloth surrender of American liberalism as we know it.

Even in the paralytic days of 2002, as the US solidified sweeping tax cuts, passed the Patriot Act, and careened into initiating a second war, liberals did not show signs of entirely giving up. But now we look at the political landscape in its totality, the cost of the last eleven years, and all we see is wreckage. Consider:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue unabated. Where are the protests? Where is the opposition? (It is fashionable now to speak of "war fatigue," and that economic concerns have emerged as primary. Perhaps there is something to this; although it's too bad that the deaths and the billions spent are not thereby rendered any less real.) I think that the anti-war protestors saw there was absolutely no way to stop US military adventurism, and so gave up. Look for very little hue and cry when the next one starts.
Debate over government's role in the economy has been overtaken by quibbles over how much spending to cut, and where to cut it. The possibility of making meaningful changes to our tax code has been eviscerated and liberals know it.
Relatedly, liberals have surrendered the idea that corporate power could be checked by governmental regulations.
Um, it goes without saying that liberals have surrendered on health care as well.

Never in my lifetime have I seen such lethargy, such absence of liberal narrative or vision as we have known it in this country. Workers rights, poverty, education, the environment--all have been rendered less than afterthoughts in our national conversation. The words "Liberal," "Progressive," &c. will not go away however--they are simply shifting to mean different things, different priorities. Perhaps it will mean things like battling the repeal of child labor laws and opposing conscription.

In context, those will certainly be worthy battles, and they may even be winnable.

I think that, knowing something like this in their gut, liberals turn their eyes to Wisconsin and feel something stir. Maybe it is less a last gasp than a homage.

2011-02-20T10:14:00.000-05:00

Sunday Happy Musical Tribute.

Seriously?

2011-02-20T05:55:00.000-05:00

Like Harrogate, it has been a long time since I blogged here. Typically I blog at Pieces of M, as my blogging has been focused on my job search, my work and teaching, and my mothering. However, the things going on in the U.S. are really pissing me off. Sure I get that the U.S. is in serious debt. I get that. I also get that the budget needs to be cut, or my great-great-grandchildren will also be in debt. That said, I don't think the way to go about it is by cutting programs that benefit/provide services for individuals without insurance or who can't afford insurance. I mean seriously, cutting Planned Parenthood and PBS? Reproductive rights and the arts? Seriously Republicans? Could you be a little creative at least? Like, I don't know, taking a pay cut or increasing taxes on individuals who make over $200,000 a year?

After a Long Hiatus

2011-02-19T20:17:00.001-05:00

Harrogate Returns.

Tuesday Musical Tribute

2010-08-31T10:04:00.003-04:00

Reconsidering the 14th Amendment

2010-08-05T08:15:00.002-04:00

Top Republicans are making the case that Congress should repeal the 14th Amendment. This is a new strategy in the fight over immigration since repealing the 14th Amendment and ending birthright citizenship would bring an end to "anchor babies."

This seems to be anther case where the Republican "right to life" begins at conception and ends at birth.

See here and here.

Parenting and Happiness, again....

2010-07-08T20:34:00.002-04:00

Over at Democracy and America, there is a critique about the marriage and happiness article in New York Magazine. The critique is well worth the read.

While I have a few more thoughts on the issue, especially concerning the definitions of the terms, the role of agency in parenting and marriage, and the notion of identity, I will try to work on a longer post tomorrow when I am not teaching and only writing.

Well Here is Something to Contemplate

2010-07-05T09:21:00.002-04:00

From the New York Magazine: Why Parents Hate Parenting, or, "I Love My Children but Hate My Life."

I am just reading through the article now but it discusses a lot of frustrations with being a parent, especially the diminishing returns. There is not much hope two pages in to the article.

File Under: Ignorance is Strength.

2010-07-02T18:08:00.001-04:00

It must be the campaign slogan for the GOP this fall.

From CNN: MIchael Steele on the War in Afghanistan

In a speech at a Republican fundraiser in Connecticut Thursday, a YouTube video shows the RNC chairman declaring of the war in Afghanistan, "This was a war of Obama's choosing."

"This is not something the United States actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," he added....

That statement is at odds with the fact the United States led a NATO coalition with overwhelming public support to invade Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks, and has prompted William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, to publicly call on Steele to step down.

"There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they're certainly entitled to make their case. But one of them shouldn't be the chairman of the Republican party," Kristol wrote.

Speaking at the Connecticut fundraiser, Steele also appeared to suggest any conflict in Afghanistan may be unwinnable.

"Well if [Obama's] such a student of history, has he not understood that that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops," Steele he said in expressing a position that is not only at odds with the White House but most of the Republican Party as well.

Heye said Steele was making the point that "[t]he responsibility for building and maintaining that strategy falls squarely on the shoulders of the President."

The Politics of College Sports

2010-06-24T09:44:00.004-04:00

In the wake of the conference realignment and the multiple discussion of how college sports weakens academics, here is an interesting article on the way College Football supports academics and research standards. This Salt Lake Tribune article, by Gordon Monson, which focuses on why BYU hasn't joined a mega-conference, especially the PAC-10 like its rival, the University of Utah, argues that the culture of BYU prevents it from being invited into the Pac-10.

