Obligatory Post from a Sophistic Baseball Fan

Posted on February 14, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

[A little context: last week I used a series of ESPN articles in a workshop on direct quoting, hence the sometimes forced references. I think the workshop was successful, however.]

Dear Commissioner Selig,

I understand in the wake of recent news the desire to punish Alex Rodriguez and to strike his name from the records. I understand the desire to cleanse baseball.

I understand writers such as Mark Fainaru-Wada and T.J. Quinn discrediting Alex’s testimony on the grounds that he had to know what he was taking. Perhaps they, along with Gene Wojciechowski and Rob Neyer and countless others, are right: Alex is still holding back on us. He hasn’t told us the whole truth. Perhaps he is even still lying to us.

But, in terms of records and punishment, please understand you do not have to punish Alex. The baseball media will do that for you. I am sure Hall of Fame Voter Pedro Gomez is not alone in his stance that “As a hall of fame voter… I know I have made up my mind that I will never vote for anyone I believe to have used PEDs.” Furthermore, as Gomez reports in “It’s only just begun for A-Rod,” he can expect harsh treatment on the road and at home, in front of suspicious, rough, and scorned Yankee fans. A suspension might be merciful on Alex at this point.

In the end, the desire to punish Alex extends from our own guilt, and an unspeakable desire to reprimand ourselves. All of us, baseball owners, executives, fans, and players are to blame for the willful ignorance necessary to produce the culture that Alex describes. As many commentators have argued, we will never know the extent to which performance enhancing drugs permeated the game. Let us not engage in a witchhunt. Let us not engage in revisionist history. Let us take responsibility for our own culpability, let us deal with a stained record-book, marked only by our guilt and disappointment. Let us allow this past to serve as a reminder that we need to work vigilantly to preserve baseball’s future. Let Alex return to the field to pursue those once hallowed records; let us all remember what we sanctioned.

Marc C. Santos

Posted in baseball, posthuman | Comments Off on Obligatory Post from a Sophistic Baseball Fan

“It is the opposite which is good for us”

Posted on February 11, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Because a certain someone keeps trying to shove Parmenides down your throat, I thought I’d share some Heraclitus. Thanks to Plato’s misunderstanding, most of us attribute to Heraclitus the trite paradoxical aphorism “you could not step twice into the same river.” But, as the Interent Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, Heraclitus’ phrasing can be translated as more sophistic and complex: “On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow.” For a river to exist as Word (as Being), there must be a constant movement (becoming) that betrays the rectitude of the written, graphic signifier (of course, this play of signifiers produces multiple translations). The play of existence not grounded in mere negativity, Parmenides distinction between static contemplation of “is” and “is not” (“On Nature” II). From the Encyclopedia’s explication:

There is an antithesis between ‘same’ and ‘other.’ The sentence says that different waters flow in rivers staying the same. In other words, though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same. Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the continued existence of other things.

The beauty isn’t anything that we can see. Beauty eclipses sensual experience. Sensual experience is the progeny of becoming’s imperfect, invisible union, a coming into Being. The beautiful mystery underlies the isness of is.

Perhaps it is fitting that Heraclitus now exists only in fragments.

And I feel obligated to admit that Heraclitus probably surpasses Plato in his elitism and disdain for the common cattle of everyday life (much of Plato’s allegory of the cave echoes the politics and characterizations of Heraclitus). But, hay, nobody is perfect.

Posted in rhetoric, sophistry, theory | Comments Off on “It is the opposite which is good for us”

Hearing what the Presidents Don’t Say

Posted on February 9, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Recently I have become enamored with the feed over at FlowingData, a collection of quality visualization projects. Today has several offerings, but I am most interested in Descry’s project “Their First Words,” which provides a searchable database of all inauguration speeches. The data is then presented in a proportional block-chart. Very smart, very slick.

Users can customize searches, and so I started with a simple search for “race|racism.” The results surprised me a bit, but perhaps they shouldn’t have. Before Rutherford B. Hayes, I could not find one use of the word (although the database spits back some results, the ones I examined highlight “race” as part of another word, such as “trace” or “embrace”). For the most part, before the Civil War, the word race was completely foreign to presidential inaugurations. When Pierce uses it in 1853, it clearly means privileged, white males:

“With the Union my best and dearest earthly hopes are entwined. Without it what are we individually or collectively? What becomes of the noblest field ever opened for the advancement of our race in religion, in government, in the arts, and in all that dignifies and adorns mankind?”

