Disney’s Avatar?

I recently saw Avatar and must say I enjoyed it. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think this “review” of the film isn’t funny as hell.

Posted in avatar, funny | Comments Off on Disney’s Avatar?

Successful Surgery

Rowan had her medical port removed this morning after being cancer free for over a year. The surgery was very quick (about a half hour) and she is feeling fine (singing along with Dora as I write). It has been a trying 18 months, but this is a big step back towards normalcy. Thanks to everyone who helped us along the way.

Posted in rowan | Comments Off on Successful Surgery

Robertson is Crazy

Sometimes rhetoric is just about identification, and I hope that subject line identifies me properly. Robertson probably doesn’t warrant any more analysis than what Olbermann provided, but Scott McLemee over at Crooked Timber has an interesting piece that examines the relationship between Haiti’s revolutionary Toussaint and Voodoo. The only lines you really need:

Naturally this god—like any of the loas presumably also invoked before the uprising began—would not count as a “devil” in the eyes of the believers. But then you can’t exactly expect Rev. Pat to be that interested in the nuances of Voodoo theology.

Ill Doctrine offers a brief nod to America’s debt to Toussaint and our responsibilities.

Posted in politics, rhetoric | Comments Off on Robertson is Crazy

A Brief Definition of Rhetoric

Today was Jim Corder day in my Digital Citizenship/Expository Writing classes. I use the Corder piece to provide a substantial definition for rhetoric–since I study one of the few things in a University that people rarely recognize. If you study biomedical chemistry, people likely have no idea what you do, but they know what you do. Rhetoric, however, is often a mystery.

Anywho, here’s my brief definition(s):

  • How humans create/digest/circulate meanings
  • How to get others to listen to your meaning
  • persuasion, conflict, argument, change, identity, cohesion

Notice the shift from plural to singular.

Posted in corder, digital-citizenship, rhetoric | Comments Off on A Brief Definition of Rhetoric

Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Children? (No, Seriously)

The other day Casey posted an interesting article on the globalization of American psychological disorders; to which I responded my interest in how contagion can be discursive: “if you word it, it will come?” I was reacting specifically to a story on the rise of anorexia in China: after a particularly public episode, during which news coverage began integrating American terminology for anorexia, China saw a significant spike in documented cases.

Today, I read on Slash.dot of the rise in Youth depression and hypomania. One of the study’s principal researchers, Jean Twenge, is the author of The Narcissism Expidemic. A student used portions of this book last semester in a paper critiquing social media websites such as Facebook and MySpace as nothing more than broadcast machinary for the 21st century’s increasingly self-absorbed subject. I, expectedly, poo-poo’d the idea since I see these media collectives as more about “us” than “me” (and I say “more”–this is certainly a “both-and” rather than “either-or” effect. But now, especially with the discursive nature of affliction on my mind (and a 2 and 1/2 year old daughter at home), I do worry a bit more about the ideological-cultural world my kid [self-absorbed narcissism alert] will inhabit.

In the article, an undergraduate offers the following response to the study:

The unrealistic feelings that are ingrained in us from a young age – that we need to have massive amounts of money to be considered a success – not only lead us to a higher likelihood of feeling inadequate, anxious or depressed, but also make us think that the only value in getting an education is to make a lot of money, which is the wrong way to look at it.

On a theoretical level, I think of Lacan’s notion of symbolic order as an psycho-social membrane–that which articulates subjectivity–is always plagued by the Real that it must include but cannot incorporate. Reflecting here–there is a sharp division between cultural expectation [narrative] and economic reality [scene], and one cannot help but think that a few characters are getting squished in the middle. On institutional and pedagogical levels, I feel particularly close to the student’s final line–that “we” [that’s “us” people–you know who you are] have to do a better job at re-articulating and promoting [rhetoric] the function of a university. My own research agenda involves doing this historically–to compare contemporary justifications for the University [whether official: i.e., the Modern emphasis on research or unofficial, i.e., the student/societal emphasis on employment] to classical notions. I am currently working on a project with a graduate student that aligns Cicero with early American pragmatists to generate a vision for the University that returns it to its pre-Italian humanist roots (humanist as in “studies how human beings do things” rather than humanism as in “studies THE human being’s condition”).

