"Unconditional Love"

After all that seriousness, a little hockey levity.

This is what happens when a Pennsylvania Girl Marries a Michigan boy.

This is my mother-in-law, Suzanne, my father-in-law, Bob, and my kids, Anya and Gideon, ready for Game 5.

Cheers!

It weighs heavy . . .

"So Right It's Wrong"
The ten conservative women Cimbalo, ostensibly speaking for men-in-the-collective, would like to "hate-fuck."

Excuse me?

I don't know how to approach this subject, as sickened as I am about it. Nothing I could say, really, negates the brutality and depravity of Guy Cimbalo's recent piece for Playboy. Fortunately, others--whose words do not stick in their throats in a sickening, suffocating mass as they negotiate such blatant flagitiousness--have said what I cannot.

Megan at Jezabel writes,

it's not as if Cimbalo does anything in his piece but slag on these women for having the audacity to be attractive, conservative, opinionated and loud about those opinions.

Chip Hanlon writes for The Huffington Post (via AlterNet),

We all know that many good people on both sides of the aisle never consider entering the political arena because the brutal, personal nature of political attacks makes them think to themselves, 'why bother?' Well, it's not hard to imagine an article like this possibly having a chilling affect on some woman out there who might be thinking of running for office herself.

[. . .] condemn this grotesque Playboy article on the basis that it might have just such an impact on a woman who could make a difference.

There are, in fact, many such discussions circulating about Cimbalo's piece and the decision by Playboy to not only post, but promote, this vile rhetoric that I really need not say much; however, I'm not so sure I applaud Playboy's decision to remove the piece from its site, and here's why:

Cimbalo's piece represents an insidious and terrifying reality that must be called out. Language is bound to thought and to action. Forcing such horrifying inclinations and deeply embedded assumptions into hiding does little to address the real problems: first, that these unspeakable perceptions exist at all and, second, they pose a legitimate threat that compromises the integrity of a moral society.

Stanley Cup Redux

Gosh, like last year, I'm so torn.

First, I am both a Penguins fan AND a Red Wings fan--and yes: one can be both.

Last year, I picked Detroit for the win; this year, I picked the Pens . . . but I have to admit that it is tough to back a team who behaves so poorly.



Straighten up, Pens. Keep your cool. Save the heat for legitimate play: with a little discipline, you could be--dare I say it?--a worthy opponent for the Wings.


Related: Jeff Passan's Yahoo! Sports critique of the NHL is worth a look.

What I Have to Show . . .

D-I-double S-E-R-T-A-T-I-O-N
Should have based my study on Ralph Ellison
Or maybe I just should have stayed in medicine . . .

D-I-double S-E-R-T-A-T-E
It’s a word-- have you heard?--
guaranteed to perturb
It’s Dissertate! for me.

D-I-double S-E-R-T-A-T-I-O-N
Though I really kinda dig the theory
Foucault and Derrida can make me weary.

D-I-double S-E-R-T-A-T-E
Writer’s block, watch the clock,
Read a little more of Locke.
It’s Dissertate! for me.

One more time!

D-I-double S-E-R-T-A-T-I-O-N
Who knew it could inspire such self-loathing?
(Oh, suck it up and quit your damn bemoaning.)

D-I-double S-E-R-T-A-T-E
It’s the path that I chose,
Now I’m off to compose . . .
It’s Dissertate! for me.


Okay, so now that that's out of the way . . .

Cross-Checking: A Lesson in Semantics

In hockey, it's a penalty.

In engraving, it's a necessity.

Case in point: today's Wall Street Journal piece, "The Stanley Cup Could Use an Editor" by Reed Albergotti investigates the fascinating and, as blogger Puck Daddy (Greg Wyshynski) put it, "unintentionally hilarious" errors that have been engraved into the Cup over the last 117 years. Frankly, I'm really impressed that they continue to stamp the thing by hand; now that's craftsmanship.

Still, some of the errors--but especially the, uh, shorthand notations--that appear on the Cup are worth perusing, whether you are a hockey fan or not. One that had me laughing like a ten-year-old boy: the entry for the 1944-1945 champions, the Toronto Maple Leafs. Allow me to draw your attention to poor F.J. Selke (line four) and Arc Campbell (line six):


Ah, semantics. It is amazing the difference context makes.

Communities of Discourse . . . In the Community

I have the good fortune to count among my good friends two colleagues, Dr. William Bradley and soon-to-be-Dr. Heidi Stevenson, whose intelligence is rivaled only by their sense(s) of humor. Witty, thoughtful, ethical, and fair, Bill and Heidi consistently command my attention and respect, and I can always count on them for exceptional conversations—from the inane to the profound. That is why, spurred by a conversation we began on facebook this morning and at Bill’s suggestion, I have decided to post this entry.

A recent news item profiled a teacher in Milwaukee who, after finding graffiti adorning public property in her community, decided to ‘fight back’ by posting red flyers critiquing the graffiti artist’s/ perpetrator’s (depending on your stance) grammar. The story, appearing in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has already been taken up by numerous other news outlets. For those of us with an investment in composition and rhetoric, as well as in education, Beth Biskobing—the teacher in question—misses the mark, as well as an important teaching opportunity.

As Heidi noted when she posted the story to her profile, “This woman has no concept of the term ‘discourse community.’” And this is where the conversation begins. What follows is a compilation, in part, of our conversation:

C: Hahahaha . . . imagine a world where graffiti employs 'proper, correct' English grammar!

