What the Hell? In the Spirit of Piling On, Richards-Gate Revisited; Wherein The Liberal Albatross Is Revealed

Well, the after effects of Richards-Gate has now plunged us into yet another unseemly examination of Liberal America's Love Affair with Addressing Hurt Feelings With Lawsuits. A blight of human skin named Gloria Allred (depicted left), a famous "discrimination attorney," has now roped in Richards' victims as clients in her newest attempt to help Conservatives develop their caricature of American Liberals as Lawsuit Loving Pansies.

Here is the pathetic upshot of it all. People like the sycophantic Allred make real liberals' job much harder in this country. Under the guise of "combating discrimination" and "feminism", Allred is really just a manifestation of the "Ambulance Chaser" label that damages the reputations of good trial lawyers like John Edwards who legitimately battle the military/industrial complex in order to compensate victims of insurance fraud, on-the-job injuries, etc.

All of which strongly invigorates Harrogate's recent assertion that this was never about Michael Richards but about the public's need for Moral Preening and to prove its "political correctness" rather than striving for decency.

Don't apologize to us. We won't accept it. But we will take your goddamned money, thank you very much.

So now Richards' "victims" are going to seek money for this? Harrogate is sick and tired of having to acknowledge that American Liberals provide a comfy home for those who would shred free speech through the threat of violence: which is essentially what a Lawsuit of this type is. Richards did a terrible thing. Whatever people want to think of him is their business. But Harrogate will be damned if he's going to stand by and not speak out against this abrogation of the First Amendment just because it seems like the politically correct thing to do. If Michael Richards wants to stand in the middle of Times Square and hurl racial epithets all day long, he's entitled. And so are we entitled to yell back at him.

Let Harrogate be as clear as possible on this. He doesn't give a flying fuck how Doss and McBride "feel" about what happened at that club. There are people out there in this country today, this Thanksgiving, this day of Middle Class Gluttony, people with real problems experiencing real injustices that rich white "liberals" like Allred ignore every day in favor of sexier stories like this. Homeless people. Unemployed people. Sick people with no medical insurance. Etc. These are the people lawyers might want to turn their attention to. Allred's a fucking vulture. And she is welcome to sue Harrogate over this, if it has hurt her feelings, humiliated her, or some other such drivel.

If Doss and McBride have been scarred for life by this experience, Harrogate can only say that this is a testament to their weakness. And again, Allred's a fucking vulture. Any money that comes about as a result of this will be just another weapon for Rethuglicans to use against those of us who are actually concerned with social justice, rather than with simply performing such concern.

I wish this would end... but since it won't

Here is the apology from Michael Richards. Jerry Seinfield appeared on David Letterman and they connected with Michael Richards via satellite for an apology. It is incredibly awkward. I do not know why I looked for it this afternoon. Maybe it is because the Dolphins and Lions are playing. I don't know what I'll do when the Bucs and Lions play to avoid that game.

From what I heard, reaction to this clip was mixed. The audience laughed in the beginning of the clip until Jerry scolded the audience. Richard seemed very disturbed by his actions, though I hear people complained over the lack of his sincerity.



In terms of apologia (speeches of self-defense), he used the following strategies:

(1) Confession: he admits what he did and admits he feels terrible about it. There seems to be no question about this. He later admitted that his type of action is stream of consciousness and the words just flowed.

(2) Control (or lack thereof): Normally, when speakers defend themselves, they try to alter the settings to make them more favorable (Nixon delivers "Checkers" on a studio stage, in front of his desk, with his wife Pat sitting on a couch). Richards stated that this may not be the proper venue for his apologia-- it is a comedy show after all. It does seem odd that he delivered the apologia on the Letterman show when Jerry was the guest. I wonder what the connection is. A negative view is the seventh Season of Seinfeld was just released and this incident may interfere with sales. Syndication of Seinfeld may be another problem since some individuals may no longer be able to watch the show. Regardless, this seems to limit the success of his defense.

(3) Transcendence/ Bolserting: Richards connected this incident within the larger context of race relations and what comics tried to do for race relations (Transcendence), such as comic helping victims of Katrina. However, he lost coherence here and just tried to associate himself with other comics that have helped others (Bolstering- when you identify with things your audience with find favorable though it has little to do with the situation at hand.