For the record, Obama used the phrase only once:

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

Obama’s passage seems to realize the hope of Hayes so many years before:

With respect to the two distinct races whose peculiar relations to each other have brought upon us the deplorable complications and perplexities which exist in those States, it must be a government which guards the interests of both races carefully and equally. […]

In the effort I shall make to accomplish this purpose I ask the cordial cooperation of all who cherish an interest in the welfare of the country, trusting that party ties and the prejudice of race will be freely surrendered in behalf of the great purpose to be accomplished.

I think Hayes would be happy.

But then I tried another search: for “gay.” Nothing. “Homosexual.” Not a single response. “Same-sex.” Nope. If my little supposition is right, and American interest and empathy can be somehow related to the president’s inaugural speeches, then perhaps we can see why things like Proposition 8 aren’t passing. And I don’t foresee a Civil War coming this time to force the issue. So the question, for those of us who care about this issue, is how to press these issues into language–how to get those president’s talking. I am also wondering if we necessarily want to get these presidents talking. After all, the bible might have been used to support slavery, but I don’t think it makes any explicit proclamations. Homosexuality, on the other hand…

My last search was for “discrimination.” There were only 8 uses of this term in presidential history: 3 by Polk in 1845, 2 by Taft in 1909, 1 by Pierce 1853, 1 by Buchanan in 1857, and one by Reagan in 1981. While my “research” here is nothing more than an hour’s play online, I think this supports the fantasy that America has somehow solved the question of discrimination and equality. I mean, if we aren’t talking about it, then it doesn’t exist, right?

P.S., and I figure mxrk can have some fun with this: there is only one response for “racism.” Guess who?

Posted in gay-rights, politics, rhetoric | Comments Off on Hearing what the Presidents Don’t Say

Complaining as Art

Posted on February 4, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

I laughed so hard reading this letter to the president of Virgin airlines that people looked at me funny as they walked by my office. Totally worth it. Rumor has it the airline has offered him a job in culinary quality control. (via Coudal).

Posted in funny | Comments Off on Complaining as Art

Visual Metaphor: Walmart as a Disease

Posted on February 2, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

As if the choice of green was innocuous. In the previous century, when I was a snobbish New Englander, Walmart was an unholy place–a store chocking the life out of small, friendly businesses and full of the kind of people that hindered social progress.

Now, as a snobby, academic Floridian, I take Rowan to Walmart for fun. And for cheap coffee (they sell the Starbucks for like 6 bucks).

Anyway, go watch FlowingData’s map of Walmart’s growth. Via ZeFrank.

Posted in cool, zefrank | Comments Off on Visual Metaphor: Walmart as a Disease

More Baseball: Manny’s Market

Posted on January 31, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Its January 31st, 2009. Many sports fans will consider today the day before the Superbowl. But I’m from Boston, so I consider today 13 days until pitchers and catchers. If the Patriots aren’t in the playoffs, then its just the pre-baseball pre-season. This makes perfect sense to anyone from Boston.

With that in mind, here’s my third baseball post in as many days. After yesterday, I got to thinking about when Manny’s punishment would end. All along, I expected the Dodgers to throw down 3 years 60 million. But then, after looking up the Cardinals 2009 salaries, I looked at the Dodgers. Things aren’t looking good for Manny; the Dodgers are already floating 118 million, the highest in team history. Granted, they offered Manny 22.5 earlier this season, but that’s before giving Rafael Furcal 15.7 per season (which makes zero sense–a shortstop coming off injury with a career OPS of .764… yikes). They could still make the deal, but that jacks their salary figure to 2nd in baseball.

So, I did some digging. Here’s my list of teams most likely to sign the Man-ram:

