Where do Iraqis stand on Roe v. Wade?

Yesterday, an article in The Washington Post discussed the number one characteristic potential Defense Department employees would need in order to work in Iraq: no, it is not knowledge about the Middle East nor knowledge on post-war reconstruction; these would be beneficial. No, the number one characteristic was loyalty to President Bush.

Some great excerpts from the article:

"O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade."

"A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting."

"To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience."

"Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000."

"One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the President's vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was 'uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC (Republican National Committee) contributors."

I have very little faith in either party, and if the Republicans win the mid-term elections, I will have even less faith. How can one party diminish almost their entire ethos and still hold office and still receive support from citizens in this republic?

Plato may be correct.

A Fanatical Devotion to the Pope

Over the weekend I found out that certain people-- certain people who write for this blog-- have never watched "The Spanish Inquisition." Ha. Ha. Ha. (Diabolical Laughter.) Nobody expecs the Spanish Inquisition.

Addressing democratic education again...

In CULTURE WARS: SCHOOL AND SOCIETY IN THE CONSERVATIVE RESTORATION, Ira Shor writes the following:

"Students will resist any process that disempowers them. Unequal, disabling education is symbolic violence against them, which they answer with their own skills of resistance--silence, disruption, non-performance, cheating, lateness, absence, vandalisim, etc. Very familiar school routines produce this alienation: teacher-talk, passive instruction in pre-set materials, punitive testing, moronic back-to-basics and mechanical drills, impersonal and shabby classrooms, tracking, the denial of sexual themes and other subjects important to them, the exclusion of student co-participation in curriculum design and governance, and the outlawing of popular idioms in favor of correct usage" (183).

A lot of composition theorist (particularly critical pedagogues) make these sorts of claims. They tell us that student resistance is rooted in the oppressive nature of teacher-oriented education. And I suppose that this argument makes sense, but it doesn't answer for why teachers who enact student-centered classrooms are also met with resistance. I wonder if it's not just an issue of youthful rebellion. No matter what your pedagogy--whether you downplay your authority or not--students will always view teachers as authorities and many of them will rebel accordingly.

For Harrogate, who likes raisins and D&D:

Education in 15 Years

In both of my classes (one on Social Movements, one on Religious Communication- Church/State Conflict), we discussed Facebook. The majority of students in both classes use Facebook (I have never used it and I never liked the lack of Privacy with it) but they were upset with the new Privacy changes that allowed users to track the movements of other users.

While discussing Facebook in my Social Movements, we discussed Communication phenomenon that would cover the use of facebook. I, being rhetorically minded, thought of two: (1) symbolic convergence theory and (2) technological determinism. While I am not a big fan of the first, I, sometimes, concede the power of the second.

After discussing technological determinism, I have spent most of the afternoon thinking about education. Oxymoron provided a post last week about "Democracy" and "Education," through an online Tech Writing class. I still remain unconcvinced that Democracy and Education are two values that should be combined together, but I digress.

This leads me to the point of my post: What will be the state of education in 15 years?

There seems to be a few trends that I have noticed over the last few years since I have been pursuing my Ph.D.
(1) Students read very little to not at all. This decreases the amount of traditional literacy.
(2) Students spend more time on facebook or watching t.v. or working or hanging out.
(3) Students do not spend as much time developing critical thinking skills. With the rise of a business education, there is less focus on writing or critical thinking than there is on consuming.
(4) Students need to be entertained..

How will these developments alter education?
Will professors need to spend more time entertaining students than teaching them and getting them to think?
Will professors need to develop different "literacy" skills to speak to their audience?
Is egalitarianism or democracy good or necessary for education?
How do we persuade our students to be "students"? Now? In 5 years? 10? 15?
How does political affiliation alter education? Do students look to see the politics of the prof and is this necessary for education? Will this alter education? Will it doom education?

The absurdity of picking NFL games, let alone a Season

I decided I would be absurd as the experts by picking the records of NFL teams game by game before the season begins.

Why? Each week during the season, my wife and I pick the winners. Last season I picked 62% of the games correctly for the season. My highest week (Week 9) I went 12 - 2, picking 85%. For my lowest week, I picked only 43% (6w - 8l-- the only week I was under .500).

This system does not account for many things: It only looks at head to head (no injuris, no in week momentum). But here it is:

AFC

AFC East:
MIami Dolphins: 12 - 4
Buffalo: 11 - 5
New England: 10 - 6
N.Y. Jets: 3 - 13

AFC North:
Cincinnati: 14 - 2
Pittsburg: 10 - 6
Cleveland: 6 - 10
Baltimore: 5 - 11

AFC South:
Indianapolis: 14 - 2
Jacksonville: 11 - 5
Tennessee: 3 - 13
Houston: 2 - 14

AFC West
Denver: 13 - 3
San Diego: 12 - 4
Kansas City: 7 - 9
Oakland: 2 - 14

NFC

NFC East:
Philadelphia: 12 - 4
NY Giants: 10 - 6
Dallas: 9 -7
Washington: 9 - 7

NFC Norris:
Chicago: 13 - 3
Detroit: 4 - 12
Minnesota: 4- 12
Green Bay: 3 - 13

NFC South:
Carolina 14 - 2
Tampa Bay: 10 - 6
Atlanta: 6 - 10
New Orleans: 4 - 12

NFC Who Cares?
Seattle 13 - 3
Arizona: 8 - 8
St. Louis: 7 - 9
San Fransico: 1 - 15

Playoffs:
AFC Seeds
(1) Indy
(2) Denver
(3) Cinci
(4) Miami
(5) San Diego
(6) Buffalo

NFC Seeds
(1) Carolina
(2) Seattle
(3) Chicago
(4) Philly
(5) NY Giants
(6) Tampa

AFC Playoffs
Cinci over Buffalo
San Diego over Miami
Indy over San Diego
Cinci over Denver
Indy over Cincinnati

NFC
Chicago over Tampa
Philly over NY Giants
Carolina over Philly
Seattle over Chicago
Carolina over Seattle

Indy over Carolina

Comments:
There should be a + or - 2 associated with this.

AFC: East
Miami- if #8 stays healthy and he regains his touch, they win the division. If not, place New England or Buffalo here.
Buffalo is my suprise team from the AFC because their back 8 is so favorable- aside from INDY, their two "hardest" games are against Miami and Jacksonville in Western New York after November 1st. Unfortunately, Bills fans have become conditioned to ignore the Bills from November on. Instead, the fans in Buffalo turn to the Sabres from the near beginning, hoping they will raise the Cup in the Spring of 2007.
New England will not make the playoffs this year. This is their year to fall. I blame injuries and their kicker. But mostly, I just want to watch them not make the playoffs and return to being the hapless Pats of the 1980's and 1990's.
NY Jets. Oh well. Some people watch college football because they enjoy it. You'll watch college football to find a quarterback for next year. And maybe a running back. And maybe 20 other people.

AFC: North
Cinci: if Carson's knee holds up, AFC championship. If not, Pittsburg will claim the division.
Pitt: Good luck. But distractions will rip through this team and my 10-6 record will end up looking optimistic.
Cleveland: Go Brownies. You will earn respect eventually but you will not overcome a first week loss to New Orleans.
Baltimore: I just don't think Mr. Fragile will be the answer.

AFC South:
Indy- Repeat again this year: "This is your year Peyton." At least you have a better kicker. I hope he is healthy.
Jacksonville- This record is way to high for you. But, you will at least win 4 - 5 in your division. Now that you have a tough schedule, let's see if having no offense will help you. A freak second half blizzard in Buffalo will doom you and keep you out of the playoffs.
Tenn- Vince Young today. Vince Young Tomorrow. Vince Young... will you ever hold on to the ball?. Your other options won't help.
Houston- Maybe next year you'll take the top player in the draft when you have the #1 pick. Oh. You won't get the number one pick because San Fransico will.

AFC: West
Denver: At least you'll lose to a new team in the playoffs this year.
San Diego: Playoff bound. But it won't help.
Kansas City: How Long till Coach Edwards will want to coach the Steelers?
Raiders: I will refuse to use any Aaron Brooks jokes- so, let's see how Brady Quinn will look in black instead of Gold and Green. Will the refs protect him in the pro's as they do in college?

NFC: East
Philly- Fresh air and a division title.
NY Giants- Just beause you play in the NFC. That is the only way in which you will reach the playoffs.
Dalllas- Tony. Toni. Tony. Toni. WIll Drew retire or want to be traded? If Toni Romo is not starting by Oct., the city will implode.
Washington: Another team where the focus will be on the backup quarterback for most of the season.

NFC: North:
Chicago: I do not believe that Chicago will win 13 games. However, I do not have the time to go back week to week and correct this. Nor do I care to do this for a team that will lose in the second round of the playoffs. Let's face it. Their division is terrible and they should go 6-0 in the division. They will lose 2 to the AFC east and one to Seattle. They beat Tampa because they play in Chicago after October.
Detroit, Green Bay, and Minnesota: You will only beat each other. If you beat someone else, no one will notice.