The discussion here quickly changes course to what he said in relation to the audience and different audiences. He then pleads he is not a racist though he made comments that could have been considered racist. He seems to lose agency: "it's said...it comes through... it fires out of me."

(4) Confession: Letterman asks if Richards thought by saying something so over the top that it would not be a problem. Richards stated he tried to do that, which seems to show Richards is trying to gain his agency back. Of course, his agency is connected to Letterman's control of the situation (via asking questions). He then discusses how he apologized and how he tried to reach the people he insulted. He was happy the people he insulted went to the press. When asked about what he can do, he has no clear answer of what he can do. Jerry then adds to the conversation and tried to defended Richards.

Overall, he seems sincere about his apology; we can infer this from his repeated confessions about the incident. However, he did not do a good job of picking his venue (he attempts at control were very bad) and he did a poor job of offering redemption (what he could do to fix the problem he created, not that any one person will be able to fix race relations).

Thoughts?

Black Republicans, the Smell of Steak, and Forked Anal Tracks

I saw this episode of Dog Bites Man on Comedy Central a few months ago. I still laugh about it today.

I was telling my Father-in-Law about it this morning (he's in town for Thanksgiving). I found a clip of it on YouTube and thought I would also share it with the devoted readers of The Rhetorical Situation.

Enjoy! And Happy Thanksgiving.

Feeling it In our Triceps and Calves: Love Actually Countdown Heats Up With a Little Maroon 5

Maroon 5 - Sunday Morning Music Video

The Countdown to the Greatest Pop Song Ever Recorded now begins to heat up on The Rhetorical Situation. Here Maroon 5 tears it up with "Sunday Morning."

Do readers remember what scene in Love Actually features this song?
Harrogate does.

Top Music Albums...

While refusing to do any serious scholarship this morning, I found an advertisement for Time's Top 100 Albums of All-Time. Personally, I always hate these lists because, typically, the criteria used to judge these lists falls to "impact of the album" to "personal choice of person X who needed to write this article as if were going to impact the life of anyone-- and I get the irony-- (For the Time list, I do not even know what the criteria is; they neglect to tell anyone and I am using this only as a conversation starting, which means my apathy took over and I refuse to look for the criteria. And I also get how my ethos is as low as it has ever been with these comments. The joy of the holiday season is overwhelming me.)

Also noteworthy about Time's list is that in the oughts, there is an Elvis album. This seems odd, especially if we judge the album by the impact.

In 2005, Spin released Spin's Top 100 from 1985 - 200.. Spin's criteria: "Because it pushes a unique vision from the margins to the mainstream (or the margins of the mainstream), reshaping both. Until someone new (a Wu-Tang Clan or White Stripes) emerges to redraw the margins all over again. These records tell us something different with every listen; even at their tiniest, they make private epiphanies feel like public events." Their top ten:

10. N.W.A - Straight Outta Compton
9. PJ Harvey - Rid Of Me
8. Prince - Sign O The Times
7. De La Soul - 3 Ft. High And Rising
6. Pixies - Surfer Rosa
5. The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead
4. Pavement - Slanted & Enchanted
3. Nirvana - Nevermind
2. Public Enemy - It Takes A Nation...
1. Radiohead - OK Computer

Reactions to the list? What is included that should not be? What is missing that should be? Why should we care about these lists?

My complaints on Spin's:
U2 - Achtung Baby- The Jushua Tree does not make this list but the decline of U2 is on the list.
Where is Ani DiFranco?
Should this be judged by songs? (Lisa Loeb's "Stay" is missing and this song bridged the gap between indie rock and mainstream alternative almost in the same way that The Singles Soundtrack did.

Why I cannot care about Richards

I'm sorry. I tried. I tried to think real hard about his comments. I tried to put myself in the shoes of others, especially the people in the audience that he insulted. I tried to examine the context of a situation (it was a comedy club-- should we expect civility there?). I tried to think about those who bothered Kramer in the first place while he was performing-- shouldn't they have some repsonsibility and shouldn't they not offend someone? I tried to think about this in terms of fairness-- Why should there be one standard for Kramer and on standard for the audience?

