Um, Seriously?

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

New York Calorie Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comps Topic #1: Visual Rhetoric & Ideology

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

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

You should complete this answer in two hours.

Thanks to Sully for the link.

There's inherent and there's ideology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible.

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

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

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

Nut up or shut up

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

Question of the Day: Jon Stewart's America

Did Jon Stewart hurt America?

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

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

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

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


Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.

The Complications of Parenting

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

The Left Better Learn to Love the Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously?

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

Tired

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

In honor of Facebook; in memory of TRS

Kanye's at it again...

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

Revolution #9

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

Five for Smoking but not for Breastfeeding, Continued

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

State Legislators Hard at Work...

Intellectual Honesty Watch: Katie Roiphe Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoteof the Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something you might not expect from me

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

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

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

Can you think of any others?