The Utes are a better fit. They’re the kind of research institution that the Pac-10 prefers. Some say they are more “liberal” in their approach to academics, and that’s true, too. Their way of doing business is more in line with what Pac-10 schools do. As for athletics, football in particular, Utah’s accomplishment in winning two BCS bowls since 2005 is remarkable.

BYU, conversely, is conservative and is owned not only by a church, but a church that supported Proposition 8, that won’t allow its teams to play on Sunday, and that keeps a watchful eye on the academic pursuits of its professors. While it’s a stellar institution that’s extremely difficult for students to get into, it’s more limited in graduate-level research. It’s a terrific university, but a different one — unlike any in the Pac-10.

When I worked in Los Angeles, I talked with a number of Pac-10 athletic directors who were in favor of getting BYU into the league because whenever their teams played the Cougars, thousands of more tickets were sold. Had it been up to them, BYU would be in. The holdup was with certain school presidents, for the aforementioned reasons

While many complain that athletics weaken research and teaching at College Football Factory Schools, this suggests that College Football not only offers Research I schools more money for research, it helps support and maintain a certain academic culture necessary for research.

Update: to see how academic standards fall short at BYU, read this on how Jeffrey Nielsen, a non-tenure track professor was fired for his freedom of speech.

This May Be A First

2010-06-22T16:28:00.003-04:00

According to Yahoo, The Stanley Cup will be on display during Chicago's Gay Pride Parade.

For a real lesson on tolerance, people should speak to Defenseman Brent Sopel. From the article:

The Blackhawks took pride in bringing the city together during their quest for the Cup; cutting across demographics and eventually partying with 2 million Chicagoans at their championship rally. They also took pride in sparking a revival for hockey in the Windy City, and grassroots organizations like the CGHA are essential to the expansion of the fan base and the growth of the sport.

But above all, it's been a progressive year for hockey and tolerance. The late Brendan Burke, the son of Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke who died tragically in an auto accident earlier this year, shared his story of coming out in the hockey world and received an outpouring of support.

Burke's legacy is one of the reasons why Chicago defenseman Brent Sopel(notes), his wife and four children will appear with the Cup at the Pride Parade, according to the Sun-Times:

"When Brendan came out, Brian stood by him, and his whole family stood by him, like every family should," said Sopel. "We teach our kids about accepting everybody. Tolerate everybody, to understand where everyone is coming from."

I am pretty sure that championship teams from the other major sports, Football, Baseball, and Basketball have not stepped out. I am almost certain NASCAR would not do this.

For all of the common tropes of violence and incivility, it is good to see hockey as one of the first sports to make tolerance a virtue.

For a great article on Brendan Burke, read John Buccigross' piece, "We Love You, This Won't Change a Thing."

As the Right Realigns

2010-06-22T09:47:00.002-04:00

Even more Conservatives take aim at the Tea Party. Though David Frum has been attacking the Tea Party for sometime, his new article suggests how it will hurt the Republicans this fall, i.e. two-steps forward, two-steps back.

The Weekly Standard has a lengthier piece on the paranoia and conspiracy at the base of some Tea Party Leaders. e.g. Glenn Beck. And, Glenn, you're having a bad day when The Weekly Standard attacks you.

My Rather Conventional Tribute to the World Cup

2010-06-22T08:55:00.001-04:00

Shocking I would post this. I Know.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

2010-06-22T08:53:00.001-04:00

Or, being too incompetent to know you are incompetent. The New York Time Reports.

I have only one thing to say: Juice On!!!

Civilian Control of the Military: The Summer of Our Discontent

2010-06-22T07:10:00.006-04:00

In the new issue of Rolling Stone, which will hit stands on Friday, Michael Hastings interviews Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan. The article will be brutal against the Obama Administration and, in some cases, against Obama himself.

Here is a description of article from MSNBC:

In Rolling Stone, McChrystal is described by an aide as "disappointed" in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."

Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. And the White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

And

The article portrays McChrystal's team as disapproving of the Obama administration, with the exception of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who backed McCrystal's request for additional troops in Afghanistan.

The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

It quotes a member of McChrystal's team making jokes about Biden, who was seen as critical of the general's efforts to escalate the conflict and who had favored a more limited counter-terrorism approach.

"Biden?" the aide was quoted as saying. "Did you say: Bite me?"

It seems that even before the war is over individuals are attempting to dissociate themselves from the Country's longest war.

This is not good for anyone involved: the military leadership, the troops, the president. The insubordination in the interview probably undermines civilian control of the military, especially for Democrats. It certainly provides Republicans with a damning critique of Obama, from someone who voted for him, for the 2010 and 2012 elections. It creates a familiar fault line within the Democrats between Obama and Clinton, which has been a developing Republican meme (see Red State and Peggy Noonan).