NFC: South:
Carolina: You'll lose another Superbowl. But it is not your year. Maybe next year.
Tampa: A sixth team needs to make the playoffs and you are that team. Good Luck.
Atlanta: I want to like this team but I cannot find anything about them on the field that makes me want to say they will be successful.
New Orleans: They'll make the playoffs in 07. But this year?

I wish your team(s) luck this year. Unless of course your team is Dallas, New England, Houston, Detroit, Green Bay, or San Francisco. For the first two, I do not care. For the last four, you have no hope and you should pick up another hobby. Or maybe read a book. Or maybe go for a walk. Or maybe adopt a cat. Or maybe...

Only one 3-bedroom left...

I was driving to the store the other day, when I saw an apartment complex advertising a three-bedroom vacancy. I was immediately reminded of a similar sign in Omaha, Nebraska.

After finishing by B.A. a few years back, Mrs. Oxymoron and I moved to Omaha, where I would work on my Master's degree. A few months before our move, we made a trip to that lovely Nebraska town to look for an apartment. We were looking for a place with two bedrooms. As we drove along Dodge Street, we saw a very nice complex with a big sign that read, "Only one 3-bedroom apartment left." A phone number was also present.

I said to my wife, "I know they've only got one 3-bedroom left, but I wonder if they have any two-bedrooms available." She wondered as well, as the sign could be read in one of two ways. Either the sign meant that they had only one apartment left, and it happened to be a 3-bedroom; or it meant that they had only one of their 3-bedroom floorplans left. The latter interpretation suggests that some 2-bedroom and studios might still be available.

Desperate for a nice place, I called the apartment manager. I said, "I just drove by [name of apartments], and your sign said that you only have one 3-bedroom apartment left. I was wondering if you have any 2-bedrooms available." His response took a derogatory tone: "Well, what's the sign say?" I tried to explain that it was a bit ambiguous, but he acted as though I were unable to read a simple sign. He cut me off, saying, "We only have a 3-bedroom left." Then he hung up.

I felt stupid, which is typically warranted, but not this time.

Humor from the NFL

The New England Patriots traded for Doug Gabriel. According to CNNSI: "The Raiders received an undisclosed draft choice" [for Gabriel]."

Now, this is powerful writing. According to the article, the Raiders traded #2 Wide Receiver and do not know what they will receive in return. I guess New England wanted to suprise them. I imagine when the two teams discussed the terms of the trade, New England said, "We'd like Gabriel. Sure, we'll give you something... Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink. Say no more, say no more. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat."

And Oakland must have said: "Wow! Suprise us! We love surprises. I mean, look at our quarterback situation. We also love to figure out just what is going through Randy Moss' head most days."

Maybe the report should read: "Terms of the deal were not disclosed," or, "Oakland did not state what it received in the day," or, "No one really cares about Oakland in the first place so we will only report on what New England does. Like college football, people only want to hear about Notre Dame so we will only tell you about the fighting Irish."

The Same Bat Wages

I saw this on Andrew Sullivan. It needs wider play. What would Batgirl say today?

What's a Democracy?

Keith Olbermann, former Sports Center host, calls Rumsfeld for task on Rummy's recent speech to the American Foreign Legion.



The text of the speech can be found here.

This week, both President Bush and Rumsfeld played the 1940's Fascism card. I will try to post more on these speeches this weekend.

Lost footage fuels suspicion (even more)

"Tis a Fair Court"

This story continues to bother me.

To review: Professor William Woodward at Wisconsin believes certain conspiracies about 9/11 (For a review of conspiracy theories, go here. For refutations of the conspiracies, go here.) According to Inside Higher Ed, the professor believes that, "U.S. leaders have lied about what they know about 9/11, and were involved in a conspiracy that led to the massive deaths on that day, setting the stage for the war with Iraq." Sometimes, he expresses these views in class (the article states that when he discusses his views, he makes clear to students that his views “are controversial” and that most people disagree. (Local press reports, quoting students of a variety of political views, back Woodward’s summary of his class approach on the issue.) However, the article does not say how he presents these views, especially if he offers his students a chance to refute them or if he mentions other views. Academically, Woodward studies psychology, focusing on political psychology and psychology of race. This semester he is teaching a class on Islam.

State and Congressional Representatives, mainly Republicans, want the University to fire Professor Woodward. According to Inside Higher Ed, one representative wants to fire Woodward because, "“there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and that “it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans.”

My question is simple: instead of trying to refute the arguments by using, oh, I don't know, evidence, why do politicians employ red herrings? And further, as one commenter to the post said, why are these officials concerned about offending the sentiments of the people when so many things legislators do offend the people?

Virtual balls

The semester officially started yesterday. I'm teaching a Web-based technical writing class for the first time. I love teaching writing, so I've been a bit bummed out about the idea of not having the traditional student-teacher interaction to which I'm accustomed. On the other hand, I've been quite excited about engaging Internet technology as a full-time teaching tool.

Yesterday, I sent an instructional handout to my students. The handout tells them how to login to and navigate through our course site. It's pretty basic stuff. Now, for anyone who has taught before, you know that it can be difficult to get students to speak up during the first week or two of class. Such is not the case online. Within no time of emailing the handout, students started browsing the site and even introducing themselves. The introductions began without any sort of prompting by me. As soon as they found the blog section of the site, they just started writing. I'm still a bit in shock.

What makes the rhetorical situation of the online course so different than that of the traditional classroom that students are anxious to speak up? I don't know. But I do have a few ideas. Two, in particular:

1) The online course let's students create ideal personae. Unlike the traditional classroom, instead of feeling that their real selves--personality flaws and all--are on constant display, the virtual classroom let's students reveal to the public only those qualities that they want to reveal, those qualities with which they are most comfortable. Stduents feel less exposed online.

2) Given the (theoretically) democratic nature of Internet technology, maybe the oppressive structure of the traditional classroom is circumvented, creating an honest-to-God decentered classroom. Accordingly, instead of waiting for teachers to fill their heads with knowledge, students take a more active role in their education. If this is true, then teachers of online courses may finally become those facilitators for which process pedagogy has had them striving for nearly forty years.

I don't know if either of these points is relevant. But they seem very likely to me. In the end, however, I don't really care what drives the eagerness of students to participate in the online course. I'm just glad they seem to be excited it.

For your enjoyment and intellectual stimulation

Having not made a blog entry for several days, I nearly forgot how genius my posts were. This one is certainly no exception.

For the Money: #10 of Top Ten Worst Reasons For Going To Graduate School In The Humanities

Harrogate realizes that this one's so obvious to everyone considering entering the field, that it probably merits no elaboration whatever. Yet, because humanities professors tend to own houses, as well as cars made within five years, and they for the most part seem to know their way around airports, and the like, Harrogate could see how a cautionary word or two might be in order.

Simply remember this. Consider those who enjoy the most material success as a result of being a humanities professor at a major institution. Take their work ethic, their talent, intellect, and ingenuity, and factor this in with their willingness to put up with b.s. generally, and then enter those elements into a business endeavor of almost any kind, and you wind up with so much more material reward, and so much less loan burden along the way, that it's infinitely more mind boggling than the fact that Pluto has suddenly been stripped of planetary status (it has been stripped, that is, at least untl the steroids allegations are cleared up--Pluto continues to maintain it is not, nor has ever been, juiced, but whatever).

In forthcoming posts Harrogate will elaborate on the nine other, far more seductive and thus pervasive worst reasons for getting a doctorate in the humanities. Until then, gentle humans, take care. Take care.

For Solon: Bret Hull Was In The Crease

OK, one more and then Harrogate will refrain from YouTube for a bit. But this one's been bothering Harrogate for more than seven years, now. Indeed, it is something Harrogate the only moderately enthusiastic hockey fan will take to his grave. That, of course, and one smokin' body.

Triple H Entrance Backyard

Harrogate is breaking back into the blogging business slowly, after a week off whilst visiting with family. So, to follow in the tradition of the already-controversial _Basic Instinct_ parody he posted earlier, here is a great parodic/tributary treatment of the great Triple H, one that foregrounds the concept rhetoricians refer to as Register. Enjoy, fellow humans. Enjoy.

Heh, heh

Two Thumbs Up?

As I was watching the Colbert Report last night, the new 9/11 movie, WORLD TRADE CENTER, was advertised during a commercial break. As is typical for such spots, the studio acknowledges critics who praise the movie: "The best film of the summer," "A Masterpiece," blah, blah, blah. Even though I haven't seen the movie or heard too much about it, I began to wonder if less-than-positive reviews are possible. I mean, it is about 9/11. And even if the film is nothing more than a trite and mawkish story of American heroism, it's still about 9/11. Accordingly, will it receive anything but praise? Given the subject matter of the movie, it might prove too difficult for critics and moviegoers to berate the movie for fear of seeming unpatriotic or unsympathetic to the events of 9/11.