  • Oakland A’s:
    An interesting home for Manny. A’s. Though payroll rarely exceeds 60 million (only twice since 2000), they are only around 47m going into the season. And Manny Ramirez and Matt Holiday would make a great back-to-back. However, they only have 18 established players on the 25 man roster, so they need depth. Still Ramirez would instantaneously make them a contender for the West. And while the big free agent is not Beane’s style, Manny is a sabermetrician’s dream.
  • Arizona Diamondbacks:
    Once upon a time, the Diamondbacks won a World Series and managed to keep their payroll between 80 and 103 million (2001-2003). Give a team with their pitching an actual run producer in one of baseball’s weakest divisions, and I smell Manny paying for himself. Their payroll rests around 67 million, so they could be a surprise player. If the Dodgers do sign Manny, then I think it will have been to keep him away from Arizona.
  • Florida Marlins:
    Don’t laugh. The Marlins payroll totals 22.7 million–and yes, Manny would likely make as much as the rest of their team. Manny Ramirez puts butts in the seats. I won’t say he pays for himself, but he does generate revenue and excitement. That’s two things that the attention starved Marlins could desperately use.
  • San Francisco Giants:
    I’m assuming they’ve had enough with aging diva sluggers, and that’s why they’ve been so quiet. But they have the need and the money to make this work. Their current salary is 14 million under the Barry years. But this team is so raw (or bad), that I don’t think one slugger would make a difference. And San Fran was one of the few franchises who have seen a great hitter this century. Chances are Barry’s blasts spoiled them–Manny wouldn’t be as appreciated as he was in LA.

There’s a few other teams out there who could take a shot–Minnesota and Cleveland could be in the mix. Thinking back to my baseball economy post, there’s hesitancy in this market to risk committing this much money to such an unstable player. On a side note–I feel bad for the Brewers. After so much mediocrity, they are really investing in their franchise. I hope the fans can afford to come out and support the team.

Posted in baseball, sports | Comments Off on More Baseball: Manny’s Market

A Little More Baseball: Manny to the Cards?

Posted on January 30, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Albert Pujols mentioned that he’d like the Cards to invest in Manny Ramirez. Looking at their lineup, one can see why. Pujols hasn’t had any real protection since the fade of Edmonds and the departure of Rolen. Ankiel faded last season (hitting well below .200 in both August and September), and expecting Glaus to play 162 requires crossing-fingers and sacrificing chickens. So, sure, the Cards could use another bat. And I would argue that Ramirez and Pujols are the two best right-handed hitters of my lifetime, and, perhaps, all-time. If you look at all the numbers, and not just home runs, then they are both better than that other guy.

But its not going to happen. If you look over at Cot’s Baseball Contracts, then you’ll see that the Cards salary is already at 99 million. Nothing suggests that the cards could afford Manny, even at a discount he’s going to command 20 million a year. And, the Cards second best hitter is likely Ryan Ludwick, their young left field prospect who OPS’d .966 last year (compared to Manny’s 1.041).

As I mentioned in my last post, Manny is in baseball purgatory. He is being punished for the second highest baseball crime: slacking (gambling, of course, is the worst). I honestly believe that if you could assure the Cardinals, or any team, that you’d get the Dodgers’ Manny (.396 .489 .743 OPS+ of 219), they’d offer Boras’ desired 6 years, 150 million in the time it took to grab a pen. But real life isn’t MLB: The Show. Manny’s Boston numbers last season (.299 .398 .529 OPS+ of 136) demonstrate that he will tank it if he is unhappy with his contract. And the very nature of this off-season ensures that, wherever he signs next season, he will be unhappy.

Hey, whoever, good luck with that.

Posted in baseball, sports | Comments Off on A Little More Baseball: Manny to the Cards?

Since Everyone is Talking about the Super Bowl, I’ll write about Baseball

Posted on January 29, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

I just read a story over at MLB.com on baseball economics this year. While some high profile players have received big deals, many major leaguers are feeling the pinch of our struggling economy. Some big names have settled for small money (Milton Bradley with the Cubs for 10 million a season, Pat Burrell with the Rays for 8 million). While the figures might not seem small, they compare to a baseball economy 2 and 3 years ago that saw anybody on an all-star roster earning 15 million a season (above average guys like Johnny Damon, Mike Lowell, J.D. Drew and Alfonso Soriano come to mind). We’re not talking about the superstar, “can’t go to the bathroom or I’ll miss his at bat” guys, but rather the quality, impact starters that fall just below that threshold.

But even those guys are feeling it this year. Jason Varitek is expected to see his pay reduced in half after one poor season. Bobby Abreau, a formidable OPS guy, can’t find a long-term deal. Neither can Adam Dunn, one of my favorite players to watch (and someone who hits balls somewhere in the vicinity of Venus). I’ll leave Manny out of this right now since I think his lack of contract is a baseball penance… The pinch is everywhere. Teams in baseball aren’t necessarily trying to “win” this year–they are trying to survive. You’ll see a lot of minor leaguers filling out major league rosters this year, while a few veterans with fuel in their tanks sit home.

