Inappropriate language from the NFL

During the Bills & Colts game, the announcer said of Dwight Freeney: "He finally has a full sack." I think everyone is happy it finally happened, though shouldn't this have happened much earlier in his life? And why should the announcer challenge Freeney's manhood? By the way, how did the announcer know?

All credit for this one goes to P(hyphen)D.

Don't Fruit the Beer Redux

Man Law No Fruit

To Clarify Oxymoron's earth-shaking annoucement, it is no longer permissible for men to put lime or orange slices in their beers. Harrogate hopes men everywhere enjoyed their experiences with this now banned procedure.

And notice the prominence of Triple H in crafting this legislation.

Dawkins v. Haggard

Since I have been publishing on the same theme this morning, here is an interesting clip between Richard Dawkins (advocate of evolution, skeptic of religion, and arrogant scientist that cannot speak to "the people") and Ted Haggard (does this man need an introduction?).

But please, as you watch this...don't be arrogant. I mean, Pastor Ted is not arrogant throughout the interview.

There is a good debate halfway through about evidence and contradiction. Dawkins misses the opportunity to attack Haggard's position and I wonder if it is because he, Dawkins, does not know the Bible. But it does raise the question: when your audience sctrictly adheres to a cetain world view (religion) can you have a debate with them over science? These are two separate argumentation fields with separate rules for evidence. How can you bridge that divide?



Here is a little history: the evangelical movement begins with the break between the "fundamentalists" and "mainline Protestants" in the 1920s. The Fundamentalists created a revivalistic movement in response to the growing concerns over modernity,especially WWI, Darwin, industrialization, and the corruption of culture. Religiously, The Fundamentals accussed the mainliners that they focused too much on the social world and no longer followed the Bible-- the figurative interpretation strays to far from the actual text. They asked: how can you have a religion based on a sacred book if you do not follow the book? They believe in the literal interpretation of scripture and the inerrancy of scripture, though I am not sure how the role of interpretation, especially from one language to another, alters the art of interpretation and the inerancy of scripture. For example, in Greek the "virgin birth" translates to birth by a "young woman." To say the least, this is an improtant discrepancy. Also, the belief that Moses composed the pentateuch seems odd since his death occurs before the end of the the fifth book.

After the Scopes trial, the fundamentalists disappeared from the social scene only to return in the 1960s & 1970s. Schools used textbooks that contianed evolution, though the teaching of evolution was not widespead until the 1950's. After the USSR sent up Sputnik, the Federal Government and the ruling bodies of science decided if the UNited States were to take the Cold War seriously, then science in Schools needed to change for the better and the teaching of evolution was one of those improvements.

Of course, this did not sit well with the fundamentalist and they sought the the teaching of creationism and creation science to balance out evolution. A few think tanks sprouted up that focused on developing Genesis as scientific theory (and then had nasty loyalty oaths-- To study creation science at the Creation Research Center, a member must accept "that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truth." Further, if you closely read the first five books, there are multiple characterizations and personalities of G-D, which some scholars suggest that there are multiple authors of the pentateuch (the authors are known as J, E, D, & P.) These examples are important since they alter the debate in the literal or figurative interpretation of the Bible.

This debate rages today, usually in the form of Evolution versus Intelligent Design. Many commentators state that this dspute is between science and religion or science versus Christianity; however, it is only certain sects that possess the literal view of the Bible that interferes with the teaching of evolution.

Easy prey to Moonies

My best advice: Choose your parents wisely.

Science, Religion, and Home-Schools

Here is an article that discusses religion and science in home-schooling, especially as it applies to Evolution and Creationism.

What is interesting about this article, the push for Creationism, and the push for Intelligent Design is that the advocates for these positions do not engage the scientists through argumentation but try to advance a "scientific" line of thought (without or with very little evidence). The main foci is to say (1) look there are two world views; if I disprove one then a prove the other; (2) and to engage in straw arguments ("evolution is a theory, not fact," which neglects the specific scientific connotations of the word theory and "I or my grand-daddy did not come from a monkey," which does not even make sense (or in Mr. Garrison's case-- "I am not a monkey, I'm a woman;" an argument by authority- evolution is not true because it conflicts with the Bible.

Usually these anti-evolution advocates do present enough evidence to discredit evolution and, by refusing to teach Evolution, they do not provide students with a means to critically examine evolution.

Unfortunately, scientists seem to lack the ability to speak to the public and address meaning in our lives.

If you are depressed by the article, then watch this clip. Even in its absurdity, it will brighten your mood. Except maybe at the end.

A new ruling from the Men of the Square Table:

Don't fruit the beer!!!

Cartoons VS Elections and Veterans' Day

Family Guy Democracy in Iraq

The same night that the Simpson's latest "Tree House of Horror" aired, Family Guy also aired an episode with a satirical portrayal of Iraq. This scene makes some rather strong arguments about the "enforcement" of democracy and occurs after Stewie and Brian are relieved to learn they won't have to fight in the war. In the preceding scenes, they try to get discharged from the Army by acting gay and shooting each other in the foot. The army in all the scenes is portrayed as incompetent and fighting for one's country as something to avoid.

I might argue that the timing of both series is also important as they aired the week of Veterans' Day. Furthermore, from a political standpoint the airing of each only 2 days before elections brings current issues into the spotlight (Iraq in general, the incompetency of government, the implications of spreading democracy, etc.). Does this timing add an additional narrative and/or argument to each episode?

Solon raised some excellent questions in an earlier post, and I'll respond to them soon.

Bill Maher New Rules Neocon are always wrong

Harrogate loves Bill Maher. This clip from _Real Time_ is one of his favorites.

Simpsons' War of the Worlds

Some comments that respond to p-duck's comments on the other Simpsons post.

This clip may not be as funny if we were still at war (depending when the clips runs) because people may not notice the reference. I don't think I can address the other questions, but I do think that the Mr. P-Duck's reaction goes deeper than just being over there.

Anywho. This is the full clip for the last Treehouse of Horror VII. There are two narratives incorporated into the larger narrative. The first is the parody of War of the Worlds focuses on the gulibility of the people; the second refers to the arrogance of occupation, which still makes sense but only in terms of the gulibility of the people. (In a way, one underlying claim is that in a democracy, you get the leaders you deserve.)

Below is the full clip from Treehouse of Horror XVII, "The Day the Earth Looked Stupid."

First, does the first narrative soften the second narrative or does it make it worse?

Second, is this an appropriate form of an argument since there may be no chance to refute the show (though you could engage in debate with others that watch it)?

Third, what ethics should the writers of the Simpsons follow?

Fourth, what other themes are in this: the "masses" are stupid; the masses are anti-intellectual and easily duped by the media; government officials are incompetent; the intellectuals know the "truth" (Lisa) but are unable to persuade the masses; and, finally, then there is the invasion/ occupation.



On a side note: I use the episode "Lisa the Iconoclast" to teach Plato's allegory of the cave. Some Plato scholars suggest that Plato's three parts of the soul correlates to three different classes of individuals in society. There is the warrior class, which is based on courage; there are the masses, which are ruled by passions; and there are the rulers (the wise Platonic Guardians), which rule by reason.

In both "Lisa the Iconoclast" and "Treehouse of Horrors XVII," Lisa represents the Platonic Guardian-- she knows the truth but either lies to the masses (noble lie) because the truth would hurt the masses or she cannot persuade the masses because the masses are too stupid to understand.

What are writers of the Simpsons suggesting to their audience: Are they saying that Plato is correct, the masses are too stupid, and this episode not only attacks those that planned the war but also most of the audience? Is there a further joke on the audience that mocks the audience because the audience members don't really even know why this is funny? (If funny is the correct word.)