Off to the library. The RESEARCH library.

Posted in cicero, lacan, pragmatism | Comments Off on Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Children? (No, Seriously)

Adrian Beltre? Seriously?

Ok, I have no idea what Theo Epstein hopes to accomplish in 2010. Because Adrian Beltre just screams “one-year-wonder-during-the-hight-of-the-steriods-era.” I know its only a one-year deal, and that the Red Sox are angling to trade for Adrian Gonzalez during this season, but this signing makes no baseball sense to me.

You give up Mike Lowell’s solid defense in exchange for Beltre’s at times questionable glove. Additionally, Beltre struggled with injuries last year, and hasn’t topped 30 homeruns more than one in his career (2004, when he hit 48). He has never walked more than 60 times and has posted OBP’s of .303, .328, .319, .327, .304 in his previous five seasons. He is the spitting image of underachieving, overpaid mediocrity. And now he’s our third baseman. WTF.

I have similar feeling regarding the Cameron signing–another free swinging 150+ strikeout guy who seems to betray our historic focus on plate discipline. The Lackey signing is odd only because we gave a long term deal to a pitcher who hasn’t started more than 27 games in two years and is on the wrong side of his 30th birthday. I think we are going to see that in the post-steriods era players will begin aging again. We’ll see. Regardless, by letting go of Bay and signing Lackey, we are turning into the 90’s Braves: a franchise with excellent starting pitching (to win games in the regular season) and not enough offensive pop (to win games in the post season). I hope I am wrong on this one.

Epstein has always been one of the best drafting GM’s in baseball–I would never question any of his draft choices. But his track record in free agency thus far has been less than effective. J.D Drew? Matt Clement? Edgar Renteria? I hate to say it, but I think we’ll be adding to names to this list this season. My gut feeling is that after the Lackey signing, knowing he had already given up his first round pick to the Angels, Epstein in going to spend on free agents this season. But I’ll go on record: I would trade Mike Lowell for Adrian Beltre straight-up and would take several other names on this list of free agents over Cameron (Rick Ankiel? Brian Giles? Randy Winn?). Salary flexibility is important, but so is fielding a winning team.

Posted in baseball, redsox | Comments Off on Adrian Beltre? Seriously?

Clients from Hell

For more evidence of why an extensive education in rhetoric might be valuable in the 21st century broadcast society, please see Clients from Hell.

Posted in CSS, design, rhetoric | Comments Off on Clients from Hell

Reflections: Rickert’s Acts of Enjoyment

I thought I would share a few paragraphs from Thomas Rickert’s Acts of Enjoyment:

The point, ultimately, is not that we should immediately change the pedagogical road we are on. This would risk falling into the same critical mode I am discussing, whereby psychoanalytic critique becomes the new authority underwriting more sophisticated control pedagogies. Rather, I suggest that we come to see the road differently, to think about it afresh, and perhaps to try detours or other routes, not by replicating the latest new pedagogies but by reinhabiting current pedagogies through an evolving sensibility. (172)

Thomas follows by arguing that one strategy for reframing (enframing?) the pedagogy we inhabit concerns surprise. We need to both foster an appreciation for open possibility and develop open-ended syllabi that transfer control of curriculum and pedagogy to, if not the students, the kairotic moment that contains the students, the teachers, and the work. This, however, comes with strong disclaimers:

This [surprise being unpredictable and uncodifiable] means that it [suprise] violates one of composition’s most dearly held imperatives–that, as D Diane Davis, following Vitanza, puts it, “every theory be immediately translatable into workable classroom practice for the pedagogue” (Breaking 222; see also Vitanza, “Three” 160-161). Surprise cannot be orchestrated in advance as the glittering pedagogical prize achieved by means of good theories devoted towards just ends. Rather, the pedagogue is just as implicated as the students in the kairotic moment(s) that may arise; further it is this mutual implication that makes of the pedagogy a unique moment beyond the possibility of repetition or control. (172-73)

I am drawn to these passages because they articulate a theoretical grounding for the ways in which I have been shaping my expository writing classroom, moving away from traditional models of composition (the default syllabus for the course was based on the EDNA model) to more open-ended and student driven projects. When this class goes right, there is a serendipitous element to it. Such an element cannot be guaranteed.