In a lot of ways, it might be similar to PASSION OF THE CHRIST. While I did not think it was a particularly good movie, nearly everyone I talked to loved it. (I don't recall how the critics weighed in.) I tend to believe, however, that most of these people were responding to subject matter over artistry. As good Christians, perhaps they *had* to be moved by the film, for to criticize the movie was to criticize their religion. Similarly, those who watch WORLD TRADE CENTER will most likely love it, for conservative rhetoric today will have them feeling un-American if they don't.

College Football May Be Exciting But...

The New York Timesdiscusses the growing trend in College Football: weak teams play strong teams for the money. The University of Buffalo, will play Auburn and Wisconsin this year. The probability of UB beating either team is smaller than the probability of GWB admitting a mistake or the Conservative Congress controlling spending. Yet, even though UB will suffer total humiliation and AUburn and Wisconsin will receive a bump in the polls due to the blow-outs, UB still schedules the game. Why? There are $750,000 reasons why.

The NCAA allow schools to schedule 12 games, which will enable schools to make more money on home games. But rather than schedule a decent opponent that will offer a competitive game, Auburn students will have the luxury of watching UB play. This seems to be the growing trend around the league. Texas will play Sam Houston State on 9/30; Penn State plays Youngstown State (I-AA ) on 9/16. Miami (FL) plays Florida A&M (I-AA team) on 9/9.

Rather than purchase textbooks or other items related to education, students will pay for sports passes, which at some schools seem insanely high for quality or product and quality of experience but are necessary for the social coercion in the culture of the university. Student athletes (or just athletes) spend more time at practices, etc., rather than in the classroom or working (how is it that student atheltes do not need to work though almost every other student needs to work to afford a college education?) to earn some cash for the semester. At some point, will any University admit that football or basketball players are not students idurng the semester in which their sport plays and let them (1) be athletes in season and students in the off-season or (2) just pay the atheletes a fraction of what it makes from "using" them to make money or (3) just admit that the university is just a business and no longer in the business of education but rather just a farm system for major sports teams.

But, on the bright side, my school has a brand new scoreboard, on top of their brand new practice facilities, and on top of their coach, whom earns $2,000,000 or so for leading a average team, to an average record, in a BCS division. The last "major" victory the school won was back in 2002. Yet- I always have something to talk about with my class when they do not read their assigned work.

Spinnin' the Vinyl

As some of you already know from offline discussions, I recently purchased a turntable and re-entered the world of vinyl music. There are many vinyl enthusiasts out there who would say that my choice is a good one, as analog technology reproduces music more naturally, accurately, and musically than the CD. Those in the digital camp would argue just the opposite, claiming that CD technology is superior to vinyl because it eliminates the "pops" and "clicks" of analog records and because CDs are ultimately more convenient. Both arguments seem accurate to me.

While I don't want this post to turn into another "Analog vs. Digital" debate, I do want to point out one advantage of vinyl, a point that is rarely discussed in such arguments: the value that vinyl presents to music lovers. I drove down to campus today for a training seminar. On my way out of town, I swung by Half Price Books to check out their used record collection. Nearly every record was $1.99. And there were some good ones. I walked away with some really great albums, including Rod Steward's Foot Loose & Fancy Free, which I'm listening to right now. It’s sexy!

Half Price isn't the only place selling records at these prices. There are many more, especially if you head into Austin. I tend to purchase a lot of music, so my turntable will likely pay for itself in no time. What’s more, I already seem more apt to consider new and different music. Instead of buying the stuff with which I’m most familiar, I now find myself taking some risks. Heck, I can’t go wrong at $1.99. And if I do, I could always sell the album back to the store. Apparently these places also buy used records.

Monday Night Raw Open Thread

Harrogate's family is in town visiting this week, so, slightly unhappily, but not surprisingly, but perhaps not too predictably, he will not be live blogging tonight's installment Monday Night Raw. Depicted here, Harrogate here preserves his current refrain of homaging great wrestlers from the past, again via the four horsemen, albeit during the mid 90s. From right to left, we have Arn Anderson (at this point relegated to managerial and shit-talking duties), Chris Benoit, Steve Mongo McMichael, Ric Flair, and Dean Malenko.

Next Monday The Rhetorical Situation will continue live blogging Raws, and will provide an abbreviated discussion of all that has transpired, so that all readers are up to speed.

Meanwhile, here is a place for readers to ventilate themselves upon the mythological cacophony that is professional wrestling.

Take care, gentle souls. Take care.

I hate Bluetooth technology

Intellectual property for sale

I heard on the radio the other day that the intellectual property rights for the entire Jimi Hendrix music catalog (including a lost and never-before-released single) is going up for auction in the fall. Hearing this didn't sit well with me. The idea that someone can sell off these rights for tons of money just sort of seems wrong to me.

Jimi's music was Jimi's property. And upon his death, he should be able to pass those rights down to his family. The family should be the only people who are allowed to own those rights. They shouldn't be able to sell them to the highest bidder. Something here just seems wrong to me. And I don't know why. Maybe it's because of what happened to part of the Beatle's catalog. That Michael Jackson now owns part of Paul McCartney's intellectual achievements is just plain wrong. All because Jacko had more money.

Once the rights leave the family, they should go into the public domain. Again, I have no good argument for this. It just sits better in my gut.

On the other hand, I read yesterday that the seller of Jimi's catalog has named fourteen charities as beneficiaries of his estate. This means that all the money from the auction will eventually go to the Asthma Research Council, the Leukemia Research Fund, The Salvation Army, and the eleven other charities. After hearing this, the auction now somehow seems okay.

You are just perpetuating a stereotype

Is that Paulie Walnuts and Sil?

Rhetoric, Public Speaking, Literary Studies

Inside Higher Education has an interesting article on the relationship between public speaking, rhetoric, and literary studies, which suggests a divide for the writers of this blog.

To summarize, or, represent, certain aspects of this article: dating back to Ancient Greece, the study of rhetoric is a practical act that correlates to the development of a citizen-- a person studies rhetoric to use it in the Agora. In addition, rhetoric uses many different appeals- logical (logos), emotional (pathos), and credible (ethos). If you use logos without pathos (as science does), you only appeal to a certain portion of humanity, which diminishes humanity. Today, the field of Communication practices and performs this form of rhetoric.

Literary studies developed out of rhetorical studies. It focuses on how people communicate with one another; however, it focuses on knowledge for knowledge's sake. It does not ask the reader to become a citizen but to be a reader, maybe a consumer. The decline of rhetoric in the academic world correlates with the rise of rise of belle lettres in the academic world.

The article continues to discuss that at top universities and certain private universities, students in the liberal arts do not have access to public speaking but access to literature classes, such as Medieval Welsh Literature (Harvard); however, students in engineering and business take rhetoric classes to improve oral argumentation. The consequences of this, according to the article:

Top-tier rejection of rhetorical instruction, especially in the form of public speaking, seems to be about fundamental failures of undergraduate education in general and about failures of the humanities in particular. It is especially curious that in the face of calls for accountability in regard to student learning public universities have opted out of providing students with some very useful knowledge, while also failing to recognize the value of the discipline to humane studies.

Students that have liberal arts educations without public speaking miss out on an important part of education.

In addition to this article, there seems to be one other difference between rhetoric from the field of Communication and rhetoric in the field of English: in communication, there is an emphasis on the performance nature of argumentation; in English, there is a focus on the written form of argumentation but not on the performance.

Since I write from a rhetorical perspective in the field of communication, I would like to know:

(1) How writers from the English perspective conceive of rhetoric and politics?
(2) How do instructors of composition in English discuss politics?
(3) How do instructors of composition discuss emotional appeals in class?
(4) How do instructors construct citizenship, especially in relation to argumentation?
(5) How do instructors of composition conceive of an audience?

From a Communication perspective, one way to discuss this would be through Aristotle. To Aristotle, humans are political animals in relation to the root word, the polis (roughly translated, a city). Humans need to understand the issues that concern the polis—the issues and problems that affect that group of people.

When teaching rhetoric, rhetors need to understand audience demographics (age, socio-economic standing), audience beliefs (values, presumptions, virtues and vices), certain topics (in general and in relation to forensic, epideictic, and deliberative rhetoric), how to use enthymemes and examples, how to create and reinforce the character of the speaker in the minds of the audience, and how to move the will of the audience through the passions. This is, of course, in addition to the development of arguments. The topics in a typical public speaking course are: invention & arrangement (developing a topic, outlining a speech, knowing the correct topoi,), audience analysis, delivery, language, evidence/research, persuasive speaking, and refutation.

What are the main categories for composition?

The Rhetoric of Definition

An article in the L.A. Times analyzes the term "Islamo-Fascist." The article raises a lot of issue during the war on terror-- who is the enemy?