Finally, there is a relationship between this administration and this interpretation of Plato. Usually, this view of Plato develops from the Straussians, a few of whom were the architects of the current war (Perle, Wolfowitz). How does this alter our understanding of what the writers of the Simpsons suggest?

Women as "Cleaners"

Harrogate posted this cartoon earlier. I think that it should be reexamined.

Historically, this is a comon topos. It dates back to the suffrage movement. The original argument made sense in terms of cultural expectations and speaking the language of the audience: women "belonged" in a certain role and "fulfilled" those expectations that men wanted. When they argued for the right to vote, they adopted the language of those expectations: if you expect us to clean up after you in private, then we should clean up after you in public.

Historically, this argument is not as sexist as typically suggested. By using this argument and by focusing on the "traditional" gender roles, women could gain access to the public sphere. It is a great "rhetorical turn" for gender roles.

One interesting aspect to this would be how this argument worked in terms of class. If women were rich and possessed servants, this option may not be available to them (they did not clean up after their husbands or their family). Rich women faced more restrictions and possessed less access to the public sphere. While they could finance the movement, they had no voice and no possible "duties" to enter public debate.

For a really good example, read Anna Howard Shaw's "The Fundamental Principles of a Republic.".

The question remains: what would be the correct metaphor for women in politics? Women as cleaners still makes sense because of the larger cultural beliefs (men are messy, less responsible), but it does lose some of its power. Any suggestions for the correct metaphor?

The peoples' hearts and minds

If the Simpsons have told us anything, it is that the world is a funny place. In a not so funny way. Well, maybe The Simpsons tell us that the world is not a funny place through funny means. Maybe, that the world is not a funny place and this clip is not even funny. Maybe, just maybe, you should watch the clip.

Jon Stewart: Kingmaker 2006?

Harrogate has enjoyed cruising the Right Blogosphere this week, witnessing the spectacle of sought explanation as they ponder "what happened." We who believe in liberal causes can certainly relate, as before Tuesday we'd been getting skunked for six years running, and for 12 if you count Congress only.

Maybe the most interesting explanation Harrogate has encountered appears in this article, by pundit Rusty Shackleford, whose thesis is that:

one phenomenon has been overlooked. One which I believe was a key if not the key to a Democratic victory. That is the phenomenon of faux news. And Jon Stewart is its banner bearer.
Jon Stewart is an unlikely player in national politics. He's not a pundit, he's a comedian. As unlikely a candidate for Democratic kingmaker as he may be, he's a force to be reckoned with.

Harrogate wonders what others think of this article, which makes a well-written and compelling case for Stewart's significance. The proposed analogue to Rush Limbaugh is particularly fascinating, if a bit hyperbolic.

Speaking of Rush, Harrogate thought this little Shackleford tidbit was just priceless in terms of probing the Rethuglican mind, so magnificently does it ooze the hollow populism that Solon so rightly abhors:

Remember the "Rush room"? In the back of restaurants we gathered to
listen to talk radio in a safe atmosphere away from the politically correct ears
of our social betters. Rush emboldened us. He made us feel like we
weren't alone.

Rubber ducky you're the one...

In honor of today's USMC birthday and Veteran's Day tomorrow, I include these adorable military rubber duckies in my post.

I promise future posts will not revolve around rubber duckies and will contribute to the overall spirit of the Rhetorical Situation.

Two Great Cartoons Post Nov 7th

The first cartoon is by RJ Matson, a St. Louis-based cartoonist.

Thoughts?

Thank you!

Many thanks for the warm welcome!

Further Pomp and Circumstance for P-Duck

Ladies and Gentlemen...

Please put your hands together and give a warm welcome to the newest contributing member of The Rhetorical Situation:
The one, the only

P-Duck

For those interested in teacherly issues...

Sarah at Mommy, Ph.D. poses some interesting questions about the ethics of blogging about students. Check them out. Post #1 Post #2

Olberman At His Best--Bye Bye "K-Fed," Britney Wins in Landslide

In this clip, readers, you'll definitely see Keith Olberman putting
the biscuit in the basket as he wittily covers Britney's escape from "K-Fed," which was definitely a move resoundingly approved by voters on both sides of the political aisle. None of us were ever happy that "K-Fed" wriggled his way into Britney's world: we were more than happy to make sure that she never had to work a day in her life because, in a way, we created her, made her what she is (and plus we all secretly like her anyway). But "K-Fed"? Come on, now. Even the biggest bleeding-heart liberal is going to balk at supporting such a leech as this.

"K-Fed" has been great for Raw precisely because he is just so damned boo-able, and Harrogate will concede that the dude is doing a great job maximizing that effect. It will be interesting now to see if they make fun of him for losing Britney on that program...

Speaking of Raw. Harrogate was wrong, then, in his suspicions that Raw was setting up an appearance by Britney Spears, but he at least has the satisfaction of knowing that he was among the very first to call the split-up, on election night Tuesday November 7th. Tether that together with Oxymoron's stunning inside scoop on the Claire McCaskill victory in Missouri, hours ahead of the nearest media outlet, and you will see why everyone's talking about The Rhetorical Situation as only second to Pete's Couch in terms of places to be.

Now That He Is Out of Our Lives

Harrogate would like to honor the codger by recommending the above depicted literary bulwark, by far Rummy's greatest contribution to society: Pieces of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald H. Rumsfeld, an awe-inspiring piece of literature compiled and edited by Hart Seely.

Here are a few samples of the bard Rummy, including citations for original utterance
and the page number. MLA style, kinda:


Needless to Say
Needless to say,
The President is correct.
Whatever it was he said.
Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense Briefing (page 3)

Polls
Opinion polls go up and down,
They spin like weather vanes.
They're interesting, I suppose.
I don't happen to look.
Sept 8, 2002, media stakeout following CBS's Face the Nation (page 5)


Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.
Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing, (page 42)


Bye, Don. Don't let the door hit you on the ass, as they say. Harrogate would offer you good luck sleeping at night for the rest of your life having centrally participated in bringing about tens of thousands of needless deaths for no discernible purpose whatever and to the detriment of the safety stability prosperity and general integrity of not only this country but countries around the world but then you'd need a shred of decency to be able to feel it in the first place wouldn't you?

McCaskill Defeats Talent

7:00 P.M. CST - The Rhetorical Situation is the first to officially report that Claire McCaskill has defeated incumbent Jim Talent in the closely-contested Missouri senate race. This news comes just seconds after the polls have closed.

(And if we at the Situation have reported these results inaccurately, then this post will make a great photo opportunity for Talent. Just as Missouri president Harry Truman posed with the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline, Talent can pose with this post.)

(Even If You Don't Care About Wrestling, Please Watch This Clip): The Savage, The White Woman, and The Marine

Clip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Harrogate's head almost exploded last night, Readers. Not only did internet-wide predictions about a Cena/Umaga feud come true a mere three hours after Harrogate mentioned it on this very blog, but that feud began in a way that should concern, and excite, every single teacher and scholar remotely interested in American Studies. Whether your area involves postcolonialism, masculinity studies, feminist studies, American literature, literacy theory, fairy tales, westerns, political rhetoric, or just about anything else under the sun, the linked clip has something that will threaten your head with explosure, too.

Several months ago Harrogate expressed concern that Vince was getting a little too cavalier with the whole violence against women thing. Now the scales have fallen from Harrogate's eyes. The age old fear of a savage getting ahold of one of our white women, if not for the protection of a hyper masculinized military, is right here in living color for all to look at. Listen to Jim Ross cry out that this isn't your ordinary Beauty and the Beast story, that any way you look at it, this isn't right. Listen to the crowd go bananas with boos and watch the actor doing Umaga eat it up like parfait(Harrogate always wanted to use that word). Then the best actor on the show this side of Triple H, John Cena comes out and does Richard Slotkin proud, gives us all our Regeneration Through Violence.