Instead of caring, I am going to post this video: "Dog Police." As you watch it and laugh at it, count the numberr of offensive images in this video. It's sexist. It's racist. There are a few hints of drugs.

Then, think about how we can possibly judge speech by its consequences without limiting almost all speech?



I am not sure if I should thankAndrew Sullivan for this one.

"How are you gonna make it in this business if you can't take it?"

Richards would have done well to recall the lessons of this episode.

Richards-Gate Redux; Magnolia Theme Revealed; Who's Smoother Than John C. Reilly?

Tough part of the job

This is in Harrogate's view one of the truly great scenes in the history of film. In case there are still those out there wondering what Magnolia is about, here it is, handed to you on a silver platter. Hint: It aint about whether or not the frogs are realistic.

More importantly, the timing of this post will be evident to those who have been following The Rhetorical Situation for the last couple of days.

Reader. In the words of Eric Cartman, "I'm seriously":

What can you forgive?

We Can Feel It In Our Biceps And Thighs: Love Actually Countdown Continues

Kelly Clarkson - The Trouble With Love Is (Live On-Air)

The buildup to the Greatest Pop Song Ever Recorded Continues. Here, we are treated to one of the great Cultural Critics of all time, Ryan Seacrest, introducing Kelly Clarkson, whom all agree is the heir apparent of Janis Joplin.

Watch how the camera pans around to take the Rhetorical concept of Audience into true account. Enjoy this for the Rhetorical Situation it is, Readers. Enjoy.

Richards-Gate III: This Time It's Personal

Now that Harrogate has taken his stand as to separatung the Person (Richards) from the Art (Kramer), it has become necessary to conduct inquiries into how we are all reacting to the Person. In his initial post on this topic, Harrogate threw in with Shakespeare's Sister and, it seems, most everyone else, lambasting Richards as, in short: an asshole. Between then and now, however, Harrogate's views have broadened, he wishes to somewhat retract the harsh snap judgment. And now, to share why.

As commenters have made clear in earlier threads, it is true that Richards revealed an ugly cankerous thing in his soul, that he crossed a line, and that it would have been just as bad had it been done privately. It is also true that his rant reached significantly beyond political incorrectness and into the dark underbelly of racism. So now that's established. But the question we must all ask ourselves remains: whether we are prepared to allow such an incident to define this man for all time, and define him to such an extent that it actually seeps into the character he created years before he did this thing.

Can anyone honestly look Harrogate in the computer screen and say, without a shred of irony, that they have never said a racist thing or thought a racist thought? A sexist thing, a sexist thought? Shall one of Harrogate's readers now posit themselves as wholly innocent of ever harboring a homophobic thought? An anti-Semitic sentiment? And the list goes on, sadly. And Harrogate sticks his neck out and asserts that his Readers share with him a history of mistakes, some small, some grave, some perhaps even worse than what Richards did in that club.

Indeed, perhaps some of you have even said something terrible in public, and someone heard you and then never saw you again, so that forevermore you remained defined by that terrible moment. Nice thought, isn't it?

Humans in general seem to Harrogate a terribly unforgiving lot, especially when it comes to people they don't know very well. But consider this: maybe it's less important to play the gotcha-game of identifying an ugly thing in a person, than it is to see whether or not that person struggles to deal with, to somehow get beyond the ugly thing. And this applies to ourselves. You hear a lot, for example (especially from liberals like Harrogate), about taking care of the poor, about the madness of "war for oil," about this, about that, and about the other. But really, when you look around, you see everyone driving cars, using credit cards, and generally dominated up to their necks by their own little private lives. Everyone Harrogate knows, including Harrogate himself, is firmly in the grip of corporate gluttony, even though most of us fancy ourselves as seeing through "The Machine."

The point of all this being, ostensibly, Jesus's from long ago. To paraphrase: who are any of us to judge Richards based on this one incident even as we all of us are guilty of things just as bad if not worse? the hypocrisy of it all bothers Harrogate a lot. It really does.

But pshaw, enough of such things. Perhaps Richards the man can learn from what he has done, now that he has seen himself capable of such an ugly thing, perhaps from there he can heal. Must he, really, be pariahed as a racist from now until doomsday because of this incident? Each must search their own heart.