For Iraq, the term "Islamo-Fascist" did not make sense while Saddam was in power since there was little to none Islam but plenty of Fascism. For Afghanistan, the "Islamo" made sense but not the fascist aspect. However, the word makes “sense” to connect the fundamental groups of Islam that want to establish a democracy with a graze threat of fascism from the 1930’s – and 1940’s to create an all powerful enemy. I do remember seeing a few letters to the editor in the local paper that suggests if the US did not fight the radical Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan, the citizens of the US would all be speaking a different language just like if we did not fight the Germans and the Japanese in the 1940’s would we all be speaking German or Japanese.

It seems that that the term "Islamo-Fascist" would follow the appeals to pity fallacy where the emotional connotation of the word is to overpower the meaning of the word-- just as "We are fighting for Freedom" would. It also hides the distinctions within Islam:

But like "terror," and "evil" before it, "Islamic fascism" has the effect of reducing a complex story to a simple fable. It effaces the differences among ex-Baathists, Al Qaeda and Shiite mullahs; Chechens and Kashmiris; Hezbollah, Hamas and British-born Asians allegedly making bombs in a London suburb. Yes, there are millions of people in the Muslim world who wish the U.S. ill, and some of them are pretty creepy about it. But that doesn't mean they're all of a single mind and purpose, or that a blow against any one of them is a blow against the others. As Tolstoy might have put it, every creep is creepy in his own way.

The use of the term “Islamo-Fascist” overemphasizes the enemy without understanding the enemy. This leads us to the following questions:

(1) What is the proper term for the enemy?

(There is an enemy but it neither belongs to one sect of a religion nor does it belong to a state. Both of these are very important since, first, to call the war a war on Islam without differentiating would be to say that there are certain groups within Christianity that is a problem; therefore, all of Christianity is a problem. Second, since there is no enemy state, a Congressional Declaration of War, is impossible. There ought to have been a Declaration of War by Congress for Afghanistan but Congress abdicated its power to the President.

(2) Can you characterize the enemy as a “Fundamental” Religious group without calling into question other fundamental religious groups?

Once you apply the term “fundamental” to a religion, the religion is no longer the problem but the description of the religion. What standards can a reasonable person use to determine what constitutes a fundamental religious group? It seems that Eric Rudolph (the alleged Olympic bomber, abortion clinic bomber, and gay night-club bomber) would apply to belonging to a fundamental practice, though many people respected his actions and offered him help while he lived in the woods for five years. What about the Christian Exodus movement?


The War on Terror has carried on far to long without a clear understanding of the enemy.

Bonus Question: Why are the Sunni and the Shi’a fighting? When did the fight begin?

Sweet Dreams

Are made of these, eh?

Harrogate Says No to Summerslam, WWE Pay Per View In General

After long and careful deliberation, Harrogate has decided not to order Summerslam, WWE's pay-per-view extravaganza scheduled for this coming Sunday night.

The reasons are manifold, and future disquisitions are forthcoming as to the heart of the matter, which Harrogate will begin here with the simple observation: Wrestling Today Sucks.

Now, don't get Harrogate wrong. He will still be blogging Monday Night Raws, indeed this coming Monday Night he will use the opportunity to update everybody as to the results at Summerslam. But Harrogate continues to follow Raw out of hope for the future. Professional Wrestling must get better. It is time to get away from shock value, from the tits and ass for the sake of tits and ass, it is time to get away from milquetoast heels and vanilla heroes.

Remember, loyal readers, the intensity of the mid-90's in WCW, the whole NWO invasion? The constant threat of someone turning, the heroism of Diamond Dallas Page, the epiphanic unbeaten streak of Goldberg? Take a look at the picture above, readers of the Rhetorical Situation, and mark it well. That picture represents Tully Blanchard (left) and Arn Anderson (right), two of the greatest heels in the history of the business. Their day was the mid 80s.

What Harrogate is talking about is this: Pro Wrestling has always drawn its power from its ability to spin all-engrossing morality tales through which we all recognized the heel, and the hero, within ourselves. Complex, blood curdling narratives. Harrogate tells you, there were times when Tully Blanchard merited an Academy Award for the levels of raw arrogance and malevolence he brought to the table.

Harrogate wants the narrative to come back. Down with the wet tee shirt wars, the baring of the naked ass. Mr. McMahon we on The Rhetorical Situation, and across the blogosphere, request--nay, demand-- narrative. And if you continue to withold it, someone will respond to us and bring the noise. Beware, McMahon, of the ghost of Tully Blanchard. Beware.

See y'all Monday at 8:00!

I'm the boss, Applesauce.

Summer's almost over. That means school's about to start up again. I guess my days of lying around the house in my pajamas and listening to hours upon hours of music are nearly over. It's time to be productive. With this in mind, I decided to get to work yesterday. This semester I'm teaching a Web-based technical writing course. It will be my first Internet class.

As I read through the course manual, I noticed that my teacherly role was defined as "manager." I'm not a teacher, not an instructor, but a manager. For some reason this stuck me as odd and interesting. Despite leaving the corporate world years ago for a career in academia, I now find myself occupying the position that I once held in that previous (and far less fulfilling) life. To be honest though, taking on the role of manager in my virtual classroom doesn't bother me too much, for it seems identical to the "facilitator" role about which compositionists rave. The difference, however, is that "facilitator" is an overly-used term, one that means so many different things to so many different teachers. "Manager," on the other hand, rarely finds its way into writing classes and, subsequently, compels me to really think about my role in the classroom.

In the online environment, my manager role includes answering emails, monitoring student progress, making sure that course Websites are functioning properly, making class announcements, encouraging students to work well independently and in groups, giving advice and guidance to students, and grading assignments. Note that my responsibilities do not include actively teaching students in the traditional sense. That is to say, I don't lecture to them. Rather, it seems that I am supposed to acknowledge my students' creative and intellectual abilities. I do not immediately view them as deficient when it comes to course content, as containers that must be filled will knowledge (an idea that has already received some attention here on The Rhetorical Situation). To be sure, course managers value the voices of their students over their own.

This managerial approach to writing is nothing new. Alas, it is something that many composition teachers try to practice but rarely achieve. For when faced with student resistance to active learning, it is always easiest for the teacher to fall back into lecturing, thus losing the benefits of a student-centered classroom. The Web-based course offers no such recourse to lecturing. Accordingly, my time in the online classroom may help me to develop productive strategies to curb student resistance in the physical classroom. Of course, because the online environment is not immediate, it is not susceptible to awkward silences when students refuse to speak up.

The Cognitive Dissonance in Sports

It is an amusing "article".

My favorite now: "We believe drinking a particular brand of cheap beer makes us very attractive to members of the opposite sex. Similarly, we also believe we will run faster and jump higher if our shoes have swooshes on them."

But I just got a pair of those swooshes and I ran faster (and my legs didn't hurt after I ran.)

Monday Night Raw Draws Nigh, This One's For Henry James

Greetings readers, welcome to this copywrighted lead-in to another fantabulous edition of The Rhetorical Situation's award winning live Blog of Monday Night Raw! Harrogate would like to dedicate tonight's blog to Henry James,
whose dual penchant for profound metaphyscial musings on the one hand, and deliciously shallow gossip on the other, would have made him perfect as a ringside announcer. But he'd be doing color analysis. We'd still have Jim "Oh My God Has He No Conscience, No Soul, No Fellow Feeling For Other Human Beings!!????" Ross doing play-by-play.

8:00 p.m. Central Time, folks. But for those of you on, for example, Singapore Time, check local listings. There's a lot at stake going into tonight: with a card filled with Main Events looming just 6 days away at Summerslam (Only on Pay-Per-View), momentum is everything. Harrogate is ready to get Raw . . . Are you? See y'all at 8:00!