Update: McChrystal apologized. Obama has summoned him to Washington. McChrystal will probably get removed from his post as it is fairly uncommon for leading military people to call out the Commander in Chief and even less probable that they survive in their position when they do. This works well for McChrystal as he gets to publicly denounce the strategy and is no longer responsible for the implementing the plan. Now that is responsibility.

With the blood in the Gulf, it seems as if it is time to strike.

Question of the Day: Thursday, June 17th, 2010

2010-06-17T17:33:00.003-04:00

With the contentious nature of the economy and the University, I, as I am sure others, have thought about what my career would be outside of academic life. Surely I must be better at something, right? There must be something else out there that would make me want to get out of bed in the morning?

Well, I don't know if there is. Yet, in light of the road not taken, if you were not in your current profession or trade what would you like your career to be and why?

Of course, answering rick star or movie star to this question would be quite dull so please choose something you could actually see yourself wanting to do.

This is Serious...

2010-06-17T12:28:00.001-04:00

Wax On, F*ck Off with Ralph Macchio from Ralph Macchio

Blogs as Sites of Resistance: Holla Back

2010-06-16T19:40:00.009-04:00

Interesting: Holla Back D.C. (and California, and Canada, and Chicago, and NYC, and a few others.)

For Holla Back D.C., you can find stories of people discussing how they were harassed in public and, in some cases, how other people arrived to defend to prevent harassment.

Holla Back seems intriguing for a number of reasons. First, it raises awareness by allowing people a public space to discuss what happened to them, tell other people where it happened so they may avoid some of the harassment, and, in some cases, help to find the perpetrators.

Second, it raises definitional questions over what is harassment, street harassment, and unwarranted speech. For example, on Holla Back NYC one commenter claimed harassment when a person on the street told her she was beautiful (and not smart or compassionate)- see June 12 as there is no link available. This leads to numerous interpretive questions that we have discussed here many times.

Third, while the cite concerns itself over sexual harassment it wants posters to avoid any mention of race in the description unless it is pertinent to the story. From Holla Back NYC:

What Is Street Harassment?

At Holla Back NYC, we believe that street harassment is defined by you. It can be anything that makes you feel uncomfortable including grunting, hooting, whistling, propositioning, grabbing, or just plain being a jerk. Harassers come in all different shapes and sizes, races and genders. What is street harassment to one person may not be to another.

We invite you to be creative and honest with how you define street harassment. While there is always the classic, "Hey baby, nice tits" there are so many other forms that go unnoted. If you feel like you have been harassed, HOLLA BACK! We're the safe space you've been searching for.

Anti-Racism

Replacing sexism with racism is not a proper holla back.
Holla Back NYC asks that you refrain from referencing the race of your harasser or include other racialized commentary. If you feel that race is important to your story, please make sure its relevance is explained clearly and constructively in your post.

For posting policy, see entry on October 9, 2005.

Fourth, it raises issues about privacy. On one post Holla Back Canada a woman raises concerns over harassment and the expectations of privacy in public settings as she claims she suffered harassment when she was videotaped topless at a topless beach. On Holla Back NYC and Canada, posters are encouraged to take photos of the people who harassed them; on Holla Back D.C. the posters usually do not take photos of the alleged assailants.

There is a lot to check out and I highly encourage it when you have a free moment.

Mega Conferences

2010-06-15T06:59:00.002-04:00

Is continuously amazes me the game of musical chairs played by universities and conferences these days. Although I'm somewhat glad that the Big 12 stayed together, although much leaner, the banter which has taken place the last few weeks is a bit appalling--more like mega companies than institutions of learning.

Just checking. . .

2010-06-09T13:38:00.001-04:00

Is anyone alive out there?

So when my kids get measles . . .

2010-02-03T11:54:00.003-05:00

because some parent believed in Andrew Wakefield's poorly conducted study linking the MMR vaccine to childhood autism and, thus, refused to have his kids vaccinated, can I expect a housecall from him?

We Can't Solve Health Care

2010-02-01T21:54:00.002-05:00

But Congress will solve the problem that is on the minds of 47 million uninsured Americans: The BCS.

Really? Yes, really.

What the Superbowl Tells us about Norms & Culture

2010-01-29T16:19:00.003-05:00

CBS, who will televise Superbowl 44, refused to broadcast an ad for ManCrunch.com, a gay dating Web site though it will broadcast an ad that is a Pro-Life ad,features Tim Tebowby, and was created by Focus on The Family.

It appears that at one point CBS rejected issue ads. Now it appears that CBS does not reject issue ads just issue ads from certain ideological dispositions.

CBS and the Superbowl: Trivializing culture for 44 years.

From CNN here and here.

The Ethics of Research

2010-01-27T10:52:00.002-05:00

I wonder if this would make a good case-study on the ethics of research when gathering evidence to support your ideas.