Richards has apologized. Who will stand and give him benefit of the doubt? It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

Richards-Gate Reconsidered: A Defense of Poetry

All the news networks are picking this up now, Harrogate just watched MSNBC air the fateful Richards clip during "Tucker." Harrogate won't bother to link to Richards' actual tirade: those interested can find it easy enough.

Because to link the video would be to violate the brilliant point Harrogate is about to make.

There is a great deal of truth to what claymation says in the comments section of the first post on Richards-Gate. There is the Idea of Cosmo Kramer and that idea is not at all beholden to the actions of Michael Richards the man. So that whether he was all liquored up as claymation hopefully suggests, or whether he's just a garden variety asshole racist bigot (as Shakes and Harrogate have both implied in earlier posts)--either way, Harrogate says, the Idea of Cosmo Kramer is safely tucked away in the inviolable land of Art.

No, Harrogate's not a New Critic, in case any nerdy lit-crit trolls are lurking, though he does think there's, in general, too much obsession with biography, anecdote, and the petty like in art studies of all kinds. Harrogate is saying he doesn't see any more reason to allow Richards' actions to contaminate our vision of Cosmo Kramer than there is, say, to hold Harrogate's boring personality against his "breathtakingly electric writing" (New York Times), or to confuse Curt Schilling's glorious split-finger fastball with his terrible politics. Remember, readers, only shortly after Schilling's "bloody sock" heroism of 2004, he was out on the campaign trail stumping with George W. Bush. Doesn't make the Sox victory any less sweet. For all Harrogate cares, all these people we put in front of cameras might be assholes. But it's not for themselves that we care. It's for the actions, the ideas, the Poetry they project, that we care in the first place.

Devastating Link for Seinfeld Fans Everywhere

Harrogate just encountered this from Shakespeare's Sister only moments ago.

Oh, Michael Richards, previously caretaker of one of the most lovable icons in television history: how can you do us this way? Shakes herself puts it best:

What a fucking asshole. Nice job being an offensive, hateful schmuck—and thanks a shitload for ruining one of my favorite shows. I’ll never be able to watch an episode of Seinfeld again without thinking about that loathsome tirade—and I certainly won’t be completing my collection of the series on the DVD, lest another penny of my money end up in his pocket.

Among The Many Morals To Be Gleaned From This Violation Of What Was Once An Unambiguously Warm and Fuzzy Rhetorical Situation: Getting to "know" celebrities as people almost always leads to no good. TBS "Very Funny" just took a major hit in Harrogate's rubric. Though still, he retains his unconditional love for George.

Statement Gone Awry?

First off, despite striking similarities in attire, facial hair, and stride, the man buying the PS3 in this clip is NOT Harrogate. Though it may be a sibling.

Basically, as you can see from the clip, these guys buy a new PS3 on opening day and proceed to destroy it right in front of the "fanboys" lined up to overpay for their own. For those of you not up on the most recent gaming consoles, the Playstation 3 which released last week. There are two versions Basic (for $499) and Premium (for $599). Further, since the recent trend is to undersupply, there is a big demand. The average launch-day price of the systems on Ebay was an eye-popping $2600.

Now to the clip and their accompanying website...

When I first saw the news item, I admired the moxy and the statement I thought they were making (despite also giving Sony their 500-600 bucks). The Marxist in me revelled not only at the destruction but the resistance to the corporate teat of entertainment. That video games, freaking video games are approaching $1000 bucks retail and that people still line up and pay through the nose for it.

However, the website suggests something else. At best, they seem to want to irritate the fanboys with "senseless destruction." While I appreciate their willingness to poke sharp sticks at idiots, there is no message other than "Look! We are destroying what you covet! There is now one fewer console to buy and that means...well...it doesn't mean anything since my purchase takes it out of circulation whether I destroy it and let is slowly suck my brain power for hours on end." Now, if they smashed other peoples, now there's a statement. (My sense from the website and clip is that they are trying to get others to also commit PS3-icide and they do refer to updated videos but honestly I don't see them getting many takers.)

In the FAQ to their website, they ask for donations to commit their act (again watering the statement) AND ensure their potential donors that they will just not steal the money and take the PS3 by pointing out that they will make WAY more money off the video and advertising. In the immortal words of Scooby-Doo: "Scraggy!?!" They're not lashing out against the corporate baker, they are standing at the back entrance begging for a slice of the pie.