8:06, Charlottesville, VA. Edge opens things up with the revelation that he has invaded the house where Cena grew up in Massachusetts. How humiliating, he slapped Cena's own father across the face! Edge likes to get personal, ad hominem or bust. Now Cena has Freudian reasons for kicking Edge's ass as soon as possible .... and the rest us need to be avenged for having to hear Edge tell us, in his own droning way, all about his history with Cena. (Harrogate loves it that the hyper-offended Jim Ross refers to Lita as "that damned woman")--Does it get any more disgusting than watching Edge and Lita tongue each other? Harrogate submits Henry James would have found it crass. Coming up next Lita the walking venereal disease challenges Mickey James for the women's gold, and rumours abound that Hulk Hogan is in da house!
8:19 Lita with an assist from Edge completes the circle, now that she is women's champion she and Edge are the "golden couple"--they're a modern day John and Jackie Kennedy! (Jim Ross still can't see how Edge and Lita live with themselves afer what they 'done to Cena's daddy')
8:30 p.m. "Wallow, wallow, wallow" ventilates Mick Foley, implying that Flair will bleed to death at Foley's hands at Summerslam! Harrogate is surprised Foley has any voice left, he yells so loud and fast. But then, his is the proverbial tale told by an idiot signifying not shit ... Umaga early, and against a scrub (bad writing unless they're setting the stage for more Umaga later) . . . Harrogate will say this: the man can straight-up do it in the ring. And he loves that Umaga sets up his opponents with the ole ASS TO THE FACE
8:50 WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Nature Boy Ric Flair in Charlottesville, on UVA campus, one of William Faulkner's favorite spots incidentally. Foley interrupts Flair's demolition of Johnny Nitro, gets an assist from Mileena, mugs Harrogate's favorite cultural icon,and remains uglier than a four day pile of cow dung.
9:15Shawn Michaels and Triple H, most famously known as D-Generation X (get it), make their grand entrance at the top of the hour. These two are by far, WWE's big show stoppers, of the moment, they carry the narrative. Now they get a chance to respond to the shenanigans of the last two weeks, but not without the McMahons hetting ther interruption on . . . Words pass, heated words . . . Triple H reminds us all several times that he and Michaels are indeed D-Generation X, and Mr.McMahon reminds everyone that he's the biggest name in the history of wrestling. Meanwhile Jim Ross at ringside is still fuming over how Edge and Lita 'done Cena's daddy.' More must come of all this . . . perhaps something serious will go down between Carlito and Edge . . .
9:30 Eugene and Hacksaw Jim Duggan versus the five male cheerleaders donning chartreuse, Spirit Squad. Good Lord. Then comes the Highlanders, WWE's elegant hat tip to the Scottish archetype, to balance out the ringside numbers and help out team Eugene. Victory Eugene, with an assist from the lovable Scots. Now, Harrogate is expecting big things out of these last thirty minutes--don't let him and his fans down, WWE!
9:52 Umaga and his manager appear to have finally started to figure out that they were mere pawns in Mr. McMahon's game. Harrogate would find i interesting to see Umaga end his briliant "heel run" and turn good. Lita, meanwhile, has already done an interview with WWE.com and Raw not even over yet. Trish at ringside with Carlito, knocks Lita on her tushie, and it looks like they're officially a couple now, or as they used to say in Harrogate's day, 'going together.' Edge, aka "Rated R Superstar," manages to Spear Carlito, but Cena rolls into the ring and proceeds to pummel his nemesis, both to avenge his daddy (Jim Ross likes it) and send a message for Summerslam. It takes security guards holding Cena back to get Edge out of there in one piece. Main Event is all that's left, looks like it's going to involve Hulk Hogan and Randy Orton, Jr. . . .

It's all about promoting the ice-cream truck, pay-per-view. Hogan and Orton briefly skirmish, bt they're not going to give away the popsicles for free. Hogan still gets the great call-and-response from the crowd, but Harrogate wonders if he can still get it done in the squared circle.

Well, readers, Harrogate bids thee adieu. Have beauteous evenings, kick back with a Henry James novel and clear your slates for Summersla come Sunday!

FOX News Channel: Smug Media Perpetually on Acid

Harrogate has been a purveyor of FOX News Channel for several years now, largely because of the importance of knowing the enemy, but also for such tangential purposes as amusement and masochism. And it often occurs that, just when Harrogate believes that nothing this propaganda spewing machine could ever deliver would surprise him, along comes something that makes even his cynical, hardened jaw hit the floor.

Such is the case with the current installment of Brit Blight-O-Human-Skin Horseface Hume's Grapevine, which actually has the audacity to complain about media contamination in the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Apparently the "ter'ists," as our brave redneck leader likes to call them, have been releasing staged shots from the war front in a brazen attempt to swing public opinion against the Israeli assault of Lebanon.

And it's not just FOX, this whole "Fauxtography" shtick is getting a lot of play across the big Sunday Talk Show circuit and in all the (yellow) papers and major blogs. Indeed, The Rhetorical Situation might well be the last major media outlet to discuss this rhetorical development. Well, Harrogate breaks the silence now.

Now, at this point Harrogate can just hear the multitudes asking: but shouldn't we know the pictures are fake if they are fake? Yes, Harrogate supposes we should.

But how dare any of the media in this country complain about such a thing today, in the wake of their bloodthirsty ratings chasing behavior in trumping up the WMD charges, in the wake of their cult of the missing white woman (NOT TO MENTION RUNAWAY BRIDES AND THE HUNTING OF BARRY BONDS) replacing real news, in the wake of the Terri Shiavo spectacle whereby the droolers who flocked to Florida were treated as legitimate complaintants with something to say, in the wake of those ignorant bufoons/voters in South Dakota (may those rednecks rot in hell, if there is one, which Harrogate doubts) declaring women to be second-class citizens and then being benignly glossed by every major media outlet in the 'free world,' and, finally, in the wake of the whole Pat Tillman fiasco (a dead soldier isn't worth much, but a celebrity narrative dripping with Apple Pie is worth gallons of oil and blood, even if the narrative is an out and out lie) for fuck's sake!

And now here's ole Brit Blight-O-Human-Skin Horseface Hume himself, who has been consistently pimping out every form of sadomasochistic violence that the Bush Administration could possibly concoct since it took office, suddenly pretending to care about what is true and decent? There is no shame left, loyal readers.

For those who question the viability of Professional Wrestling on the grounds that it is somehow "fake" (a warrant Harrogate will debate with anyone anytime anyplace but only on pay per view baby!), Harrogate submits that these eagle-eyed critics take a look at their own Uhmerrkiahn system of governance: the bloodlust, the materialism, the hatred of difference, the mockery that is going to be the coming midterm elections, the sad fact that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) now comes across as, by comparison, a defender of civil liberties because of the cesspool that he, torgolydyte that he is, inhabits.

In the WWE, at least nobody really gets hurt.

Portishead for Your Sunday Pleasure

The University, Funding, and Religion

State and public universities have anti-bias rules for student groups, which roughly follow the rule that if a student group discriminates it comes to memberships then that group will not receive university funds. For example, the Christian Legal Society will not let people become members if these people do not adhere to its religious beliefs or if they engage in homosexual acts. Because of these beliefs, this organization may not receive funding from a public university. Some universities will allow such organizations to use rooms on the campus and allow the organizations to protect etc, but these groups do not receive funding.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal organization that protects "Our First Liberty," sent a letter to the University of Wisconsin, informing the University that it plans to defend religious organizations and force the university to recognize these groups.

Does the anti-bias provisions by any University violate students' rights, especially concerning free speech and free assembly?

Is it the job of a university to promote religion and religious organizations?

Should students be allowed to choose which organizations they want to supoprt?

Is a Univesity perpatuating an anti-bias against religious groups?

Would a student (an atheist for example) whom did not share the beliefs of an organization (such as the Christian Legal Society) want to join the group?

Baseball, Politics, and Religion

One of the most peculiar events at baseball games, either in MLB or any other minor league organization is "Faith Days" when religious organizations received discounted tickets and the baseball teams get a full stadium of fans.

One Group that is no longer welcome for the Atlanta Braves: Focus on the Family (which, the way, shouldn't there organization be renamed to focus on the family, if and only if, your family is conservative, religious, and anti-homosexual, or focus to remake families conservative, religious, and anti-homosexual.

According to CNNSI, though the Atlanta Braves did not provide a reason as to why Focus on the Family will no longer be included, sources state: FoF received the boot for its belief, "that homosexuality is a social problem comparable to alcoholism, gambling, or depression. In addition, the Braves "may have been troubled that Focus on the Family was promoting its Web site www.troubledwith.com, in which the group gives its suggestions for dealing with myriad problems."

The action by the Braves raises a few first amendment issues:
(1) To what extent should a group be punished for its views? (legal or social?)
(2) Is the rhetoric of FoF hate speech, especially since its views do not even accept the humanity of a homosexual (it is only a choice, a disease, not geneitc.)
(3) If anti-homosexual religious rhetoric is hate speech or constitutes "fighting words", should it receive the protection of religious freedom under the first amendment?
(4) Is it discrimination to excluded Focus on the Family even though other religious groups will be there?

Personally, while I do not believe in the views of FoF, I respect their right under the first amendment to try and persuade people their view is correct. For me, I follow the line of thinking in Whitney v. California: the cure for bad speech is more speech.

In the Braves' case, is blocking that speech a form of "refusing to debate" or "we think you possess bad ideas and, unless you change your ideas, you are not welcome?" How much social coercion can you apply to try and alter the minds of a person or ?
group? Since the game will be in Atlanta's stadium, do the Braves need to offer a full "marketplace of ideas." Since this is a private and not public place, fans may not have pure first amendment rights.

Another development, though it may be a little far-fetched right now: can you punish religious speakers for expressing the ideas that sodomites and adulterers should be "stoned" or received the daeth penalty? This seems as if it would be an establishment issue whereby religious law would supercede civil law and, therefore, it would be against the first amendment. However, I know of a few students in Texas who posses these views.