James O'Keefe, a 25-year-old Conservative filmmaker, was arrested for attempting to infiltrate the office of State Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). O'Keefe and three others were charged with "entering federal property under false pretenses and attempting to gain access to the Democrat’s office by posing as telephone repairmen." As two of the individuals, who were dressed up as telephone repair workers, tried to gain access to the phone system, O'Keefe, who was in the office, taped the interaction on his cell phone. The fourth individual was arrested in a car positioned a few blocks from the office. This individual was in possession of a listening device.

O'Keefe is known for paying someone to pose and a prostitute and film the prostitute with ACORN workers discussing how to circumvent the law. The videos were damaging to ACORN even though there may have been substantial edits to O'Keefe's film.

For more, read here.

Update: Here is a photo of O'Keefe, who is dressed as in pimp for the ACORN videos.

Quote of the Day

2010-01-21T11:12:00.003-05:00

"It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me."

Former Presidential Candidate John "Country First" Edwards who admitted that he fathered a daughter with Rielle Hunter.

Sign of the Times

2010-01-18T12:02:00.003-05:00

The new meme, according to Democracy in America and The Corner: Martha Coakley may lose the special election tomorrow because she stated that former bloody-sock Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan.

Look. I get that this may be considered a moment when the representative does not know the people. However, at what point do we say that there are times representatives should not be concerned with what the people know.

Interesting

2010-01-14T09:23:00.002-05:00

According to the Buffalo News, the person orchestrating Mark McGwire's steroid apologia is Ari Fleischer.

Also, Fleischer crisis communication agency has been hired to promote the College Bowl Series.

Google and You Tube

2010-01-11T13:01:00.001-05:00

That's how Rick Davis found Sarah Palin and selected her as VP.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Question of the Day: Would you go to Grad School?

2010-01-08T14:37:00.003-05:00

An interesting piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Thomas Benton and a follow-up to a previous column by the author. The overall argument is that students, unless independently wealth, well connected, well supported, or already supported by a current position, should not pursue a Ph.D. in the Humanities because of institutional constraints e.g. too many students and not enough positions; the academic labor system; nepotism.

After reading the article, do you agree or disagree with the author's conclusions? And, more importantly, if given the opportunity, would you pursue a degree in the humanities?

And the War Continued

2010-01-08T14:34:00.003-05:00

The war on history that is.

Today, Rudy "America's Mayor" Giuliani followed the lead of Conservative Political Advisor Mary Matalin in claiming that no terrorist attacks occurred under President Bush's watch though there have been domestic attacks under President Obama's watch.

Giuliani:

Matalin:

War is Peace.

Spoken Word of the Day: You're So Cool...

2009-12-14T09:44:00.001-05:00

You're So Cool.
You're So Cool.
You're So Cool.

Poem of the Day: Sunday, December 13, 2009

2009-12-13T06:39:00.001-05:00

Amusing Myself, Li Bai

Face wine not aware get dark
Fall flower fill my clothes
Drunk stand step stream moon
Bird far person also few

Facing my wine, I did not see the dusk,
Falling blossoms have filled the folds of my clothes.
Drunk, I rise and approach the moon in the stream,
Birds are far off, people too are few.

More here.

Priorities....

2009-12-09T17:44:00.002-05:00

Well, the public option for health care looks like it is dead. And rather than provide a meaningful debate on the issue, Congress needed time to debate something more important:

One PO dies and another finds new life. Sure the public option is effectively dead in the Senate, but a House subcommittee has passed a bill calling for a playoff to replace the entrenched and utterly pathetic BCS system to determine national champion in college football

I do like this claim by Ambinder: "Truly, the BCS is a broken system wobbling on the crutches of dollar signs and entrenched interests. In other words, it is the most quintessentially American system we could possibly have."

WTF, to borrow from the popular title used by others on here

2009-12-02T21:56:00.006-05:00

So yeah, some of this post in rambling and a bit whinny, but believe me a very, very thankful I have a good job right now. However, I want to pass on some of the information that numbed me as a bit of a warning for my mates--snoop around on those faculty union sites at the schools where you interview as you might be amazed about what you can learn about salaries which can come in handy for negotiations. Now let the rambling begin.

I returned to my office today (as you know I have been away for a while) and struck up a conversation with one my colleagues that began with an insightful discourse on micro-brews (got to love them), which quickly digressed to unions, faculties, departments, wages, etc. Of these, ramblings the one that has stuck in my craw was our joint outrage over salaries and the ridiculous discrepancies among them within the units of my college/faculty. As A&H folks we are all used to the sciences, medical, business schools, and the like, making insane amounts more (for the many reasons we know), but I was slapped in the face almost quite literally upon learning that folks of my own rank (start date, tenure-rankings, etc.) make 7,000-10,000 dollars more than me to teach music, classical studies, English, and so on. I learned this bit of information from our faculty union which has a nifty little program that states what you should be making based on performance rankings, and you can just change departments to get the goods on their salaries. Although I expect English to make more than me, mainly because of the shear size of the departments and volume of revenues from students, I was taken aback by the vast amount of dollar seperation; a few grand, o.k. but 10,000 come on. Even though I stand a chance of reaping some of the benefits of such discrepancies if the wife can land a tenure-track job here, still. Moreover, what is truly f'ed up is that my colleague, who just made tenure makes considerably less (more than the numbers above) than her equals in other departments because a cliche in the salary-leveling that occurred several years ago. To keep up with affirmative action and women's equality, the university tried to bring the female profs to the pay of their male colleagues--the men were making 10s of thousands more per year. Instead of leveling across the university, the salaries were balanced within the departments, well my department at the said time, basically had no senior men, therefore there was no real imbalance so the women only recieved a modest pay increase (same for the men). Although, one can say my department was more progressive, these same women (and some now senior men) are still making, as I understand it much, much less than other tenured folks.