So close...and yet...actually not close at all.

At the very least, perhaps we can all take some voyeuristic pleasure in the act of destruction itself.

Southpaw

P.S. If anyone has $600, I could really go for a PS3.

Church Signs II: More Inflammatory Comments, Wherein Barak Obama is Associated With Satan and Rick Warren Proven a Decidedly Minority Voice

Late last week, Harrogate and Mommy PhD began a discussion about the fairness of Harrogate's play with church signs. In this discussion Rick Warren, a famous evangelical who uses his pulpit to stand for issues of social justice as opposed to the "red meat" political issues beloved by the GOP, figured centrally. In that discussion, too, Harrogate linked to a blog post by a blight of human skin named Kevin McCullough, who is "outraged" at Senator Barak Obama's appearance at Warren's congregation under the auspices of looking for solutions to the AIDS pandemic in Africa.

Today McCullough expanded his excoriation by going nationwide in print syndication,
once again nicely channeling The Rhetorical Situation whereby GOP dominance of over 60% of the evangelical vote is perpetrated. One can learn a lot by reading McCullough's article. That's why Harrogate links to it.

Some of Harrogate's favorite passages from this "argument":

By scriptural standards Rick Warren is to be bound by the biblical text and its teaching on morality. Obama would pursue and has pursued mass distribution of condoms. If you say to a society, as Uganda has, that the only way to be sure of not getting AIDS is through "abstinence until marriage" then they will be likely to believe you. (It's scientifically provable. And it explains Uganda's unique improvement on the African continent in numbers of people contracting the virus.) On the other hand if you say to a culture, as has happened in more than one African nation, "try abstinence - but if you can't remain abstinent then use a condom" what do you think the likely outcome will be?

and then

Barack Obama is likely to run for president in 2008 and speaking from the pulpit of one of America's most well known evangelical churches is likely to be footage that could be used over and over in trying to dissuade Christians from thinking about moral issues that real Christians truly feel concern for.

and then there's a very classy impetus for stalking:

It may be too late to alter a stubborn heart or mind at Saddleback Church, but the effort should at least be made. So I am encouraging you to do what my listeners have done for the past several days call Rick Warren and ask him why Barack Obama's evil worldview will be given the high honor of addressing the faithful. (949.609.8000 or info@saddleback.com)

(note McCullough isn't quite open enough to discourse to provide his own telephone number so that non-bigots who read his work can call him to remind him what a fucking dangerous moron he is).

But there you have it, Readers. Evangelicals in this country have earned the stereotype to which Harrogate's recent signs point. Majorities of them keep voting Republican, keep insisting that arcane passages from Leviticus are more important than the words and teachings of Christ himself, keep listening to douchebags like Dobson, Falwell, McCullough, and George W. Bush. So long as these numbers hold, the Rick Warrens of the world don't get to be held as representative of anything but a minority voice, no matter how "famous" they may otherwise be. Barbara Streisand is famous and widely beloved, too, but that doesn't make her worldview normative. Harrogate wishes such voices well, however, and holds out a shred of hope that perhaps someday it will be the McCulloughs that are seen for the drooling fanatics that they are, and the Warrens and Mommy PhD's as representative.

Not Yet Feeling It In Our Fingers and Toes, But Getting There

Dido - Here With Me

In the Spirit of the coming Christmas Season, Harrogate offers this great Dido Song, made famous by Love Actually, one of the finest holiday movies ever made.

And yes, in the weeks to come, the Supreme Song from that movie, which is possibly the greatest pop song ever recorded and which Harrogate foreshadows in the picture below, will be posted right here on The Rhetorical Situation.

Call for Papers: Otherness in West of Dese Nuts

As you know, Southpaw's most recent novel, West of Dese Nuts, remains #1 on the New York Times Best Seller List, comfortably outdistancing Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior by several million copies.

But now the academic establishment has begun to take interest in this hot, steamy look at life in urban Idaho. Given the novel's scathing look at how Idaho's dominant corporate culture suppresses the liberating voice of Love, this is not surprising. And, through it's examination of how Idaho's Vietnamese block is routinely feminized in myriad ways, Southpaw's novel is a treat for feminists, postcolonialists, and ecocritics as well.