Also in the clip you'll see that "K-Fed" and Cena will be going at it on New Year's Day. Gossip around the internet right now has it that Britney Spears and "K-Fed" had a huge falling out last night, that she stayed at Four Seasons Hotel after he punched a hole in the wall and threw a lot of stuff and basically lost his proverbial shit. What caused it all? Why, not only is "K-Fed's" artistic genius going unrecognized as tour date after tour date goes staggeringly unattended and in some cases cancelled, but to top it off Britney made a crack about "K-Fed's" performance on Raw. Wives. Don't worry "K-Fed," John Milton too had problems getting the 100% worship he expected from his wife. What's a poet got to do to get appreciated?

Finally, notice that the commerical preceding this pedagogical goldmine of a clip is another anti-marijuana commercial, brought to you by the same people who brought us Pete's Couch.

Cyber Sunday Results, Raw Preview 11/6

Harrogate has made it clear in recent months that he will no longer be spending money on WWE Pay-Per-Views until that program takes its intensity up a whole series of notches. That being said, Harrogate has also given very recent Raw programming its due as a marked improvement. So he was curious about last night's Cyber Sunday, and admits that he checked the internet throughout the night for results. As yo can see in the above picture (a great picture by the way, bespeaking exceptionalist joy at its most fundamental level), Ric Flair and Roddy "I'm all out of bubble gum" Piper defeated the Spirit Squad and became the new WWE World Tag Team Champions. As usual, Lets Wrestle wrote succinctly about the event overall, but Harrogate must give them a Colbertian "Wag of the Finger" for their extremely silly response to this particular match, complaining that

the legend team of Flair and Piper (PLEASE put a shirt on Roddy) beat the Spirit Squad. I mean, how long can they keep the belts on Flair and Piper before the straps become total jokes?

Okay, first of all, like the Tag Team Championship hasn't been a complete and utter joke for months? Like anyone took the Spirit Squad seriously? Five male cheerleaders (nuff said) splitting the belts between them even though the routinely get their "little green asses kicked," as Flair observed, on a monotonous basis? Now, Lets Wrestle is probably right that the legendary duo of Flair and Piper won't hold the titles that long, but the sheer history of the thing is enough to elicit a salute from Harrogate. And Harrogate sees this title run, however sort-lived it may prove to be, as a great way to reignite fans' interest in the narrative of tag team wrestling. Remember, fans, when tag team wrestling meant something? Harrogate does. Ah, he remembers it well, and hopes for the day to return.

In other news, King Booker won the Champion of Champions throwdown, but only with a little help from--that's right, "K-Fed"! "K-Fed" not only got his sweet underhanded revenge against the heroic John Cena, but he vowed to return to tonight's Raw, something sure to boost paparazzi ratings across the blogosphere. Harrogate is telling you people, it won't be long before the Queen of Etiquette Herself, Britney Spears, involves herself in this narrative. Should be good stuff, if handled right. As for Cena, word around the blogosphere is that the Ongian icon, Umaga, will soon challenge Cena for the Gold, which would indeed make Harrogate's day. Now that's a rivalry to sink teeth into.

One note of analysis: Vince still has a long way to go in rescuing this program. Setting up an Umaga/Cena feud would be great, but he must draw it out over a period of time and let the hatred organically develop. That's how great stories are made. Witness the ersatz DX feud with Orton and Edge--all of the four but Orton are outstanding performers that know how to motivate crowds, and they're all wonderful wrestlers. But the rivalry was, in a word, microwaved just to get them into last night's Pay-Per-View. There was nothing visceral about it because Vince hadn;t given it time. On the other hand Eric Bischoff, who helped Edge and Orton screw DX last night, has been a welcome addition to the story, and he may well represent the key towards making DX a centerpiece worth caring about again, with or without Edge/Orton.

Enjoy tonight's Raw, Oh Readers of The Rhetorical Situation! Harrogate will be right here later in the week with all the most penetrating analysis.

Letters addressing the Haggard controversy

The first is from Ted himself to his New Life Church congregation.

The second is from Betty Bowers, America's self-proclaimed "best Christian." It's much more entertaining than Ted's letter and reminds everyone that he is a bad guy.

Lance Armstrong Surprises All

As you may or may not know, Mr. Seven-time-Tour-de-France-Winner Lance Armstrong ran the ING New York City Marathon today. Many predicted that he would easily break 2 hours and 30 minutes in the 26.2 mile race. These expectations are based on a few factors: he is a tremendous athlete in general; he is a former cross country runner and triathlete (read: he can run, not just bike); and he has a VO2 max that is nearly off the charts. Many sports doctors think the latter is the most important factor in the success of endurance athletes.

Despite the hype, Lance placed 869th in today's race. He completed the marathon in just under 3 hours (2:59:36 was his offical time). What a surprise! Although three hours is an impressive time for most people, it seems considerably slow for an athlete of Armstrong's caliber. I'm sorry to say it.

But you're still an inspiration, Lance. Keep livin' strong.

Signs 2: Not All Colorodans are Blind With Homophobia

ProgressNow has an entertaining blurb from Bush's recent appearance in Colorado. This is something Harrogate has been waiting to see represented for some time now, it's a base strategy for signification from which a whole lot of messages ought to be emanating.
Harrogate remains more convinced than ever that hatred of gays is right there with the abortion slugfest at the controlling underbelly of this country's political consciousness:
Soldiers and foreign brown people and sick and dying poor people by comparison seem more like Doritos: "crunch all you want we'll make more." But don't dare let boys kiss whilst we walk the Earth.
It's time this inane underbelly got turned upside down and exposed, and debated for real. Oh for the day.

Rhetoric Of Signs and a Gender Phenom

Well, it's clearly not just Pro Wrestling Events that witness masterful signholding. The little girl in this photo has made her way lightning-like across the blososphere in a very short period of time. Tester, of course, is attempting what many though impossible two years ago: to unseat Conrad Burns for Senate in, of all places, Red Montana. What would Saussure have thought of these signs--both the one the girl is holding, and of course the photograph itself?

Speaking of Montana, Harrogate saw something last night, can't remember where but when he finds it he'll insert the link, indicating that this state is home to the biggest gender gap of the midterms, with Burns polling among men at something like 85%, and Tester getting the same from women. Fascinating. All Harrogate can say to this is "go ladies go!"

If only because today is Sunday...

Bush here pays tribute to another man who has helped spread peace and love throughout the world.

Show-Me State Bloodbath

Stem cell research ad-Jim Talent

The gloves are off in Missouri. Has any race gotten more attention this season than the one between Rethug Incumbent Jim Talent and Demo challenger Claire McCaskill?

This ad sure doesn't pull any punches.

Opinions?

The Counter November Surprise

An editorial in for independent, military publications, which hit the newstands on Monday, calls for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Decretary of Defense. The publications-- Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and the Marine Corps Times-- argue that since Rumsfeld lost the support of military leadership, he should resign. President Bush, of course, believes Rumsfeld has done a great job and will not allow him to resign.

You can read the editorial at Army Times.

An excerpt:

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

Unsubstantiated accusations?