Well to even make things more crazy, which led to our discussion of money in the first place, there is a push to bring the university's pay scale to an equivalent amount to other comparable institutions in our region--an assistant prof at a comparable school makes 30,000 more than a prof at my institution and my university ranks higher than all but 2 of them.

The one element of good news, is that I make a few grand more than what our union's program says I should make.

I'm back from sabbatical...

2009-11-29T00:06:00.002-05:00

and ready to jump into the blog.

Hello? hello?

Does this mean no year-end review?

Preventing Sexual Assault

2009-10-18T20:22:00.002-04:00

Here are some tips on preventing sexual assault we all might find handy.

The Rhetoric of Appriopriateness: The Reality of Ficiton

2009-10-16T08:21:00.004-04:00

Searching for MLK's "I Have A Dream," I found this: Stormtroopers' 9/11. It is a little eerie, a touch ironic, and contains everything from "I was on my way there" to "Emperor Palpatine knew" to "It justified our invasion of Hoth."

It is awkwardly humorous.

Um, Seriously?

2009-10-08T11:19:00.001-04:00

Ok, here's one for the "What in the hell is the world coming to?" file. Apparently Levi Johnston is planning to pose Playgirl. Chew on that one for a while, Situationers.

New York Calorie Count

2009-10-08T09:04:00.002-04:00

Last year, NY State enacted a policy that gave consumers information on the number of calories in every dish at restaurants throughout the state. Because of the knowledge imbalance between consumer and restaurant, NYS thought by providing people more information on what they eat they would be able to make better decisions, especially in regards to their calorie intake.

After the first year, studies show that the calorie labeling did not reduce calorie intake. In fact, calorie intake increased. In response, libertarians attempt to be first in line to proclaim the nanny state and nanny state legislation does not work.

Yet, something seems odd with the findings. According to the Times:

The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains — McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken — in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.

It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.

But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.

The findings, to be published Tuesday in the online version of the journal Health Affairs come amid the spreading popularity of calorie-counting proposals as a way to improve public health across the country.

There seems to be very little discussion of the economic climate and the connection between fast food sales and poverty stricken areas. While this study tentatively shows that, even with better information about food, consumers may not make better choices, the commentary does not discuss the context of the study as well as a Queens resident, interviewed by the Times, who was in Harlem for a job interview and, while at a McDonalds, ordered two cheeseburgers, which contain 600 calories, for two dollars:

When asked if he had checked the calories, he said: “It’s just cheap, so I buy it. I’m looking for the cheapest meal I can.”

Comps Topic #1: Visual Rhetoric & Ideology

2009-10-06T14:01:00.005-04:00

Analyze the following interactive painting from McNaughton Fine Art, playing close attention to the development of a political ideology that constitutes the American Polity. After analyzing the painting, provide an answer to the following question: What is the construction of the American ethos revealed by this painting?

When writing this essay, it is important to note who is included, who is excluded, and who has been represented? Furthermore, you need to identify the god and devil terms and the consequences of those terms as revealed in this painting.

You should complete this answer in two hours.

Thanks to Sully for the link.

There's inherent and there's ideology

2009-10-05T13:40:00.005-04:00

Some writers at Conservapedia started the Conservative Bible Project to remove the liberal bias in the Bible and promote Conservative ideology.

At this point, I wish this were a joke. Seriously. The first line in the entry, "Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations," makes about little sense unless of course there is one institution that interprets the different versions of the Bible for all people. But what do I know. Maybe King James, who wore gloves when touching the Bible and asked his writers to include the notion of the Divine Rights of Kings, was liberal after all.

Oh well. At least this projects admits that the Bible is far from inherent and only contains some decent stories. What's best is not to live out the lessons or the stories but instead to change the stories to fit your own ideological precepts.

But, if you still need evidence to adhere to the Conservapedia complaint against liberal bias, here are the arguments that prove liberal bias:

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.
At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.
The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible.

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.
For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

Well, I hope in the Conservative rewrite, Jesus becomes a CEO rather than a useless vagrant that walks around from town to town, upsetting the locals in the way Socrates did. I mean what type of authority figure, regardless of whether or not he is the Son of G-d, does not have a job or work for a living; is married with children; own guns and hunt; reject homosexuals as the scourges of the earth; support the War in Iraq; and rejects the political authority of his historical time. What kind of role model is this Jesus person any way. And why does he hate markets, private property, and rich people? What a Jackass!!!