Should religious organizations lose their non-profit status when expressing these views or other political views?

There are many works to consult, like John Locke's Letters Concerning Toleration, Micahel Sandel's Democracy's Discontent, and Marci A. Hamilton's God vs. the Gavel (these are three right by my desk).

Any thoughts?

Look at This

Mike Stark is the loveable genius holding the sign, and his site rocks! Like it, love it, want some more of it.

Monday Night Raw Teaser: Gary Busey and an Ongian analysis of Umaga

It is absolutely imperative that everyone look at this video clip, which reflects exactly what went down at Raw last Monday in Memphis: once again, Shawn Michaels and Triple H get entirely screwed over. Harrogate swears to God, it's what always seems to happen to the proletariat in this country. A blue collar working man like Triple H just cannot seem to catch a friggin break. But Harrogate predicts that things are going to change this coming Monday. Like any soap opera worth its salt does on a Friday episode, Raw this Monday cannot but light it up, because it is their last chance to promote Summerslam. So, workers of the world, faithful readers of The Rhetorical Situation, Raw fans in general, prepare to be assaulted by populist rhetoric from wire to wire. Umaga will get his: Michaels and Triple H will ride high: Cena and Edge will ramp things up another notch, as will Flair and Foley. Oh yes. Harrogate can feel it. The fur shall fly.

But on to this edition of Harrogate's mid-week analysis. Given the events of the last three weeks, he has no choice but to put the spotlight on Umaga. Indeed, in the last three weeks Umaga has scored (albeit cheaply) victories against,in order: Jon Cena, Shawn Michaels, and Triple H.

But what would Walter J. Ong, rest his soul, have to say about this Umaga, who makes a living affecting a Samoan savage dwelling squarely "outside literacy"? In ways Umaga might even be considered a low-cultural representation of the Rousseauian noble savage.

But as Oxymoron pointed out to Harrogate on the phone this afternoon, Ong in Orality and Literacy was emphatic about distinguishing between Preliteracy (not Umaga) and Illiteracy (Umaga). Harrogate has wrestled (no pun intended) with this for more than a week, and has finally come to the conclusion that Ong would have found Umaga a pressing reminder of how much work needs to be done in terms of bringing that important distinction more vividly into the mass eye: for with Umaga's every wild gesticulation, his every breathtaking step towards losing control and pummelling fans, announcers, and pretzel salesmen with impunity, the distinction becomes more and more elided, and people assume that everyone before writing was a complete buffoon.

At this point Harrogate feels the need to remind readers that Gary Busey is a product of literate culture.

Harrogate hopes everyone is setting themselves up for a fantabulous weekend filled with wine, erotics, and song. And that they will cap that weekend off on Monday Night by tuning in to Raw, and following the live blog of Raw right here on The Rhetorical Situation, a blog that has won three major awards already.

My Own Confession

I was visiting a friend's blog yesterday. As I read through her recent posts, I encountered something very saddening and painful. In her confession MegsG-H admits that she came very close to posting a farewell message to her readers. Yes, it's true: just weeks into her blogging experience, she is considering a more passive and voyeuristic role in the blogosphere. Her rationale is that her blog is too much of chore, something that she has to make time for every day.

MegsG-H, I know exactly how your feel. As you know, all three contributors to The Rhetorical Situation had been talking about creating a blog for a very long time. And it was not until last week that Solon took the initiative to put our plans into action. It was very exciting to get this thing up and running. However, I must confess that, much like you, I am today far less enthusiastic about the blog. Yes, it was fun to talk about the possibilities of The Rhetorical Situation. But it’s not as much fun to actually do.

In my own confession here, I know that I risk breaking the hearts of my fellow contributors, as well as the hearts of my many devoted readers who have come to expect from my posts profound cultural commentaries, the likes of which only emerge when one is compelled by an intense and genuine passion to contribute to the advancement of the human race and its conditions. But it is important, I suppose, that my readers not place to much weight on my contributions. While I am always sincere in my posts, I caution readers against viewing me as an instrument of divine social intervention. The reason: these posts don't come as effortlessly as they may seem, as I hate writing.

That's right. Despite my decision to pursue a career in academia (in an English department, no less), I hate writing. It's just too damn hard, and it takes me forever. And for this very reason, much like MegsG-H, I find blogging too much of a chore. However, I'm going to hang in there, and I encourage Megs to do the same. It will be good for us, especially with dissertations looming over our heads. Since graduate students rarely write as often as we should (usually just at the end of each semester), let our blogs serve as public journals. By doing so, we will learn to generate words more readily, and writing will become less difficult and, subsequently, less of a chore. We may find that we look forward to blogging and perhaps writing in general. Accordingly, blogging may ultimately help us finish our dissertations quicker. I know that Harrogate and I, having both taken Peter Elbow’s advice to heart, believe this. (I don’t mean to exclude you here Solon, but you’re already well on your way to finishing your dissertation, and what’s more, you and I have never really discussed this point.)

Christians "for" Israel

There have been a few posts around the web this summer on the relaitonship between Christians and "Is-real-al". Here is an article on Christians Zionism that discusses a new political organization, Christians United for Israel. If this is not enough, you can examine the "highly arbitrary" Rapture Index and read about the imminence of the Rapture on the site Rapture Ready or discuss the imminence of the Rapture on the Rapture Ready Bulletin Board.

While there seems to be a great deal of inherent anti-"love thy neighbor" sentiment on the Rapture site-- dicussed here --this does raise a few interesting conflicts of public policy and value commitments, especially how can you be "for" something when it calls for the necessary destruction of something and to what degree can religious interpretation shape political and military policy?

Oh, well. "That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane, Lenny Bruce is not afriad."

Bonus to anyone who knows what this song is about, which is ironic for this post.

Value Commitments and Value Disagreements: 30 Days

Value Commitments and Value Disagreements

Last night I watched this week’s episode of 30 Days by Morgan Spurlock. If you are not familiar with the Show, Morgan Spurlock is the creator of Super Size Me, a documentary where he ate nothing but McDonalds for one month. Actually, he did not finish the one month duration since his Doctor told him it would be too unhealthy for him to continue.

Last summer, his show 30 Days debuted on FX. Currently, FX broadcasts is on Wednesday at 10pm EST. The basic premise of the show is that a person submerges him/herself in a culture that conflicts with his/her belief system or immerses him/herself into a way of life that is unfamiliar in order to “walk in their shoes” for 30 Days. Along the way, Morgan Spurlock travels the country, interviewing people, and presents “both sides of the argument.” At its best, it is enlightening for the people involved; at its worst, it is banal, possessing that “if only you saw it my way you would be free of your false consciousness,” and reducing a controversy to a false dichotomy. Sometimes, the show creates so much tension in the people’s lives that you can feel it as you watch; other times, it is a train wreck from which you cannot turn away.

In the last episode, a train wreck occurred. In “Atheist/ Christian,” an atheist moves into a family of evangelical Christians who live in North Texas. While the atheist moved in with the family to explain her views and see how the other half lives, the evangelicals sought to convert her. At its most interesting point, the Christian family sat with a group of atheists and the husband said, “It is Love thy neighbor not Love thy Christian neighbor.” At its least effective point, the atheist discussed her views on life on a local radio show and the Christian family listened. When she returned, the husband from the Christian family stated, “I do not know what you believe.” Tension must have been high in the household since the show pulled an unusual move—it brought the family of the atheist to say with the Christians. This almost never happens (I can only think of one other episode—the minimum wage episode where additional family members were brought on the show, but that was to show the impossibility of living on minimum wage).

This last episode suggests that when individuals adhere to certain values/ worldviews that shape their lives, persuasion is not possible. While everything may have a rhetorical aspect to it, not everything can persuade. In this case, the Christian family was unable to persuade the atheist (Two notes: First, 30 days may not be enough to alter fundamental world views. Second, I am not sure if the atheist was trying to persuade the Christian family—her intentions were not as clear. Though it was clear that the Christians were trying to persuade the atheists.)

Here are a few questions I am throwing out to you:
(1) What are your limits of persuasion (what can you not be persuaded to accept)?

(2) Is it ethical to persuade someone? (A very liberal position, stemming from Kant, is that it is unethical to do this because it would violate the rights of an individual? Persuasion would be linked to coercion. This is “The Rhetorical Situation” and would should address this point.)

(3) How do you formulate public policy when there are incompatible world-views? (The show mentioned crosses on public ground in Utah—though the intent of these crosses was to memorial fallen police officers and not promote religion and the “In God We Trust” in American currency—which is an endorsement of religion (there is no doubt about this) but may be de minimis (without significance) for the Court’s to touch).

(4) How do you cultivate morality/ virtue/ and ethics within society without making appeals to religion? (Kant’s categorical imperative? Secularize religion but lose the meaning of religion?)