Our moral beacon, Ted Haggard here admits that he did purchase some meth from Jones. Although he claims that he did not "sit on Pete's couch," but threw out the drugs. When asked about how he knew that Jones had meth for sale, Haggard becomes very uncomfortable and attempts to end the interview, as he realizes that he's working himself into a corner. It doesn't seem likely that his relationship with Jones was one of casual aquaitance. What are the chances that a masseur would randomly announce to a client that he had some meth for sale, without first enquiring into his occupation? I mean, wouldn't he want to ensure that he wasn't soliciting drugs to a policeman. And after learning that Haggard was not a cop but a minister, why would he offer him drugs? There are too many holes in Haggard's stories.

November Surprise?

Why will this decision be handed down by an Iraqi Court two days before the midterm elections? (The passive voice in this sentence seems to be the essential component of the sentence.) Is there a connection between public declaration of guilt or innocence of Saddam and the mis-term elections or is this post just a conspiracy?

By announcing Saddam's sentence two days before the midterm elections, the Bush administration can claim victory in the War on Iraq because they will have brought Saddam to justice. The decision will not be hard to determine-- "Tis a Fair Court" after all.

But the move to announce the decision and close the city of Baghdad is curious in its connection to the United States'
political calendar. In 2004, Osama delivered a message four days before the elections. That was enough to sway the elections by reminding people of the great evil in the world.

Will the Saddam verdict provide enough evidence to show the administration's credibility in the War on Terror? Will closing Baghdad for the immediate future reduce the chance of violence, which would reduce the visibility of Iraq to the American public before they (don't) vote?

A defense of Haggard? Only if you reject principles

From Andrew Sullivan: David Frum defends Haggard here. And what an intellectual activity it is. Here are a few quotes from Frum's article and some refutations to his arguments:

Passage One:

A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!

In this first paragraph, Frump, I mean Frum, I hate it when I make that mistake, reminds his listeners that the evidence needs to be tested and offers an ad hominem attack against the left. It seems that if you are on the left you cannot discuss this without being "gleeful" (no hasty generalization here; nothing to see here, look away). Frum's position is that we need to be reasonable but that does not mean he has to be reasonable (only you need to live by the law and be fair to others; he does not have to). Liberals are wrong for attacking Haggard; but since Frum is not a liberal, he can defend Haggard and attack liberals. This opening seems to reflect the intellectual honesty of the entire article.

Passage Two:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

There are a three ideas that need to be discussed in this point. First, it is okay to hire male prostitutes if you are married. It seems you can live a life of indiscretions as long as you present a correct public face. Is that not true Young Goodman Brown? Again, these moral principles only apply to you and not to your leaders. It is very hard to be a leader. It is "Hard Work!"

Second, is this not relativism? Frum's criteria is "more moral." In this hypothetical, if individuals were to adhere to "traditional moral principles" then both men needed to be condemned because neither one leads the moral life. Our "traditional moral principles" would frown upon both individuals. The conclusion to reach is that these traditional moral principles are not principles, just a means to an end, convenient only when useful.

Third, an important phrase appears in Frum's text: "Inclined toward homosexuality." Does this mean it is an orientation? The connotation is not clear, but it is incredibly important. Think of of this: If humans are inclined toward homosexuality then God created this inclination, (wouldn't that be the necessary connection between designer and designed?) If there is a designer, then biblical interpretation against homosexuality is blasphemy-- as humans, how could we condemn something God made? Furthermore, to not adhere to the "inclination toward homosexuality" would be to reject the talents given by a designer. Which human is to say that it is not a homosexual's purpose to develop a loving, stable relationship even if it violates "traditional moral principles." In 1 Samuel 18 - 20, David and Jonathan have a deep spiritual relationship that could serve as a foundation for a "traditional moral principle" about the way in which a relationship should develop. In our world today, we may eve consider that relationship to be homosexual.

Passage Three:

Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

This is a good redefinition of the situation- "turn the tables" in refutation. Yet, though Haggard is living a virtuous life by turning away from a moral evil (that may not necessarily be an evil), he also engages in an affair and purchases Meth. You cannot remove these from the equation. There is a reason people turn to drugs and, in this case, his "living in a closet" while bashing his desires or "inclinations" in public leads to worse vices. And besides, isn't Meth illegal? Where is the virtue in this? And speaking of Hawthorne, maybe Haggard and Frum should read The Scarlet Letter. Maybe an education in the classics would not be a bad thing.

Passage Four:

In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.

What is the "public good" here? Speaking out for the protection of marriage would be a public good only if the speaker's actions followed his words. If not, then he violates his own ethos of a speaker and the ethos of his community. Is the public good to rise above personal desires for the interests of the community? Haggard does not do that. Is it a public good to forget about party politics and support "national interests," and in the process allow for torture, which detracts from the "national ethos?"

Even worse, the text suggests that speaking out against homosexuality, I mean defending traditional marriage, is exactly like speaking out against segregation. This is a valid analogy? If homosexuality is designed, then the opposite would be true. Those who speak out against it act in a manner that reflects segregationists- they deny the humanity of others.

Passage Five

If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality - and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children - why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?

His moral firmness depends on his interpretation of the Bible. First, I am all for defending the institution of marriage by engaging in affairs. Maybe affairs do save marriage. Sure there is a Commandment that addresses that, but it is not as if Evangelicals think they are "Commandments." They are just suggestions, right?. It is not as if they interpret the Bible literally.

Second, the concept of homosexuality did not exist until the 19th century-- to apply a concept from modern times to the bible is problematic. To apply a text that one or multiple authors prepared for a specific audience that existed hundreds of years ago seems equally as troubling. There is a reason that Jews were commanded to not eat shellfish-- the lack of knowledge on food preparation a few thousand years ago made many people sick. Today, we do not follow those prescriptions since we know how to prepare food.

Third, there are multiple ways to interpret the bible and the passages that concern "homosexuality." Since there are a lot of issues with his interpretation of the Bible, why should we praise his "intellectual firmness?" Is it good to praise a person for their intellectual habits when they reduce complex issues through simple, dogmatic interpretations that deprive others of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Is it "intellectual firmness" to speak out against who you are? Is it "intellectual firmness" to defend Haggard's actions when his actions clearly violate the ethos of his community? Further, is it "intellectual fairness" to live according to a few of the 600 hundred rules discussed in the Old Testament?

Passage Six:

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self."

The hardest victory is over the self- to make sure the self preserves in the face of great social conformity and against the desire for power. Haggard denied his self to ensure his own rise to power. The desires he needed to overcome is the desire for power and his desire to bash others like himself to achieve this power.

Kicking off The Christmas Season: Stiller in Die Hard 12?

Harrogate and Oxymoron have stuggled throughout 2006 to define the nature of Stiller's revolutionary comedy. Mayhap this tear-jerkingly funny clip can help us get there....

In honor of Haggard's resignation

This Man is Not a Decent Human Being: Perfect Judge Material In Dallas

The "liberal" Dallas Morning News
endorses Judge Keith Dean for re-election Tuesday despite . . . well, just check this up-Dean's-ass excerpt out:

Judge Keith Dean quietly dispensed thousands of sentences, yet he hit Page One this year because of the shocking disparity in two handed down several years apart. A white, politically connected killer received unsupervised probation; a poor, black robber of $2, sent to prison for life after violating probation.
Democrat Mark Stoltz, 55, of Dallas says that should be enough for him to unseat Judge Dean, 50, a Dallas Republican. While the story left Judge Dean vulnerable after nearly two decades on this felony bench – and we expect him to redouble efforts to be fair on each and every case – Mr. Stoltz did not make a case that he's the man to replace him.
Judge Dean continues to rank near the top in the Dallas Bar's judicial evaluation poll, including an 88 percent overall approval rating. In fiscal 2005, his court was the most efficient in total costs, jail costs and cost per disposition among Dallas County felony judges. He is the superior candidate.