"Hear, Hear" to Conservapedia and their ideological crusade!!!

Nut up or shut up

2009-10-05T09:13:00.003-04:00

Every evening after Wild Man goes to bed, PW and I watch a little TV, generally while we do various other things around the house or work. In the past few weeks we've seen a lot of commercials for Woody Harrelson's new movie Zombieland. Most of the trailers have included what is apparently Harrelson's character's catch phrase in the film: "Nut up or shut up." Last night, as I was prepping for today's class, PW was watching a football game. And again, we saw a trailer for the movie. This time, however, the catch phrase was changed to "Put up or shut up," and the change had clearly been looped in. It was a very, very noticeable change. Since then I've been wondering what is so offensive about the original phrase that it had to be changed. Is this only an American issue? Last night we were watching an American channel, and we'd always seen the trailers on Canadian channels previously. Why the change? In what rhetorical situation is this particular phrase inappropriate or worthy of censoring?

Question of the Day: Jon Stewart's America

2009-10-02T07:34:00.002-04:00

Did Jon Stewart hurt America?

Five years ago, Jon Stewart appeared on the now defunct show Crossfire, with the rather zero integrity journalists of Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. Well, I should say, Carlson defined himself as a journalist even if his normative beliefs about libertarianism got in the way of his reporting, and Begala, a former Clinton White House Aide, is a political commentator, which frees him from any ethical use of facts. But I digress...

Daniel W. Drener argues that Stewart's questions on Crossfire, which led to the demise of Crossfire. Of course, he continues the argument and states that the demise of Crossfire also led to the demise of The Capital Gang and Hannity and Colmes years after the fact. How Stewart;s appearance led to the retirement of Colmes from Hannity and Colmes is not clear but....

In place of the crude ideological debate, Drener states we just have the ideology manifested in Glenn Beck, Keith Olberman, and Hannity. Of course, shows like these existed before Crossfire's demise. And other shows, such as the Sunday morning shows, and Hardball, O'Reilly, Hannity, have opposing positions even if, first, the framing of the opposing is crass and not likely to persuade the audience, who is ideologically committed prior to watching and, second, these shows fail to act like news organizations and discover "truth" such as whether or not Iraq possessed WMDS.

It seems that the pure ideology shows always existed and will exist so long as there is a market for them regardless of whether or not Jon Stewart criticized the format of these shows. But who knows. I have not watched Stewart or Colbert since moving to the East Coast.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.

The Complications of Parenting

2009-10-01T22:06:00.003-04:00

I came across this story today while I was eating my lunch: "She adopted a child--and then gave him up." I really want to write something thoughtful and considered about this story, but as usual of late, I'm too tired to think. I'm posting this though, in the hopes that I will be able to write something tomorrow.

The Left Better Learn to Love the Second Amendment

2009-09-30T15:08:00.003-04:00

In a class on rights today, we discussed the notion that only a third of the people in the American Colonies wanted revolution while a majority preferred revolution. Luckily, the third of the country who wanted revolution also owned land, controlled the press, and possessed the artillery.

Over at Newsmax, a site that praises Glen Beck, John L. Perry wrote a column titled, "Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention." Here is the beginning of the column:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

While Newsmax pulled the article, you can read the entire column here.

Seriously?

2009-09-29T11:09:00.002-04:00

Check out this story at MSNBC on a mother ordered to stop watching her friend's children for less than an hour every morning. I'm all about protecting children, but this seems to be a bit much. Most of us at TRS have watched one another's kids at some point in time--always without pay. What do we, as parents, think of this? Is this a case of too much government involvement? Yes, I did just write that.

Tired

2009-09-28T21:57:00.001-04:00

I wanted to check in with my fellow Rhetoricians. Given our continued absence on TRS, I'm assuming everyone is as tired as I am. That is all. I will now go back to preparing job materials.

In honor of Facebook; in memory of TRS

2009-09-15T12:56:00.000-04:00

Kanye's at it again...

2009-09-14T22:33:00.002-04:00

First he interrupts Taylor Swift the VMAs, and now he interrupts President Obama at a joint session of congress. What an ass!

Revolution #9

2009-09-09T08:53:00.002-04:00

9/9/09 is here. That means the newly remastered Beatles CDs hits the shelves today. I won't spend $200 for the complete catalog, but I can swing a few titles. I think I'll pick up another Abbey Road, the White Album, and Let It Be. High expectations!!!