(5) If you are atheist or agnostic, how do you raise your children? If you are religious, how do you teach you children to respect the beliefs of others? (The Christian family in the show seemed unwilling to accept the disbelief in "something higher." The atheist family discussed their disgust that their children were thrown to the ground and tanted when the atheists' children refused to say "under God" in the pledge.

If you have not watched the Show 30 Days, FX will broadcast a 30 Days marathon this Saturday (8/12) beginning at 12pm EST. I highly suggest taping and watching them all, but if you could only watch or tape a few, do not miss: Atheist/Christian, Muslims and America, Minimum Wage, and the best one, Immigration. (The other three are very entertaining and informative; however, in these four episodes, the show deals with subjects that are more political and more hostile for everyone involved.) Here is the schedule”

12:00 Anti-Aging
1:00 Binge Drinking Mom
2:00 Atheist/Christian
3:00 Muslims and America
4:00 Outsourcing
5:00 Minimum Wage
6:00 Immigration

Are we really all Witnesses?

Harrogate's been talking about the Witness commercials for a while, often with Sarah over at Mommy, Ph.D. Notice the exploitation of Christian rhetoric (beyond the obvious use "witnessing," that is), and even imagery--the fourth frame, for example, quickly scans across two white crosses.

A few random thoughts...

"I read the news today oh, boy"

(1) It seems that the "war" aspect of the war on terror is not doing well (Afghanistan, Iraq). However, it seems as if the "criminal investigations," in the war on terror are successful (today's capture, other arrests).

There needs to be more elaboration on this point, however, the language in "the war on terror" needs to be reexamined. While "police action" and "police investigations" are not as powerful as, in President Bush's words, "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."

(2) the weapon of choice: MP3 Players or "mubtakkar".

I will elaborate on these points in the next few days. This is just the beginning.

Terror Alert Signification

It changed again today, as everyone by now must know. And Harrogate hopes everyone reacted accordingly. He knows he did.

But in all seriousness, is there any other possible purpose behind this (empty?) signifier than fostering fear? What's granny in the Bronx supposed to do when the thing goes from one color to the next, anyway?

FOX and Lieberman: Knowing Thine Enemies

Check this out, note especially the first sentence of O'Leilly's spewage.

Harrogate warned of this the night he took the lead in correctly calling Lamont's victory. Between then and now, unfortunately, Harrogate has been proven right: the Conneticut primary has been solidly framed in the media as a victory for extremism.

Bush postpones 2008 election

Click here to take an entertaining glimpse into the future.
(Note that Lieberman won the Senate race as an Independent.)

A billboard in Arkansas...

Maybe it's just me, but these eyes don't really encourage abstinence. Sexy.

Pedagogy and the Limis of Politics

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, David Berstein wrote that it is not appropriate "to hold a class lecture at an ideological 'teach-in,'" nor is it "appropriate to require students to attend an ideological event to see the professor's own scheduled class lecture." The problem with doing this is that a professor places "politics in the classroom."

I disagree with this statement since whether or not is appropriate depends on the class and student involvement. I commented to the posts; unfortunately, I commented at the end. (Most of the comments agreed with the posts, especially at the beginning and by the time I responded there was little interest.)

I would like to reopen this question here though. Is it appropriate to hold class at an "ideological 'teach-in?'"

Triple H, (Wayne Booth), and Stephanie McMahon

One day after Harrogate's child burst onto the scene, Triple H and Stephanie McMahon's daughter followed.

Click here for some analytic perspective on how Stephanie and/or Aurora might impact Triple H and Shawn Michaels' chances at Summerslam (Harrogate, meanwhile, continues to petition Mrs. Harrogate for clearance to purchase the event on Pay Per View, thus to share with his readership).


In Rhetoric of Fiction, Wayne Booth speaks at length about the concept of an implied author versus that of an imagined or so-called "real" author. Triple H's situation speaks brilliantly to the phenomenon upon which Booth has expounded. Is the "real" Triple H the one who is happily married to Stephanie McMahon and, undoubtedly, on good terms with new grandaddy Vince? In this scenario, the implied Triple H would then be the on screen persona attempting to rhetorically negotiate the complexities of fatherhood with a messy divorce while defending his own honor, and that of Shawn Michaels, against those terrible Elvis impersonators, Vince and Shane McMahon.

But then again, we could say that the real Triple H is the one brought to the people every Monday Night, and that the happily married Triple H is actually the construct about which nobody has any real knowledge.

Ahhh, the humanity of it all!

(On a slightly related note, Harrogate would like to apologize for misspelling Lita's name--during Monday's live blog he referred to that walking venereal disease as Leda, as in the Yeats poem. Thank Mrs. Harrogate for catching the mistake (though her own intense dislike for Lita no doubt tempted her, for a moment at least, to allow the misspelling to stand).

This song is dedicated to the remaining two expectant fathers contributing to The Rhetorical Situation, Oxymoron and Solon, as well as to "C" who has developed into something of a nationwide cult figure on the blogosphere since his introduction on Separation of Spheres. Good work, fellas: Now go fetch that ice cream!

Home from my weekend trip

Although I've only contributed but one post to The Rhetorical Situation since its inception last week, I was pleased to return home from my weekend trip to find that I had already established a small but devoted audience of readers, some of whom have created games and posted videos in my honor. If you had told me last week that my absence from this blog would have evoked such responses, I wouldn't have believed it. But here I sit this evening touched by the enormous affection of all of my fans.

For those of you who were unable to correctly guess where I've been, here you go: I was in Arkansas. More specifically, Eureka Springs. I was there visiting my brother. He moved there about a year ago, and I had not yet been there to see him. We had a really great time. The first day we walked around the downtown area, which is more or less a winding street lined with small specialty shops, cafes, and restaurants. Eureka Springs is one of the top arts and culture destinations in the country, so it should come as no surprise that many of the shops are actually small galleries featuring the work of many local and regional artists. I found many cool things but nothing I couldn't live without. Even thought the shops offered much to see, the real attraction of Eureka Springs is its architecture and scenery. The city is more or less a nineteenth-century Victorian village nestled in the Ozark Mountains. To say that it's awesome hardly does it justice. Therefore, let me say that had not Mrs. Oxymoron been left behind in Texas, I'm not sure I would have returned. Yes, it really was that cool.

After walking around the first day, we returned to my brother's apartment and popped open some beers. We then sat down in front of the television and started playing video games. Having too much fun to stop, we played unitl early morning. And when we woke up the next day, we started again. Although I've never been much of a video game player, we literally played the entire second day of my visit. But before you assume that my trip was "wasted" on a Nintendo Game Cube, I will say again that the only reason for my trip was to visit my brother. Yes, I might have missed out on some of the many attractions of Eureka Springs, but I did not miss out on quality family time. My brother and I had a great time. And I even won one game of video golf, a game of video football, and a handfull of video boxing bouts!

So there you have it. For those of you who wondered where I was, you now know. And for those who missed the sound of my voice, miss it no longer, for I am back on The Rhetorical Situation.

BTW, does anyone know where I can get a fringed leather jacket like the one Richie Sambora is wearing in that video? Sweet!

Worst Song Ever

I just watched the last four performers on the show Rockstar: Supernova, where one (un)lucky contestant will win a popularlity contest, and as a result, join Supernova, which features Tommy "Please have the helicopter pick me up in the middle of the street" Lee, Jason "you might know me as the bassist player from Metalica, but problably not" Newsted, and Gilby "I am just an unemployed guitar player with nothing else to do and no chance of being on tv without this show" Clarke.

One contestant-- (My name is) Lukas-- performed "Creep" by Radiohead. Never before did I want to hear this song as a love song; hopefully, I will never hear this version again.

WHat are other songs that would make the "Worst Song Ever" Category:

Update: Lieberman is in Fact Toast!

It is 9:50 p.m., Conneticut Time. Harrogate is going to jump a little ahead of his other high-profile colleagues in the media and call this for Lamont. Now, Harrogate realizes he's been a little harsh with Lamont: but tonight, against his usual cynicism he allows himself to feel proud of the voters of Conneticut and yes, to feel a glimmer of hope in this nation.

Now, watch as the "liberal" media demonizes left bloggers like Harrogate, in a vicious backlash against Lamont's anti-war, pro-civil liberties stance. Also watch as Lieberman continues to build on his petty ethos by running as a "Petitioning Democrat" Blech.

But tonight, it's champagne:

Looks like Lieberman's Toast

If so then Yes there will indeed be partying


10:36 p.m. Texas time--

Harrogate checking around the blogosphere, The Lieb is on TV conceding, and he's pissed, and he's vowing to run as an independent. How pathetic.

Congratulations, Ned. Now don't let us down: go out there and get that seat in November!

A New Game

A name game for The Rhetorical Situation viewers: "Where in the World is Oxymoron?"

Readers are encouraged to offer their suggestions as to "Where in the World is Oxymoron?"