Harrogate just doesn't understand. Here's this judge going to events, posing for photo-ops, living well, shaking hands, smiling, playing with grandchildren, being respected as a decent human being even though the smug bastard has consigned someone to life for violating probation after stealing two dollars (BTW, the young black man's crime? He smoked a joint--visited Pete's couch--while on probation).

Those who reserve some pride in this country's institutions, Harrogate envies you but still thinks you've spent a little too much time on Pete's couch yourself. He just thinks that in general, any decent human being you find in the halls of power in Uhmerrikah, why that person would be like a dewdrop in a cesspool.

And that's the Memo. Now to Harrogate's top story....

Bush, Rumsfeld on Flipping Birds

Good stuff, this.

Van Halen news

It was announced today, and confirmed by TMZ, that Van Halen have named Eddie's fifteen-year-old son Wolfgang the new bassist for the band. "Wolfie" replaces founding member Michael Anthony, who left the band ealier this year to tour with former Van Halen frontman Sammy Hagar.

My favorite Austin radio station reports that "Wolfie" is rehearsing with the group in preparation for a 2007 tour. While no lead singer has been named, Eddie and the group's original frontman, Diamond David Lee Roth, have both expressed a willingness to put their differences aside and work together again.

Keep your fingers crossed and start saving your money. If this thing works out, tickets won't be cheap. But I'm willing to take out a second mortgage if necessary. Whatever it takes to see Eddie, Alex, and Dave together again. Of course, this will likely prompt Mrs. Oxymoron to take a new lover. I will miss her.

Still on Pete's Couch

A tightly written and exuberant analysis of the Rhetorically Unstable Pete's Couch commercial can be found here. Note Harrogate's concurring comment to what Baseball and Brioche sets forth: The point being that, however unintentionally, there is a solid reading of this commercial whereby Pete (and not the preppy narrator who, by the way, has enjoyed the fruits of Pete's Logos only to sell him out in support of the Federal Government's Mythos) emerges as the true hero of the piece.

Harrogate invites--no, implores--readers to follow his link for some context on this culturally crucial topic.

More Double Entendres (Contributions Welcome)

From the world of Journalism:

1)This just in
2)Behind-the-scenes look
3)Coming to you live....
4)Wall to wall coverage (okay, you have to use your imagination a little for that one)

From the restaurant business:

1)Behind you
2)Backup meat sauce
3)My name is ______ and I'll be your server this evening
4)Can I get that on the fly?
5)Waiter, there's a hair on my sausage!

Baby, you're driving me wild.

Take note of these lines, as Harrogate may try to use one or several of them during his advertised sponge baths.

What Harrogate isn't telling us....

Pete's Couch

Since it's been a YouTube kinda day, Harrogate sends this last clip out in honor of Mr. and Mrs. Solon. They know why. That's all that matters.

The Scarlet H

First, I hope his family is well. There is tragedy in this story. A lot of it.

Second, via Andrew Sullivan, Do you know what "H" stands for? Want to guess?

There are multiple words begining with H that apply. We could play madlibs with this story.

In a comment about the times in which we live, the story is already on Wikipedia.

What wikiality? Wikiality, What?

Third, who possesses the burden of proof and burden of rejoinder in this debate? Right now, there is very little evidence to suggest that this is true. Further, the evidence is from a close source to the cituation though it may be "tainted" [pun, pun, pun] Does the accuser possess the burden of proof or Pastor Ted?

Fourth, this is a story about ethos, especially good moral character and the presentation of that character. By posting on this topic, do I lower our ethos since I am focusing on the troubles of others?

Harrogate Implores Readers to "Feel the Love" in Mandarin-Chinese

An Argument Against Uniliateralism

Harrogate couldn't resist. In ways, this video, too, is dedicated to Oxymoron, whose musical taste--unlike Clinton's taste in women--remains unimpeachable.

The Politicos

Badda Bing!!!



What will anyone post about after Tuesday?

Zone, the Twilight....

I saw this ad some time ago. I still am perplexed by it.

Republicans possess the executive, legislative, and judiciary. Yet, liberals create all of the problems in the United States.



I don't know who republicans can be the majority but have no power; hold the offices but get nothing accomplished. Why don't the republican constituencies hold their representatives accountable to issues like same-sex marriage in flag burning in odd years? Why is it only in even years republicans push for these initiatives?

I wish I could figure out the answers to those questions.

Refutation

I was trying to find a video clip that explains refutation for one of my mass lecture classes. My office mate suggested a clip from West Wing. We found this online, but I did not show it. This is an excellent clip but it would not work for a mass lecture class. It would only work for a small class in which you could discuss all of the implications. If you didn't, a charge of "indoctrination" would soon follow.

The Kerry Incident and Intellectual Honesty- from a Conservative

Over at The Corner at NRO:

Yes, But [John Derbyshire]

John Kerry is awful, and anything we can do further to degrade his political prospects is worth doing. But really, I saw a clip of him making the much-deplored remark, and it was obvious that the dimwit in Iraq that he referred to was George W. Bush, not the American soldier. It was a dumb joke badly delivered, but his meaning was plain. My pleasure in watching JK squirm is just as great as any other conservative's, but something is owed to honesty. There's a lot of fake outrage going round here.
Posted at 9:46 AM

And...

Outrage [John Derbyshire]

...from several readers — and, obviously some of my Corner colleagues — that I would dare to suggest that John Kerry was not slandering our troops.
But he wasn't. He may regard them with contempt (my personal impression is that JK regards most of the human race with contempt); he may despise them; he may think they're dumb crackers; but T-H-A-T-'-S N-O-T W-H-A-T H-E S-A-I-D.

What he said was: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Who is stuck in Iraq? Not the common soldier, who just does a tour of duty, as Kerry himself knows from (sorry to bring it up) experience. Who's stuck in Iraq? George W. Bush is stuck in Iraq. That was the point of Kerry's joke. Which he botched. No fair-minded person, watching Kerry deliver those lines, could think otherwise.

I'm not carrying any water for John Kerry. I wrote this about John Kerry, and a good deal more uncomplimentary stuff besides. I don't like John Kerry. I didn't vote for John Kerry. Truth is truth, though, even when applied to John Kerry. If you can't handle the truth, that's your problem.

Posted at 10:21 AM

Good Night and Good Luck

This is from Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Follow the link; this is a must read.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/01/olbermanns-special-comment-there-is-no-line-this-president-has-not-crossed-nor-will-not-cross-to-keep-one-political-party-in-power/

or here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/

Here is the video, in two parts:

Part I:



Part II:

Less is More. So They Say.

Wired magazine recently asked sci-fi, fantasy, and horror writers to compose a short story (or many in the case of some authors) in just six words -- an explicit homage to Ernest Hemingway's story: "For Sale: Baby Shoes, never worn." A truly impressive list of authors answered the call with varying results. They also asked graphics designers to take them to the drawing board (one example seen here).

Some of my personal favorites:

Gown removed carelessly. Head, less so. - Joss Whedon

Longed for him. Got him. Shit. - Margaret Atwood

Democracy postponed. Whence franchise? Ask Diebold... - David Brin

Osama’s time machine: President Gore concerned. - Charles Stross

You should definitely check out the full list here.

I tried all afternoon to come up with my own and did not come up with anything inspiring. My best effort so far: "Quals. Prelims. Defense. Still no job?" Given my paltry efforts, I encourage you to post your own or your favorites.

Ok, so apparently, the image does not want to load, so you can check out the designs over at Wired.

For Oxymoron (Still Can't Find the Rhetorically Revolutionary St. Louis Scene!)

National Lampoons Vacation I: For Oxymoron

Thoughts?


National Lampoons Vacation II: For Oxymoron Again


Thoughts?