We are issuing a CFP for a conference in Boise to be held on July 4, 2007. Send cover letter and abstracts to desenuts.com.

In Response To Mommy PhD, Church Signs Revisited

True to her magestrial form,Mommy PhD has posted an excellent disquisition on the style and substance of church signs. Harrogate went here to make the sign you are presently ogling. So get thee there, make thine own proclamations; for verily, you have as much authority to do so as the people making the "real" ones.

Update: Claymation's brilliant rejoinder reminded Harrogate that perhaps he's playing favorites with the Catholics. So, in the Spirit of Religious Multiculturalism (which only applies to different versions of Christianity of course):

The Rhetorical Power of Cartoons: Skewering O.J., Regan, Harper Collins, and FOX

The blood splotch covering the word "If" is particularly devastating. Wow. Wow. Wow. Can this book really be coming out? For real? It sounds a lot more like something to be dreamed up on Pete's Couch while listening, perhaps, to Danzig or Skinny Puppy, but not really something that could really happen actually for real. But anyway....

This cartoon by M.e. Cohen nicely taps into the growing discourse rippling throughout America for the last 24 hours, regarding this book.

For Harrogate, Cohen's piece illustrates just how powerful the cartoon is, as a rhetorical device. Just think about how much is being channelled, and argued, in this one frame.

Thoughts?

Tar Heels; Harrogate Joins Oprah on Snub List; OJ Sucks Even More Than He Did Before; A Learned T.S. Eliot Reference; Fair Weather Fandom Considered

Though all are based in Texas, 2/5 of the Editorial Board here at The Rhetorical Situation--Harrogate and p-duck-- understand the wonder and beauty that is Tar Heels Basketball.

Last night Harrogate tried not to think about the fact that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes snubbed him on their wedding invite list, that O.J. Simpson is back on the scene in the crassest way possible, and that Harrogate himself still hasn't finished a dissertation chapter. Thankfully, he found a delectable distraction on ESPN as UNC crushed mighty Winthrop in a barn burner, with Carolina only pulling away at the end on the strength of their superior depth and athletic ability, and of course Tyler Hansbrough, who had 20 points and 10 rebounds. There are so many young players on Carolina's roster that Harrogate at one point complained to Mrs. Harrogate that he couldn't keep them straight. Ginyard he knows, and loves. Same with Green, Terry, Frazer, Hansbrough, Miller. But what of Brandan Wright jumping through the roof and throwing it down with authority, Alex Stephenson all over the glass with that big body, little Ty Lawson with the acrobatic kiss off the glass and the sweet dished down low?

Indeed, in the spirit of T.S. Eliot, what are the roots that clutch (line 19), and what of these players and and the others, waves of powder blue and white pouring off the bench and onto their opponents with unrelenting intensity and the kind of unmitigated partisan joy that only college sports make possible ? Oh, gentle Readerss, we shall indeed see what this new breed of Tar Heel, led by commander Roy, is made of.

Right now they are ranked #2 in the nation, which makes Harrogate happy and nervous at the same time, kinda like a first date. This is not college football where the rankings really really matter and where you schedule as many creampuffs as possible and, if you don't play in the SEC anyway, that might be enough to sneak you into the BCS title game. This is the Big Dance, where if you're not careful a high ranking will get you whacked by a mid-major like Winthrop, George Mason, or Butler. But in any case, Readers, do not fret. Harrogate will be covering Carolina Basketball, and the landscape of the sport in general, all year long, bringing each time the kind of analysis that has made him the award-winning blogger that he is.

Speaking of the other sports, Harrogate has recently realized that in everything except College Basketball, he is the stereotypical fairweather fan. In the NBA, he rode with the Pistons for a few years, then dropped them when Big Ben left and now he's riding the Phoenix Suns, whose offense reminds Harrogate of a Coleridge Poem. Who knows what team he may be loving, by the time we finish things up in June? In Baseball, well, you never know. Harrogate pretty much likes all teams except the Yankees and, to a lesser extent, the Dodgers. As with the NBA, he just winds up pulling for whatever team manages to capture his imagination at the time. This principle of the captured imagination, Harrogate believes, is the hallmark of Fair Weather Fandom. But when it comes to Tar Heels Basketball, Harrogate is not swayable. Why this, and only this? Because of nativism, because Harrogate grew up there, went to school there, breathed it from the time he was a small boy. And so it is with fans everywhere. If you grow up in a town with a Pro Sports Team, it is so easy to identify with them; so too with the nearest colleges, etc. Of course there are exceptions. But generalities nevertheless merit discussion.