Five for Smoking but not for Breastfeeding, Continued

2009-09-04T12:52:00.003-04:00

A few months ago, Solon wrote a post on a case before the Ohio Supreme Court. A woman employed at the Totes/Isotoner Factory was fired for taking unauthorized breaks to pump breast milk for her baby. About two weeks ago, the Ohio Supreme Court reached a verdict. They upheld a ruling that said the woman had been legally fired. As Motherhood Uncensored explains, the court had little choice given how the law is written. Technically the mother was in the wrong. I could say a lot about this particular issue (and I do me A LOT), but for now I just want to draw everyone's attention to Motherhood Uncensored's post on this. As we've discussed some at TRS, breastfeeding is a contentious issue. Women are told unequivocally that "Breast is best!," yet, as Motherhood points out, many, many women aren't given the support they need to breastfeed. A lot of women who want to breastfeed stop because breastfeeding takes time and effort--and quite a lot of both. Yes, breastfeeding is free in so far as moms don't have to pay for breast milk, but in terms of the amount of time required to nurse a baby and/or pump when putting baby to breast isn't an option, breast feeding costs is damn expensive (I know; I'm breastfeeding as I write this). I like this post by Motherhood because it points out the breakdown between the incessant demand that mothers breastfeed and the reality that many don't have the time to do so.

State Legislators Hard at Work...

2009-09-03T10:11:00.003-04:00

Intellectual Honesty Watch: Katie Roiphe Edition

2009-09-01T20:40:00.002-04:00

Last week we discussed anxiety and motherhood, which was based on Katie Roiphe's experiences as a new mother headed back to work. In some parts of the Internets, Roiphe's article was attacked. We only attacked it for a very stupid paragraph.

Well, Roiphe has a new article up on Slate in which she states:

No, I am not responsible for the subtitle, nor did I see it until the piece was on the site, which is in no way unusual.)... To answer some of the other comments: Nowhere in the piece did I tell anyone else how to live. Nowhere did I suggest that my experience of the first days of motherhood was any better, richer, or more interesting than anyone else's. (To me, the addiction metaphor implies a derangement and desperation not entirely to be recommended.) Nowhere in the piece did I attack anyone for having a different viewpoint or experience. (Though frankly one does worry about the fragile commenter: If someone chooses to wear an orange dress are you hurt because of the implied critique of your yellow one?) Nowhere did I say that feminists hate babies. In fact, my own mother was a feminist, and I like to think she liked me.

While the first two sentences maybe fine, though they are quite debatable, the third sentence reveals a lack of memory. Last week, Roiphe wrote:

One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment.

It seems to be quite the trick to blast a group of individuals, all of whom have, according to the author, the same dishonest viewpoint, but not "attack anyone for having a different viewpoint."

Quoteof the Day

2009-08-31T21:46:00.003-04:00

In light on Jenna Bush Hager, Glenn Greenwald at Salon discusses the perils with meritocracy:

They should convene a panel for the next “Meet the Press” with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it’s really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There’s a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters. . . .

All of the above-listed people are examples of America’s Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work — The American Way. By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor — who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice — is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement.

Question of the Day, or Decade, whichever you prefer?

2009-08-30T10:31:00.003-04:00

In light of a discussion with P-Duck over torture, otherwise known to some as enhanced interrogation techniques, when did the virtue of manliness become expressed through the notion of raw power or strength rather than manliness as an intellectual endeavor?

And a second, but related question: if the virtue of manliness means raw power and strength, why do those who advocate for torture call it "enhanced interrogation technique?" Why not take the virtue to its logical extension and call it what it is rather than diminish or mask the concept of torture behind the Orwellian "enhance interrogation technique."

Bonus: Song of the Day. "I Am a Man" by Bo Didley. Where are the Tony Sopranos of yesteryear?

Something you might not expect from me

2009-08-30T08:07:00.003-04:00

2009-08-27T13:52:00.002-04:00

Following up on Solon's post on "Anxiety and Motherhood," here is the comment that bothers me: "Since, as Katie points out, so few of history's famous thinkers and poets have been mothers, the intense ordinary swoon we feel about our babies has been neglected. But I think that we sing Auden’s lullaby quite as much to our children as to our lovers." I think this is a vast overstatement, and rather than suggest that mothers are just as capable of being thinkers, scientists, and writers but that their responsibilities as mothers often makes it more difficult for them to be both, as I think is the author's intent, it seems to suggest that mothers can't combine their love for mothering with their love for other types of work (and yes, I will continue to define mothering as work, no matter how much I love it or how sentimental I feel about my children).

I believe we Situationers did this once before, but how many famous thinkers and poets can name who were/are also mothers? Here are a few.

Marie Curie
Toni Morrison
Margaret Thatcher
Isabella of Spain (yes, I'm going that far back!)
Sara Willis Parton (aka Fanny Fern)
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Betty Friedan
Adrienne Rich
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Madeleine Albright
Sandra Day O'Connor
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Anne Bradstreet
Abigail Addams
Harriet Jacobs

Can you think of any others?

An interesting take on visual rhetoric

2009-08-27T13:32:00.001-04:00

I find this to be a valid form of "punishment."

Anxiety and Motherhood....

2009-08-26T19:02:00.004-04:00

From Slate's Double X: a piece by Katie Roiphe that praises the joys of being a mother of a newborn and, along the way, attacking feminists' hostility to the pleasure of infants.

It is an interesting piece as our household transitions from one parent working to both parents working. While we both share childcare duties, Megs has been the one to stay home full-time even while writing a dissertation. Next week, she will step in the classroom for the first time and feels similarly to Roiphe about separation.