Still, I kinda dig her for bringing graffiti in to her class and "geekifying" it. At least she is, inherently, showing how language may employ different conventions and works in different contexts--even if she doesn't explicitly address it as such.

H: That's the part that bugs me--not explicitly addressing the fact that her "proper" grammar is only proper and functional in a very specific context--and don't get me started on her lack of discussion of why or how it's proper. The critical pedagogue part of me bristles at the thought of this. The ecocompositionist part of me shakes her head and sighs. All that said, the thought of graffiti written in academic, "Standard English" is pretty funny.

C: Well, true. But it's a start, right? Just another reason I would love to see more conversations between K-12 educators and Comp/Rhet scholars: I understand that primary and secondary educators have different constraints, but so much of the pedagogy—especially secondary pedagogy—seems to ignore the research in the field. As you point out, and as this teacher's exercise shows, such research is certainly relevant to primary and secondary teaching practice. It is a conversation worth having . . . and a fun lesson, to boot.

B: [posting a slightly different version of the same news story to his profile:] I can agree that the question "Where da bitches at?" is offensive, but it's not because it ends with a preposition, for God's sake. I can't imagine that this type of pedantic arrogance serves any purpose other than making the teacher herself feel smug. Hey, fellow English teachers? THIS is why students hate us. Just sayin', is all.

[. . .] this version (which is a bit longer [. . .] has some fairly obnoxious quotes from the teacher). I've never met this woman, but I feel quite confident I know her. You know what I mean? As you said, this is a woman who has never even heard the phrase "discourse community"-- instead, she's just convinced that "black people speak incorrectly." And, again, the misogyny in the question isn't even discussed, really (except for the too-precious-for-words "bitches are female dogs, betcha didn't know that, tee-hee!"). But then again, this isn't about having a teachable moment-- it's about grammatical shaming.

H: Yep. She's "smart," and she'll never let anyone forget it. It's sad to see that as the guiding principle behind a person's teaching.

C:The posting of flyers is a bit much, no? Ever the Pollyanna, I tried to make lemonade out of this, but there is so much more than a fine line between a 'teaching moment' and, as you say, Bill, pedantic arrogance.

But hey--why should K-12 teachers worry themselves about little things like discourse communities and understanding how and why particular conventions develop within them? Why bother with such nuisances as cultural assumptions? Why contextualize when one can boil everything down to right and wrong? After all, isn't it our job--as post-secondary instructors--to debunk such myths? That is what we do in FYC, right? Otherwise, what might we teach?*

Guess the coffee kicked in. Where I fist saw potential, a step toward having such discussions in the K-12 classrooms, now I'm just annoyed.

What a lost opportunity. It is one thing to bring the graffiti into the classroom to discuss it; it is quite another to ignore its context and post flyers in the community that, in essence, state "I know more than you." Foolish. Rude. Faulty.

But I still see it as a teaching moment—for her.

H: It has potential--just quite possibly lost potential, and that makes me sad. It could have been an introduction to the issue I brought up in regards to your link this morning--academic and public writing. It could have been a moment in which that teacher helped her students understand that people whose writing deviates from the academic norm are wrong, or stupid . . .it just seems like she ignored that opportunity and did the exact opposite.

B: [I’ll] just add—all joking aside—that I think you and Heidi are absolutely right when you talk about this being a teachable moment for her. This could have been an opportunity to discuss discourse communities-- hell, she could have even taken the opportunity to explain the value in being fluent in more than one discourse, because there are people out there who believe "academic=correct" and "urban slang=incorrect." But instead she just posted these cutesy little signs berating the vandal (and, coincidentally, creating an even more irritating eyesore for her neighborhood) for his "errors."

I also think that there might have been a useful conversation about the term "bitches" among urban youth to describe women in general, and to ask about the possessive assumptions that underlie the question of "where they at?" There's legitimate ignorance to criticize in this discourse community, but the problem isn't that their English doesn't always sound like mine.

So what? Well, only that here you have the informal conversation of three people deeply invested in education and language who are troubled by Beth Biskobing’s ‘rebuttal.’ Her actions serve little purpose and offer nothing of real substance to the situation. This was an opportunity rich with potential—for discussing language, rhetoric, communities of discourse, cultural assumptions, exigence (i.e. what might have compelled the agent to act?), kairos (at that time), and all the other elements of a rhetorical situation (see Bitzer)—so many possibilities presented to this teacher of language.

In short, Biskobing missed an opportunity to teach—and even understand—the relationship between critical thinking and language.

Instead, Biskobing wields her ‘learning’ as a weapon, ignoring the fact that language is situated, that rules and conventions are only appropriate and useful in a particular and unique context, and that correctness is determined by the entirety of a rhetorical situation, one that is informed by a complex web of cultural meaning. With her action, completely devoid of rhetorical awareness, she merely capitalized on an opportunity to “show off’ her mad grammatical skills


. . . or might that be ‘skilz.’

A Model Republican

From Janie Lorber's piece in the New York Times, yesterday:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday that he preferred Rush Limbaugh’s brand of conservatism to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s [. . . more]

My prediction: we will soon see a shift in the battle, not over what the party stands for or who among us 'bears the standard,' but who--which subgroup within the GOP--will get to call themselves "Republican" and who will constitute something . . . else. Trouble is, factions on all sides of the chasm(s) are brand loyal, so none will give up without a fight.

I certainly know who I hope carries the day, and let's just say I'm disinclined to allow a radio personality to lead a political party--that blurs the line between pop culture and governance too much for my taste.