All of which is to elicit from Readers an answer to this question: Is nativism and/or staying true to one team superior to Fair Weather Fandom? Or vice versa? And in what ways? As one who experiences both, Harrogate has some evaluative suspicions, but would prefer not to share them until he has gotten a little feedback.

Ciao.

Cartoons VS Elections and Veterans' Day PART DEUCE

Despite Harrogate’s fascinating RAW and Hasslehoff’s postings and Oxymoron’s post about men, fruit, and beer (more limes for me and my coronas!), and Solon’s Moonie post, I’m still focused on politics and cartoons and still concerned with timing.

In Sunday’s Simpsons’ episode, Homer joined the Army. Briefly, the episode acknowledges the low salaries of enlisted men and the heartache in leaving one’s family, but then it switches gears to a rather negative portrayal of the military and a critique (albeit via Springfield) of the situation in Iraq. As with in the Family Guy episode, the Army comes across as desperate (accepting suicidal teens and Homer Simpson), incompetent (Homer outsmarts the military), homosexual, dispensable (front line infantry in particular) and as a brutish occupying force. All these points are perhaps valid – recruitment is down, standards for enlistment have lowered, “don’t ask don’t tell” has always been controversial, front line soldiers are dying daily, and there have been countless cases of questionable military brutality. As I’ll discuss later, it’s not so much the subject as the timing. Anyhoo…when the Army finally surrenders to Springfield, Lisa wonders when “they” will learn that “an occupational force can never defeat a determined local populace.” Just in case the connection to Vietnam wasn’t clear enough, Lisa makes the connection.

As with many Simpsons’ episodes, the cultural, social, political, etc references are rich – this episode was no exception (the Bugs Bunny parody was particularly amusing). However, the timing of this episode left me feeling saddened. The situation in Iraq, the struggles of the military at home and abroad certainly belong on the public’s radar and make easy fodder for satire, but the appropriateness of airing this episode on the weekend of Veterans’ Day I question. Appropriateness I realize is a matter of taste and opinion, but I can’t help but think that the airing of these three episodes (see my earlier cartoon post) within a 7 day period that sees not only an election but also Veteran’s Day seems to suggest a larger and more disturbing narrative.

Despite Solon’s valid observation that the writers likely had little to do with the timing of the episodes, I feel like the timing is not accidental. Each episode had strong messages (brute force=bad, occupying Iraq=bad, military=not bright) relevant to the elections and to the current situation in Iraq. Had the episode aired a few weeks from now or a few weeks earlier, I may not have flinched, but airing 3 episodes that are so critical of the armed forces during the same week that we should be honoring those who have served undermines the comedy.

PS - A clip of the episode is available on You.tube but as it's 10+ min. long I haven't posted it.

Another ode to the recently departed...

UPDATE: Not thinking about the load times when I posted. I have removed the longish clip. You can, however, find it...well I was going to say here but YouTube is down for maintainence. Will link when it comes back up.

Disclaimer: I am no fan of Chris Matthews or Hardball.

That said, I must say that I enjoyed watching him and Paul Hackett destroy recent Republican Congressional candidate, Van Taylor. For those of you not in Texas, Van was the Republican's attempt to de-seat Chet Edwards (the only Democrat to survive the Republican re-districting of Texas prior to last election.) As this longish clip shows (8-9 mins), Van had all of the talking points down but was all hat and no cattle.

Paul Hackett, you may remember, was the Iragi War veteran who nearly upset Republican, Jean Schmidt in a special 2005 election in Ohio and in hindsight could have probably beat her this year had he not gotten greedy and ran for Senate--losing in the primary to now Senator-elect Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

Douchebag Montage Guaranteed to Make You Feel Good; In Which Bloody-Handed Republicans Fade Away and Maher Rocks da House!