Roiphe's piece has been criticized for the following paragraph:

One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment. Historically, feminists have emphasized the difficulty, the drudgery of new motherhood. They have tried to analogize childcare to the work of men; and so for a long time, women have called motherhood a "vocation." The act of caring for a baby is demanding, and arduous, of course, but it is wilder and more narcotic than any kind of work I have ever done.

First, though I am not to knowledgeable on the literature of which she speaks, I find it a bit dubious when writing about a group of individuals and stating that all individuals have one view. It is especially dubious when failing to cite one of those writers and perpetuating the fiction that one writer stands for all of the writers. Maybe those that criticized Roiphe (follow the link), feel guilt for going back to work and valuing work over family. I don't know. But I do know that the controversial paragraph is not very controversial.

In defense of the post, Hanna Rosen writes that this is a "very neglected subject in both literature and philosophy and yes, also feminist writing," especially compared to erotic love. But does this establish a prima facie case that feminists are dishonest about the connection between a mother and her infant? If anything, it is a call that research needs to be done (ahem, Megs....) but this claim establishes nothing else.

But this leads to another problem: if you are not speaking out against something than you are complicit in your silence. This means that Roiphe and Rosen may speak out on this issue but are complicit on all of the issues on which they do not speak. I am sure the list is endless.

Then there is the notion of choice: Roiphe criticizes feminists for not allowing people to choose what they want to do or be, i.e. choosing motherhood over work. But this is an endless game. Roiphe is now condemning people for condemning a choice. This could go on endlessly if we choose.

It seems as if the controversy seems a bit manufactured. If you follow the link on the criticisms of this post you will find that some of the attacks on Roiphe's piece are quite misdirected and unsubstantial. There are better critiques of Roiphe's article. Nonetheless, as we in this household transition, I thought this piece may interest the readers and writers here even if this is a good piece of writing gone wrong.

A Favorite

2009-08-26T13:16:00.001-04:00

This came up on my Ipod this morning as I drove Wild Man to school. It's a personal favorite of mine, and apparently Wild Man, who told me "Turn it up, Mommy," agrees.

Tuesday Musical Tribute

2009-08-26T11:48:00.001-04:00

Discovered this today. Makes Harrogate happy for a number of reasons. Wanted to share with friends here.

Knock-Knock

2009-08-25T21:47:00.000-04:00

The purpose of Torture

2009-08-25T12:47:00.004-04:00

In The Lesser Evil, Michael Ignatieff argues that torture is a nihilistic political choice that results in irrevocable harm for the torturer and the tortured (see 136 - 143). Since it is the ultimate violation of a human being and the ultimate unlimited use of public authority against an individual, Ignatieff argues against liberal democracies employing it as a tactic in the War on Terror.

A good, clear explanation of Ignatieff's ideas come fom Julie Sanchez. In response to The 2004 CIA Inspector General Report on Torture, especially the section in which interrogators tortured a prisoner by threatening to kill the prisoner's children, Sanchez writes:

I guess what especially turns my stomach here is that the idea wasn’t just to inflict mental anguish on a presumably odious man in order to extract information. It was to inflict that pain by exploiting, as a weakness, whatever flicker of nobility or love remained in an otherwise wretched soul. It was a method of torture that would have been effective only because and to the extent there was something human left in him. Maybe I’m being overly sentimental, but every cell in my body is telling me this is sick and wrong.

There should not be much else to say on this topic though I doubt as if there will be a full review of what occurred. Ever.

I Heart Spam, II:

2009-08-25T08:48:00.001-04:00

Subject: W this cargo overboard? -- Friend My Ship is Full; _ if _ only I could d:

And steamboats having partially annihilated space, and of the strides which education, if not intellect, has made upon the highroad of human improvement, assumes an importance greater than the things themselves deserve. To a truly philosophic ken, there is no such thing as a trifle; the ridiculous is but skin-deep, papillae on the surface of society; cut a little deeper, you will find the veins and arteries of wisdom.

Therefore will a sober man not deride the notion that comic almanacs, comic Latin grammars, comic hand-books of sciences and arts, and the great prevalence of comicality in popular views taken of life and of death, of incident and of character, of evil and of good, are, in reality, signs of the times. These straws, so thick upon the wind, and so injuriously mote-like to the visual organs, are flying forward before a storm. As symptoms of changing nationality, and of a disposition to make fun of all things ancient and honourable, and wise, and mighty, and religious, they serve to evidence a state of the universal mind degenerated and diseased. Still, let us not be too severe; and, as to individual confessions, let not me play the hypocrite. Like every thing else, good in its good use, and evil only in abuse of its excesses, humour is capable of filling, and has filled, no lightly-estimable part in the comedy of temporal happiness. What a good thing it is to raise an innocent and cheerful laugh; to inoculate moroseness with hearty merriment; to hunt away misbelieving care, if not with better prayers, at the lowest with a pack of yelping cachinations; to make pain forget his head-ache by the anodyne of mir