Bob Barker's Retirement

One of Harrogate's absolute favorite sites for getting the latest on vital information in the world of popular culture is indeed The Slug. You can always count on Derrik J. Lang to provide the scoop, and he has been among the first blogs to jump on Bob Barker's retirement from The Price is Right, the show Harrogate watched religiously whilst a small boy staying with babysitters in the summertime. Since The Slug provides such a great AP picture of Barker at his virtuosic best (Come on Down!), Harrogate (left) depicts Barker contributing to one of the great achievments of modern cinema, Happy Gilmore (send the ball home).

Go to The Slug, readers, for all the relevant links and information regarding Barker's retirement, and indeed for many of your pop culture needs that we just can't get to here on The Rhetorical Situation.

A question for our readers does emerge from all this: wonderously, amazingly, almost orgasmically (hat tip Andre Lepecki)! What precisely are the parameters, what is The Rhetorical Situation of the Game Show, as a genre? How do we intellectuals tackle Game Show culture, which has been such an integral part of America (Harrogate in his infinite wisdom of course realizes that other nations have a history with game shows but then, now that Bush has shown us the glories of unilaterality, Harrogate can simply reply: Who Cares about Old Europe?)? Does the genre represent, exploitatively tap into nascent national desires to score the quick buck? Is it simply the voyeurism of the scantily-clad women and the brand new STUFF (can't you just hear Barker, readers, intoning "A NEW CAR!"?) parading in front of the daytime television day after day after day, doing the bidding of one highly charismatic white guy named, simply, Bob?

Review of Raw 10/30

Last night's edition of Raw totally vindicated Harrogate's high hopes for the program. Week by week, new life bubbles beneath the surface of what was only a month ago bad programming. Reasons? Among the many: The "K-Fed" stuff has played a big role, and Bischoff's entry into the fray has played an even bigger role in its own way. Bischoff has done a wonderful job cashing in on our memories of the WCW excitement he created in the late 90s, giving us the NWO--probably the most effective heels of all time.

But really, John Cena has to get the most credit for the current upsurge. It's getting to the point that his entrance is the most scintillating moment on television, even better than Brit Hume's "Grapevine"--Indeed, Harrogate is deeply impressed with Cena's ethos-crafting ingenuity. It's impossible for those who don't watch the program to understand what Harrogate's talking about here--but YOU, the legions of readers who tune in to Harrogate's piercing analyses week in and week out--you know exactly what he's talking about, don't you? Last night Cena delivered once again, exploiting the Coachman joke to the fullest (and in Harrogate's view, setting up Coachman's eventual conversion to good guy--vote Coachman for Cyber Sunday!), and then intimidating Booker and Big Show to such lengths that Harrogate half expected them to both bow out of the pay-per-view altogether. While it could be anybody's game at Cyber Sunday, Cena is going to be the top draw of this program for months to come, belt or no belt. But Harrogate implores Vince--leave the belt on Cena for a while, let him ascend to the epic proportions to which is is capable of going. Let this title run mean something!

Tears welled up in Harrogate's eyes when Dusty Rhodes took the microphone last night. Not only did hearing The American Dream talk trigger legions of childhood memories, but Rhodes was absolutely right when he said that this is our historic chance to see him and Ric Flair team up for the first time in their epic careers. Harrogate would love to see these two take the World Tag Team Championships from the anemic Spirit Squad. Really, Vince, it's time you let the Tag Titles Mean something again. For God's sake, man, what with the problems in Iraq and with North Korea and the broken health care system and the impending theocratic revolution in this country, the least you could do is give us a Tag Team Champion that we can be proud of. :-)

Finally, Triple H's Pedigree is by far the smoothest and most violent finishing move on record in WWE at the moment. Only Diamond Dallas Page's Diamond Cutter rivalled this move in terms of Harrogate ancitipating is arrival on the scene. Depicted above, Hunter Hearst Helmsley delivers the crushing Pedigree onto a hapless Edge, who would return later only to be beaten up again. The show appropriately belonged to DX, even though Michaels was nowhere to be found. Harrogate believes DX will continue to doiminate until the vaunted return of Hall and Nash (NWO), and with them the conversion, yet again, of Hulk Hogan to bad guy. NWO Renaissance is coming! But as one rhetorically powerful front row sign put it last night, Where Oh Where is Sting?

In the words of Ron Simmons, "Damn!"

Previewing Raw 10/30

"K-Fed" in retrospect learned a lot from his Raw experiences of the last two weeks. Check out the link. Harrogate's favorite quote:

Britney was definitely watching, my whole family was watching,” said a serious K-Fed. “She can’t have someone beating up her husband all over the place. I’ve got to stand up for my family and hold it down.

Now, don't that say it all? And some people thought this couple wasn't a real family values kind of family. Pshaw!

Harrogate isn't sure whether or not the great "K-Fed" will grace the squared circle tonight, but he feels certain that things are going to happen tonight the likes of which none of us have ever witnessed. Edge's award-winning talk show, "The Cutting Edge," will feature Bischoff, Coachman, and Mr. McMahon himself as they discuss the democratic process and their individual election hopes. Remember, vote Coachman. For now anyway. Harrogate may change his endorsement after tonight's events.

Stay tuned for in-depth analysis on Friday at the latest.

Rethugs and Art

Webb, as many of you know, is the doomed Democratic candidate for Senate in Confederate Virginia. George Allen has a Confederate Flag in his office, has made prodigious use of the word "nigger," and recently referred to a minority staff member for Webb as "mukaka"--then too we have Allen's consistent support for the GOP misadventure in Iraq, his contempt for Uhmerrikah's pooor, his enthusiasm for torture, his virtuosic performance as a gay-basher, and his impeccable record as a Mexican-hater.

Harrogate is confident that with all these striking creds in tow, Allen will win quite handily in Virginia (it's going to be a long humiliating Tuesday for those who dared to dream, and Harrogate plans to delightfully rub it those do-gooders' faces with his post-election analysis).

Anyway, as if Allen's own ersatz ethos weren't enough to get him the win in VA, that bastion of truth and justice, The Drudge Report, helped out a little by beginning what has turned into an all-out media frenzy over Jim Webb's novels, which approach such provocative subjects as rape and incest. And as everyone knows, if you represent something in Art, then you must be literally endorsing it.

So Webb's novels will be the nail in the coffin for his chances of pulling off the upset. What price art, eh?

Go, Troglodytes, go!

George Will, the liberal?

He can no longer be a conservative, can he? He just criticized the the Administration's treatment of the war here.

A few quote:

"A surreal and ultimately disgusting facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge that fact. Iraq's civil war has been raging for more than a year; so has the Washington debate about whether it is what it is."

And the midterms will change?

Rhetoric and Music

A professor, Leon W. Couch III, examines the conncetion between rhetoric and music. It is heavy reading but the paper explores the ancient Roman style of organization in music.

File under easy listenting.

No, this has nothing to do with Sugar.

Listen for at least three minutes.

A Random Note from College Football

Beavers beat Trojans.

Think about it.

Bush likes 'The Google'

As CNN reported this morning, "Bush is a 21st-century President with a 20th-century vocabulary."

The Republican Divide over Religion

A split in the Republican party will occur over the intrusion of religion into politics.

It seems that the US is not actually a Christian Nation after all. Well, half the country knew that; the other half decided there was no need to believe that, displaced the facts, swept them under the rug, or places them next to the WMD is Iraq. Read George Will and Garry Wills on the role of religion in the Early Republic.

I have been teaching a Church/ State class this semester and find it interesting that (1) students do not possess a historical awareness of religious liberty and (2) certain religions,who were oppossed to the combinaiton of Church and State changed their position.