That got me to thinking that this is probably true across our whole country. We are all very much in a cultural atmosphere of survival. I wonder how the oppulance of the Superbowl will feel this year–if something pathetically won’t quite jive. I can say I don’t feel like celebrating anything. I also wonder how this attitude plays into Obama’s election–did we vote for him out of hope for a better future, or rather for the fact that he didn’t believe we were winning, that things weren’t right. Didn’t we need a leader to give us that kind of honesty? I would propose that we were not, as some critics might have us believe, deceived by a dream; we were convinced by the nakedness of honest, self-directed criticism. Perhaps. We certainly did celebrate his election… could that have only been little more than a week ago?

The exception to my baseball analogy, of course, would be the Yankees, who spent around 440 million dollars in about 10 days. They are out there trying to win. But, I think I hate the Yankees as much as the rest of the country seems to hate Republicans, so lets not include them in that “everybody.”

Posted in baseball, politics, sports | Comments Off on Since Everyone is Talking about the Super Bowl, I’ll write about Baseball

On Thinking and Clarity

Posted on January 27, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

The following material is a response to Richard Lanham’s Style: An Anti-Textbook. I shared it with my expository students today. It relies on a ridiculous simplification. My use of the terms “rhetoric” and “composition” are completely idiosyncratic and reductionary.

I’ll write as preface that these remarks probably won’t be clear. And the reason they won’t be clear is that I’m thinking. Or, perhaps I should say, I am still thinking, and thinking doesn’t tend to sit still. What I’m reacting to is Lanham’s question “Does clear writing really make for clear thinking?” And, while my thoughts are conflicted, they go something like this:

Clear thinking isn’t necessarily representative of quality thinking. Thinking is messy and conflicted. In fact, when it comes to teaching, we often must choose to teach either thinking or clarity. As a teacher, when I think of clarity and Freshman Composition I think of assignments such as “what did you do on your summer vacation?” Because the question is insipid, students can focus on the expression, the clarity, without any thinking getting in the way. If you want to teach clarity [prose], then you can’t teach thinking.

Thinking back (uh oh) to an earlier lecture, I discussed the principle canons of rhetoric germane to an Expository Writing class: invention, arrangement, and style. Rhetoric (as a pedagogic discipline) primarily concerns itself with invention—generating ideas. Composition primarily concerns itself with style—communicating those ideas. Arrangement gets caught between the two: for rhetoric, awareness of generic (and in genre) forms can help stimulate invention; for composition awareness of structure can facilitate communication.

So, thinking of this class, I hope you see that the emphasis is on Composition. All our work engaging a network is to help you generate ideas. And allowing you to choose your own area of interest is to “limit” your thinking (is this true? I don’t know). Let me explain: last semester I taught this same course on the history of education. Students needed to compare and contrast Plato’s allegory of the cave with Cicero’s analogy of the healthy civic body as regards the purpose of higher education. This was a course on approaching complex, messy ideas. And relating them. And, as expected, the writing was messy.

Now I’m toning down the reading list. In fact, I am essentially allowing you to generate your own weekly reading lists (is Lanham right? Do you read?). But I don’t think I am necessarily teaching clarity. I haven’t used that word yet. And, as a deconstructionist, I abhor simplicity (simplicity and certainty always mask complexity and doubt). This aversion to simplicity goes along with my aversion to teaching writing in favor of the possibility of exposing W-R-I-T-I-N-G. But I wrote about that here.

See. I knew this wouldn’t end clearly.

Posted in digital-citizenship, lanham, lecture-notes, rhetoric, teaching | Comments Off on On Thinking and Clarity

We Might Overcome, Maybe, If We Really Work at It

Posted on January 22, 2009 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

As I wrote over at Black Masks the other day, all of the Obama love has my deconstructive sense tingling. I think I’ll let Ill Doctrine offer my hesitation:

The work is never finished. This theme has been rearing its head everywhere in my life recently: research (Levinas and the relation to the other as saying rather than said), teaching (Jim Corder and Burke on interminable social relations as the foundation for blogging), and, well, I guess I only have two facets to my life. Oh, well, there’s that cancer thing. That seems pretty interminable as well.

Posted in politics, politics. theory-in-practice, rhetoric | Comments Off on We Might Overcome, Maybe, If We Really Work at It