Farewell Douchebags
Once again, and forevermore, just as it is indeed true that Germans love David Hasselhoff, so too is it indisuptable that Harrogate loves--loves!!!!!--Bill Maher. Ever since Friday night, Harrogate has been waiting for the opportunity to post this clip, and finally, its availability is upon us. Goodbye, Douchebags, bounced from the Midterm Elections and the Arms of Britney Spears in one fell swoop of a sensually brutal Tuesday this hallowed November, 2006 AD.

And, can we finally get the ball rolling on nominating Bill Maher to host the next Oscars? Hey, Harrogate knows! Maybe Maher and Harold Ford could really make Tennesseans feel better about their lame decision by coming together, each escorting one of Hefner's (screamingly white) ladyfriends as dates. 'Twould be delish!

The Finger Game With American Cinema

A game Harrogate has enjoyed for some time. You'll catch on. Please contribute:

Fingers of the Carribean
The Finger Strikes Back
It's a Wonderful Finger
Four Weddings and a Finger
Finger of Dreams
Fried Green Fingers
Fingering Miss Daisy
Who Fingered Roger Rabbit

and Harrogate's favorite.....

A Finger Runs Through It

Raw Review 11/13: WWE Exports to Manchester

What most stood out about last night's Raw has to do with what Kenneth Burke referred to as Scene. 'Twas interesting, to say the least, to witness the Raw spectacle taking place in Manchester, England. The fans were excitedly rotating signs in front of the cameras all night long, rather than holding only one consistently, as we see fans do in American cities. What this showed was that Signholding as the Wrestling Fan's Mantra is a signature trademark of Vince's show that is recognized throughout the world. And moreover, Mrs. Harrogate was a bit appalled, and rightfully so, to see a little boy, who couldn't have been more than 8, doing John Cena's "You Can't See Me" Hand-Wave. Indeed, Vince's diplomatic move seemed overall a huge success, as the building was sold out, the fans performed rowdiness in a convincing way, and the seventeen foot WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sign they stretched across the front row during Ric Flair's match was, for Harrogate, a testimony to the imperial power of low culture that even McDonald's cannot match.

Yet by just about any account, Readers, last night's installment of Raw was one of the worst in a while. In terms of actual wrestling, there was only one good match, wherein Jeff Hardy reclaimed the Intercontinental Title from Johnny (A-List) Nitro. There was a more significant title change, as the nostalgiac run of Roddy "I'm all out of bubble gum" Piper and Ric Flair came to an end at the hands of Edge and Randy Orton(depicted here, left to right.

This "match," like the majority of the program, reached heights of stupidity that exceeded even Harrogate's increasingly tenuous expectations of what Vince will bring on a given night. There is nothing wrong with ring interference and shenanigans as this is after all part and parcel of the sacred ritual--but knocking Piper out of the match before it starts, then having Flair double teamed and pinned, was pretty lame. And then, after the match, having DX storm the ring and beat up--not on Orton and Edge but on Security Guards!!!!--well, it was just so petty it hurt. Throughout the night we had to endure at least 45 minutes of DX skits, some of which Harrogate admits were almost funny: but there ought to be a point to all this attention, and the point ought to culminate in more than beating up security guards.

Which brings us back to Burkean Scene. The only aesthetic justification for last night's program would be that Vince determined that DX is the most popular, most recognizable tradermark, and that as WWE is exporting, the only thing that matters is for Brits to get lots of DX. To hell with the program itself, just pander to your expectations. It was bizarre, Vince. Harrogate loves Triple H and Shawn Michaels as much as the next wrestling fan/literary critic, but really, let there be a point next time. Just putting DX out there to put them out there is Bush League. And we all saw what Americans think of Bush League these days.

UPDATE: Immediately after issuing this post, it occured to Harrogate that as a New Historicist, and as a 21st Century literary critic/rhetorician in general, he is not supposed to believe in distinctions between "High" and "Low" culture. Nevertheless, Harrogate does indeed believe in such distinctions, and will invariably carry said belief to his grave. He does not offer a GOP-like soundbite definition of these distinctions, however. He winks, and defers instead to the Kerry model of "nuance." Or perhaps the famous Supreme Court Justice's declaration re pornography, paraphrased here as "I knows it when I sees it," applies best of all.

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