In 1960, JFK delivered "Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association" about the relationship between Church and State. He delivered this speech because Baptists were worried that "Big John" would control "Little John." It is one of the most important modern speeches about the meaning of the First Amendment and Religious Liberty.

This is a speech that many should read. But, let's be honest: those who do read it most likely do not need to read it.

A Paradox, Maybe....

From The Volokh Conspiracy. Here is a scenario, a paradox is you will. Read the excerpt and then answer the questions:

In the Hanged-Man Paradox, a man, K, is sentenced on Sunday to be hanged, but the judge, who is evidently French or enamored of the French wit for surprising those sentenced to the guillotine in their last moments, orders that the hanging take place on one of the next five days at noon. Smiling wistfully, he says to K, "You will not know which day until they come to take you to the gallows."

K, who has evidently been condemned for logical perversions, cannot prevent his mind from nevertheless trying to figure out in advance which day will be his last. He quickly realizes it cannot be Friday, because if he has not been hanged by Thursday noon, he will know nearly a full day before they come to get him that he will be hanged on Friday. He is simultaneously pleased at his cleverness and depressed that he has pushed his date with the gallows closer to Sunday.

Soon enough, he realizes that if Friday is logically excluded, then so is Thursday, because if he has not been hanged by noon Wednesday, he will know that, Friday being excluded, his date must be Thursday. In like manner, he can exclude Wednesday, Tuesday, and Monday. As a logician, he smugly concludes that the judge's decree is false.

The questions: Will this man be executed? When?

Double Entendres of Hockey

From The Hockey News . A lyrical gem that suggests the top twelve hockey terms that sound dirty but aren't:

12. Two-on-one
11. Split the defense
10. Five hole
9. Give-and-go
8. Waived off
7. Body checking
6. Poke check
5. Coincidental minors
4. Third man in
3. Butt ending
2. In the slot
1. Pulling the goalie

And why do people watch baseball?

Warm Up For Midterms--Let Your Vote Impact WWE's Cyber Sunday

Harrogate implores readers to do the right thing and be engaged citizens who participate, through voting, in the shaping of important cultural phenomena.

Do not be complacent: maybe you're personally rolling in good fortune, but these elections have consequences that extend beyond your little bubble and into the lives of millions of less fortunate. And ideaologues: This election season, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good! A vote for Jonathan Coachman as guest referee for DX vs. Randy Orton/Edge still effects better policy than voting for Mr. McMahon, for example.

Go here to exercise your voting rights as November rolls in. Not to unduly abuse his influence a la his counterparts on Clearchannel and ABC, Harrogate nevertheless humbly offers the following suggestions as excellent choices:

1)Vote for "K-Fed's" Champion of Choice--King Booker (the one with the crown; duh)--as the one whose title must go on the line in the threeway with Big Show and Cena. It is Harrogate's belief that this move may ultimately domino effect into the Queen of Class, Britney Spears, arriving on the WWE scene in the near future. And besides, if you don't vote and Cena winds up getting screwed outta his title at the Pay-Per-View, the blood is on your hands.

2)Vote for Dusty Rhodes as Ric Flair's partner to challenge The Spirit Squad for the Tag team Championship. Remember, a vote for Dusty Rhodes is a vote for The American Dream.

3)Harrogate has already held forth his views regarding Coachman. Bischoff and Mr. McMahon are greater evils, they deserve to get Nadered here.

4)Vote for Carlito to get the Intercontinental Title Shot against Jeff Hardy. A vote against Carlito would be decidedly "uncool."

And remember fans, in the spirit of Diebold, you can vote as many times as you want for any given candidate!!!!

"K-Fed's" Slap Heard Round the World and Miscellany

Finally, Vince McMahon is beginning to reinvigorate the Rhetorical Situation known as Monday Night Raw! First of all combining Raw with Smackdown and ECW by instigating a threeway rivalry of champions has been a brilliant move; it unseats wrestling fans' comfort zone, leaving them anxiously wondering what's going to happen with the belts come Cyber Sunday. It has a conspiratorial narrative flavor that can really get people sucked in. King Booker has done a wonderful job spreading his creds as a heel, and Big Show is rendering an even better performance, toeing the middle ground between heel and face--compared to Cena he's a no-account cheater, but compared to Booker he's a bastion of integrity.

Speaking of this troicha, Harrogate audibly gasped when Cena interrupted "K-Fed's" lovefest with King Booker, telling the Heavyweight Champion that by endorsing Playing With Fire , he had "Lost his credentials as a Black Man"!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shaky ground here, O vaunted followers of The Rhetorical Situation! The WWE for several weeks has been doing all kinds of strange things with race. The stereotyped tagteam Cryme Tyme "ganking" Booker's wallet a couple of weeks ago added kerosene to the rhetorical fire, and all along wrestlers have been openly referring to Jonathan Coachman as an Uncle Tom. Academes interested in representations of race really ought to be watching their Raw, as all kinds of weird rhetoric is going down in that department.

But, to the money part: Vince has found a veritable goldmine with "K-Fed," whose ersatz ethos, as Harrogate has said before, has finally found a rhetorically proper fit. The guy is really razzing it up, and Cena is doing wonderfully as populist good guy who sees through "K-Fed's" chicanery. Federline's tee shirt proclaimed "America's Most Hated": Harrogate means really, what more can fans ask for, unless they want to see Britney herself interjected into this story? Actually, Harrogate predicts that the pinnacle of class known as Britney Spears will be making an appearance on Raw within the next four episodes--but that her appearance will be totally unannounced, to rhetorically augment the surprise.

Anyway, that slap across the face (depicted above) must have sounded to Vince just like Daisy in The Great Gatsby: her voice is "full of money," and so was that sound of rhetorically corrupt skin striking the face of a Marine.

Finally, Harrogate's eyes welled up when Dusty Rhodes (inset) entered on behalf of Ric Flair in his match with Kenny. Yes, it was nice to see Sgt. Slaughter and Roddy ("I'm all out of bubble gum") Piper as well, but Harrogate has seen these cultural icons several times over the years: Dusty The American Dream Rhodes on the other hand was like an incarnation of Harrogate's childhood, live and in full color. Now, Vince must find a way to get Dusty into the narrative proper, keep him around a lot, perhaps even set things up to where he and Flair win the Tag Team Championship from the rhetorically hapless Spirit Squad, thus cashing in on a Rhetoric of Nostalgia for all us thirty-somethings in the audience.

Political Poster 'Bama Style

Loretta Nall is the Libertarian Candidate for Governor in Alabama. Now typically, Harrogate has about as much use for Libertarians as he does for skunk corpses; but instead of the common Libertarian schtick of defending the sovereignty of gun compounds run by nutcases (read: Waco), or calling for the abolishment of the Department of Education, or crying about taxes in a corporatist materialist nation whose tax rate is incredibly low by any reasonable standard whatever--yea, verily Harrogate sayeth unto his readers, instead of all such Neal Boortz Libertarian inanity, Nall has refreshingly built her campaign around things like beating down the Patriot Act, legalizing marijuana, getting out of Iraq, and not hating Mexicans. How nice. A Libertarian who's not a hypocrite, who actually values civil liberties. She'll go down in flames among them there Alabamans of course, but then here's to trying.

And that poster on her webstie is (These Boobs, not Those Boobs) pretty good from a Rhetorical Standpoint. Compare it to the Corker ads in Harrogate's previous post to see the difference between good-natured campaigning versus ad-hominem smearing.