Winners will receive a sincere "Thank You" by Oxymoron. Hugs may also be available.

See official contest rules whenever they are posted.

Dedicated to Oxymoron, Whose Voice Harrogate Has Deeply Missed

Live Blogging: Lincoln at Gettysburg

Tonight, as a special to The Rhetoircal Situation, I will provide a live blogging experience of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg. Check you local listing for a TV or satelite feed of this event.

I think the speech tonight may be monumental. Anticipation is quite high.

Prepping for Monday Night Raw

Beginning at 8:00 Harrogate will be continually updating this post, following the action on Raw. A couple of things to bear in mind as you all go out and get all the beer, burgers, and dogs for your Raw party:



1)Accept the fact that Edge (depicted above) is WWE Heavyweight Champion. Indeed, to paraphrase a great sitcom moment, it is the Summer of Edge.

2)George Lakoff's ideas on framing, which have achieved popular attention through his engagement of how the GOP frames the political discourse, offers a particularly accurate lens through which to observe WWE's superproductions. Sweeping definitions regarding masculinity and heroism abound, as do very specific treatments of the role of women in a male-dominated society. Lakoff's work helps us understand how WWE is able to provide such a compelling construct within which it is impossible to imagine manliness as synonymous with, for example, baking cookies for the kids' sleepover.


See y'all at 8:00!


8:06 p.m. Memphis, Tennessee, baby! Monday Night Raw is rocking out tonight!

Things kick off with one of the very worst Elvis impersonations Harrogate has ever seen. Damn those McMahons! Now Edge interrupts the women's championship match and announces he's taking over Raw. He exploits the Rhetorical Situation to the fullest, playing up his whiny rep with the fans. But like him or hate him, he is indeed the Champ! More later...

8:23 p.m. Edge is getting pretty free with the violence against women thing, in Harrogate's opinion. Thank goodness for Carlito!

First match of the night: Big bad Kane destroys Shelton Benjamin and becomes number one contender for Johnny Nitro's Intercontinental Championship Belt.

Typical Cena, he's a true soldier, his rhetoric drips with integrity. Harrogate loves Cena, was pleased wit Cena's implication that Leda (Edge's woman) is a walking venereal disease. And then Crying Bitch Illustrated, that's powerful rhetoric.

The Cena/Viscera match should be entertaining. Both guys put on a helluva show in the ring.

8:42: Cena disposes of 500 lbs worth of faulty rhetoric. I wouldn't want to be Edge at Summerslam! (And why can't Big Visc accept that Lillian just wants to be friends?)

8:53 p.m. Last night Harrogate wrote: "Harrogate predicts that McMahon will find some sneaky way to get Michaels out of the arena so that Triple H is surrounded by numbnuts, with no allies": Exactly what has gone down in Memphis. Sigh. Triple H better have an ace in the hole....

9:11 p.m., Harrogate's discomfort with Edge's lack of chivalry grows. How dare he spear Trish (though some may argue that it was inadvertent, Harrogate suspects otherwise)! It is at this point that Mrs. Harrogate goes to bed, secure in the knowledge that she will be updated as to Triple H's fate in the morning....

9:30 p.m., Harrogate has always been a huge Ric Flair fan. "Also Sprach Zarathustra" is definitely the greatest entrance music in the history of entrance music. Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! An "I Quit" match between Flair and one of
Mommy PhD's all time favorite's, Mick Foley: With all due respect to Harrogate's esteemed fellow blogger, Foley's goin' down at Summerslam!

9:54 p.m., All right, all that's left now that the dust has cleared, is the main event. For Harrogate it's been all about Umaga/Triple H all week. Strap on your rhetorical seatbelts, it's about to get hairy up in Memphis!

Well, we called it from the beginning, Umaga's unbeaten streak continues, and though he's certainly a rolling ball of blades, lately his wins are all coming due to external help, to phrenetic undulations disrupting what should be a stable Rhetorical Situation once the men in tights step into tha squared circle. Burke, Harrogate believes, would emphasize the importance of Scene to what is happening with Umaga right now.

Regardless, it's been a pleasure: good evening everyone!

Countdown To Extinction: Lieberman v Lamont

Well, it's crunch time in the Conneticut Democratic Primary: Lieberman's death grip on the seat may well be reaching it's final frontier as of tomorrow. Harrogate is holding his nose and endorsing Lamont, who's seeming zeal for Israeli aggression must be viewed in context with his overall committment to getting the US out of Iraq and, protecting civil liberties from the current drubbing it suffers in this country.

Moreover, Harrogate sides with the left blogosphere in the contention that Lieberman rhetorically impaled himself with his petulant vow to run as a "Petitioning Democrat" in the event that he loses the primary.

Here is the transcript from their July 7th debate


Naturally, both fellas are engaged in some eleventh hour politicking.


And see The Nation for some interesting rhetoric about the contest.


Finally, for the many Conneticut voters who have yet to make up their minds, here is Ned Lamont's website for your perusal.

We'll see what happens tomorrow!

Monday Night Raw Teaser

Last Monday Night Shawn Michaels got completely screwed in his match with the viscious, undefeated, and unbelievably talented Umaga. Check out the video (and note Jim Ross's reference to The Sopranos ) for how it went down--if you like high theater, you'll love the action, and you'll want the Heartbreak Kid to have his revenge.

Notice how, towards the end of the video, Shane McMahon exploits the Rhetorical Situation to the fullest through mimicking Michaels' big move--here "Shane O'Mac," as his father likes to call him, shows an acute sense of audience awareness, not to mention an instinct for humiliating those with whom he disagrees politically.

And as you can see here, the great Triple H was escorted by the authorities out of the New Jersey arena for possessing illegal Cuban cigars. But the cigars were planted on him by Mr. McMahon (But perhaps Triple H really is the father of Stephanie McMahon's newborn daughter, in which case The Game gets the last laugh, as it were)!

In any event Harrogate agrees with the people on this: he doesn't like dirty rhetoric, and therefore despises Mr. McMahon.

The Main Event on Monday Night presents yet another chance for Umaga to get what's coming to him, as Triple H, aka The Game, aka The King of Kings, will square off with him. Harrogate predicts that McMahon will find some sneaky way to get Michaels out of the arena so that Triple H is surrounded by numbnuts, with no allies.

Tomorrow Night Harrogate begins live update blogging of Monday Night Raw. Check it out from 8:00-10:00 p.m. central time.

Whitlock: A Figure who Inspires Harrogate's Steroids Columns

Here is a taste of Jason Whitlock's superior sportswriting. He is especially beloved by KC Chiefs fans, but has been a national fiugure for some time and writes about a gamut of salient sports issues. He's very dialed into his own Rhetorical Situation, constantly maintaining his audience awareness and remembering that writing is largely about implying a persona and then building on, branching from, that persona in ways that will impact readers.

Anyway, all these years Harrogate has writhed internally over the steroids rhetoric without knowing how to articulate how he was feeling (in itself a terrible feeling for any rhetorician, as we are sure Harrogate's fellow bloggers will readily attest). But for the last several months Harrogate has been dialed in to Whitlock and a lot has become much clearer. Especially laudatory is Whitlock's continual invocation of the Barkeley mantra, an instance of which may be found in the article entitled "Find Heroes Elsewhere." Here is an excerpt, but Harrogate strongly suggests that you read the whole article:

"Again, I’m uninterested in putting Landis or Lance Armstrong or Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire on trial. I’d just like to see all athletes taken off a pedestal. It’s unhealthy. It’s improper. It’s a position they don’t want or deserve.

They’re entertainers. They’re no different from Jim Morrison or Justin Timberlake or the movie star who goes in and out of rehab.

Athletes and the bad deeds they get involved in are not what’s wrong with our kids. We’re what’s wrong with kids, those of us who keep praying that our children grow up to be professional athletes, those of us who fail to accept the responsibility of being role models to the kids within our own families."


Now, Harrogate is a new parent. He hopes, together with Mrs. Harrogate, to teach values rather than expecting them to be gleaned by turning to great atheletes like Triple H, Lebron James, Oxymoron, and the Tour de France studs for tips on how to be a decent human being. Yes, yes, yes! Whitlock is a cultural critic who gets where Harrogate is coming from quite well.

Now, don't get Harrogate wrong. Whitlock has said many things during the steroids controversy that don't fly here, and which will come under further scrutiny in the coming installments: for example, the (in Harrogate's opinion) specious suggestion that the hunting of Barry Bonds has been primarily driven by race. As Harrogate's next post on steroids (Wednesday for all you Rhetorical Situation fans out there) will demonstrate, such hunting betrays a motive less connected to racism than to the equally human penchant for scapegoating as a way to avoid acknowledging complicity.

Geatest Book(s) You Have Never Read?

Sunday Poll: What is the greatest book you have never read?

Sunday-- Open Thread

What is on your mind Springfield?