Rickert is critical towards the critical mandate that informs many composition models–the idea that students’ perceptions of the [material] world must be (either) deprogrammed or reprogrammed. Through a student-oriented (I’ll avoid the term centered for a moment) digital pedagogy, I am looking to increase student interaction with others, to help them integrate into a community of their choice, to teach forms of participation. There is certainly a “politics” to this pedagogy, but I would be hesitant to label it a “critical” one. The course (to borrow from Vitanza) says “yes” to students in the zones they inhabit, and asks them to say “yes” some more. Such a concern on my part does not promise “good” behavior–students are encouraged to form identities, ethos, voices suitable to their community. Thus, I am not selling a postpedagogical pill to cure the “disaffected attitudes and behavior, including cynicism, apathy, disregard for others, and violence” that marks the postmodern, critical, post-Oedipalized subjectivity Rickert traces through Faigley, Sacks, Zizek, DeLeuze, and Cobain. What I have discovered after teaching this course for several semesters, is that students often develop concern for themselves, their representation, and for others when they interact with communities of their choosing online. And I consider this a good enough thing.

If I feel that something is missing from this pedagogy, and I sometimes do, it is that I have lost virtually any nothing of what Rickert refers to as “contention”–of the interruptive (Freud might call it the disequilibriative) moment. I’ll admit my cultural studies background sometimes comes calling; my desire to throw a deconstructive monkeywrench into my students ideological narrative machine hasn’t gone away. But I am choosing, for now at least, to endorse civic practices over critical theory because I believe the function of the ruined University lies more with ethics than with epistemology, acting than thinking, community processes than individual scholarship.

Posted in blogging, rhetoric, rickert, theory | Comments Off on Reflections: Rickert’s Acts of Enjoyment

Courtesy of XKCD

Posted in xkcd | Comments Off on Courtesy of XKCD

A Not-So-Sophistical Defense for Going for It

First of all, congratulations to the Colts for an amazing second-half. They played better and they won the game. And they don’t deserve the criticism that “Belichick handed them the win.”

  1. How often are coaches criticized for “coaching not to lose”? For being too conservative? Last night was an aggressive call, no doubt. But it was a call to win the game when you had your hands on it. Let’s face it, this isn’t like the Patriot SB teams that win with defense. When this team beats you, the ball is in Brady’s hands.
  2. Those who have read Halberstam’s excellent Education of a Coach will remember that it has a dedicated discussion of going for it on 4th down. In short, academic statistical analysis supports the idea that coaches should go for it on 4th down every time they have 4th and short. They should go for it on 4th down every time they are across their own 40. Statistically, the possible reward of keeping the football is worth any risk. Essentially, going for it on 4th down isn’t a matter of overcoming difficulty on the field as much as overcoming the psychological and cultural perception of going for it on 4th down. Yeah, its a rhetorical thing.
  3. The Patriots hadn’t put the running back in motion to create an empty backfield all night. Remember that the play in theory worked–Faulk was open and caught the ball beyond the first down marker. However, in practice, he juggled it and lost forward progress. These things happen. But saving the running back quick out (matched up on an inside linebacker, I believe) for when you really need it is the kind of things that the hoodie does. Once again, the human element and the statistical/theoretical element might be in conflict here–but that doesn’t mean that going for it wasn’t the right decision.
  4. As far as Belichick having to apologize to his defense, I think this needs to be revised: the defense has to apologize to the offense. The offense spotted the Colts a 24-7 lead. In the second half of that game, the defense played the roll of butter, Peyton Manning and Reggie Wayne the roll of hot knife.
  5. Finally, I think Belichick had visions back to the 2006 Playoff game. Remember that the Pats blew a 21-6 halftime lead in that game. Remember, too, that Belichick called the game conservatively in the fourth quarter–I do think that ghost showed up in the 4th quarter last night.

Was I surprised to see the call last night? Not really. Not as someone who has watched Patriot games for the past decade. The Patriots have always played to win the game. Last night, they just came up a foot short when they really needed it. And, oh, by the way, did anyone notice how the defense failed to even make Peyton Manning blink on that final drive? That’s why you go for it on 4th down. You play (call) to win the game.

Posted in football, pats, rhetoric | Comments Off on A Not-So-Sophistical Defense for Going for It