A Credit to the Nation

Tennessee Rethugs Doing What They Do Best




Too Hot For Corker


One of the more interesting Senate races coming down the homestretch is in the middle of the Confederacy, Tennessee, where Rethugs can eat live kittens on television and still get elected so long as they say something nasty about gays, Mexicans, and them there uppity womenfolk.

Check out these two controversial ads, the first run by Rethug Corker himself, the second, overtly racist, "Playboy Party" ad (recently pulled, damage done) by the good ole RNC. Note especially the skanky blonde at the end telling Ford to "call her."

Anyway, that ads like this represent how to influence voters in this country tells you all you need to know. Harrogate knows it's fashionable among liberals to always spin stuff like this to where it's the Rethug Machine that is bad, and the voters innocent. But all b.s. aside, if this stuff didn't work it wouldn't run. We Uhmerrikahns are getting what we deserve.

Exploiting the Truth

To my mind, it's immaterial whether Fox took his meds before recording this political advertisement. Some people who have Parkinson's cannot afford the medications. How can exposing the truth about a disease be unbecoming or exploitative. At least Fox and McCaskill are telling the truth, which is more than we can say about most Republicans lately.

A Gift for the Masses

Since there is no longer any need to pimp my latest romance novel thanks to Harrogate. I come instead with a gift for the masses -- Pandora. Pandora is part of the Music Genome Project. This project is basically breaking down music into "genes." Lifting directly from their website: Taken together these genes capture the unique and magical musical identity of a song - everything from melody, harmony and rhythm, to instrumentation, orchestration, arrangement, lyrics, and of course the rich world of singing and vocal harmony. It's not about what a band looks like, or what genre they supposedly belong to, or about who buys their records - it's about what each individual song sounds like.

Pandora is the free (at least so far) internet radio arm of the project. You select a song or artist that you like and it creates a "station" based on the "genes" of that song. It also allows you to give thumbs up or down to songs, ban songs from the station for a month, play a song more, add more types of music to the station, or create multiple stations. It does eventually require registration with an email but it is free (again so far). You can also check why it picked a certain song and it will give you a short explanation based on the genes. Its worth trying out just to peruse their descriptions.

I've only recently tried it out and have had varying results. I created a station for Alabama 3 (known to the masses as "those guys who did the Sopranos theme song) and thought the "genes" worked really well. In the space of a half hour, I had found a number of bands who didn't necessarily sound like Alabama 3 but were bands I a) enjoyed and b) more importantly, never heard of.

I was impressed both by the range of music available (not once did I find myself listening to some Billboard hack) and the technology that puts the songs together.

I encourage everyone to try it out but be warned, mileage may vary.

Straying the Course

Bush goes on to tell Stephanopoulos that his strategy in Iraq has always been one of adaptation.

It seems the Bush administration has recently made a decision to abandon their "stay the course" rhetoric, in favor of something like "adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground." The reason: "stay the course" is only a quarter right, according to Bush.

The more likely reason for changing the strategic motto, however, is not that "stay the course" doesn't fully encapsulate Bush's master plan for the war but that the new rhetoric will more effectively persuade Americans that change is underway in Iraq.

While I hate to be pessimistic, I'm confident that nothing about the war, save its rhetoric, will actually change. For if Bush truly intended to abandon the "stay the course" strategy, then he would not have said in the same Stephanopoulos interview that, so long as he remains in office, nothing could trigger the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Oh, the power of rhetoric to change perception. But will it work?

Odd Email Subjects

Here is a list of the subject lines from a few junk emails. My favorite is the last. It sounds like a New Wave Band

Dumb Balm

Oppress

Foci

Trunks Opportunity

Regimental Inaugurate

Cutting Edge Positively

Due

Pensive Sherbert

The email to "Regimental Inaugurate" Reads (It is poetic in a random, M. Doughty Sense):

On the face of it, of course, this is patently absurd, but if you have the right picture in mind, this is the sort of thing you might have guessed.
But not to worry, if you walk across the infinity line again, you get flipped back to normal. To which it was replied that of course time has an existence, as a social convention, a mental framework. Even a definite negative answer is preferable to none at all. Again, both German and English versions of each are reproduced, though the task was made considerably easier than in other cases by the fact that the edition I used was a dual-language edition.
I think that that is neither true nor a good value.
Without the steady march of time, this unity of behavior disappears, and there are simply a million disparate entities.
On the one hand, he makes interesting and insightful observations on all sorts of phenomena; on the other, he never really synthesizes those observations into a single, coherent argument. Baby monitors today can give you the ability to watch baby.
Nor is the notion that rape is bad an example of state coercion.
So it is an element of science, but incomplete.
And, of course, make good pictures. As for quantum, I avow my profound ignorance of it, so let my opinion be taken in that light. Of course Einstein is justly famed for, among many other things, pioneering the idea of space-time. Nor is the notion that rape is bad an example of state coercion.
But the only way to determine whether it is simply a theory to fit the facts or whether it is truly generalizable is to test it against unknown facts via prediction.
On the face of it, it might be surprising that the set of rotations of three space should itself look anything like three space.
The goal is not a description which is true or corresponds to the truth, or at least that is not the immediate goal. As for quantum, I avow my profound ignorance of it, so let my opinion be taken in that light. The dilemma is that when individuals pursue personal gain, the net result for society as a whole may be impoverishment. On the face of it, of course, this is patently absurd, but if you have the right picture in mind, this is the sort of thing you might have guessed.
I've browsed some of the most popular online stores and chosen the top ten Halloween costumes for babies.
But not to worry, if you walk across the infinity line again, you get flipped back to normal. On the face of it, it might be surprising that the set of rotations of three space should itself look anything like three space.
That formulation is, as I believe I have said before, perfectly monstruous. On the face of it, it might be surprising that the set of rotations of three space should itself look anything like three space.
Again, both German and English versions of each are reproduced, though the task was made considerably easier than in other cases by the fact that the edition I used was a dual-language edition.
Bebello's bohemian-inspired Betty reversible dress is a must-have for baby and toddler girl.
This at least is the goal.
When the facts or events are given, anyone can interpret them, and the fact that these events are known can mask the relative merits of the theory which interprets them. She wasn't sure what the reasons were, but she heard it had something to. Baby monitors today can give you the ability to watch baby.

Southpaw's Posts Create Nationwide Firestorm of Controversies

Since joining the editorial board of The Rhetorical Situation, Southpaw (depicted left posing for the back cover of his latest best selling romance novel) has had an incalculable impact on the popularity of this site. The socioplitical controversies swirling around his last spate of discussions prove once and for all that the only bad press is no press.

Keep rilin' em up, Southpaw! Harrogate tips his cap to ye!

Thank God! "K-Fed" to Return to Raw Tonight, 10/23

Word around the Beltway is that "K-Fed" (depicted above stylin' and profilin' with his classy feminist champion wife, the effervescent Britney Spears) will join Melina ringside to support Johnny Nitro as he takes on John Cena tonight on Raw. Harrogate is tickled to death, too, that Vince had decided to cash in on WWE's considerable aesthetic credibility in promoting "K-Fed's" new album, Playing With Fire. From the link provided above, Jonathan Coachman effuses:

I am pleased to announce on behalf of Mr. McMahon that WWE will have the distinct privilege of promoting Kevin Federline’s new album “Playing with Fire.” I have listened to the album, and I can assure you that it is nothing short of a musical masterpiece.

Harrogate believes wholeheartedly that every human being needs to be aware that this Coachman quote is real, it is out there, Federline's album has indeed been referred to in the public square as a "musical masterpiece."

Anyway, though Harrogate will not be live blogging Raw this evening, the thousands of fans who turn to his WWE posts every week can count on his typically probing analysis of everything that goes down in that proverbial squared circle.