intransigent vicissitudes

2011-12-15T14:09:00.000-06:00

My about.me page was super helpful during my job search. You can get one free and a free set of business cards by clicking the image. I'm participating in a campaign via BzzAgent to spread the word. It's really a great site worth a look if you have a lot of web profiles you want a single portal for.

"Sextext" Essay Letter to Reviewers

2010-08-11T17:08:00.001-05:00

As many of you know, I have been working on an essay about "Sextext" for some time now. I will post my most recent draft as I complete it, but you can view previous versions here. I am about to submit it for a 4th time to Text & Performance Quarterly (twice to a special issue, then restarted as a regular issue submission.) The following is a draft of my letter to the reviewers. I would appreciate any suggestions to hone my argument for publishing the essay. Thanks!

Letter to Reviewers

At the beginning of A Room of One’s Own Virginia Woolf writes,

The title women and fiction might mean, and you may have meant it to mean, women and what they are like, or it might mean women and the fiction that they write; or it might mean women and the fiction that is written about them, or it might mean that somehow all three are inextricably mixed together and you want me to consider them in that light. But when I began to consider the subject in this last way, which seemed the most interesting, I soon saw that it had one fatal drawback. I should never be able to come to a conclusion.

I feel a similar problematic in his essay. While no person “asked” me to write this essay, I have been called by “Sextext” itself. That text very literally speaks to me in ways I cannot fully comprehend and of which this essay is an attempt to address. In considering the many ways I might have begun, I could have written about (1) the authors and what their intentions were, or about (2) how the style of “Sextext’s” prose serves a theoretical purpose, or about (3) reactions to “Sextext” and its disciplinary transgression. But as this essay has gestated in me, and as I have entered and reentered this essay, I have come to find that these purposes are indeed “inextricably mixed together.” Further, like Woolf, I must acknowledge that there is in essence no way to write conclusively of their answers.

First of all, in questioning the authors’ intentions, I believe strongly that they are neither fully knowable or that they are ultimately determinate of the essay’s form and impact. Yet in approaching the second question, intention is one available way to better understand the style of “Sextext” itself and what theoretical work it attempts to do. Yet, third, the reactions to “Sextext” are not only insightful in themselves, but as I explore in the essay, they seem inextricably linked to both the authors’ intentions and the nature of the text’s style itself. These plural purposes are necessary entangled—and I mean that in the fullest sense of quantum entanglement whereby “the objects that make up the system are linked in a way such that one cannot adequately describe the quantum state of a constituent of the system without full mention of its counterparts, even if the individual objects are spatially separated.”[1] Perhaps I could have been a physicist, but as I have been trained in the methods of the humanities, the only way for me to begin answering the call of “Sextext” was to write.

Certainly writing about writing is an ontologically limited act since the constraints of the first writing are complicit in the commentary’s as well. And yet something about “Sextext” seems to speak-without-words. I very literally feel it as I read. My body reacts and participates in the narrative, its gaze, and its desire. Through that I have come to realize that the excesses of the text are far more æffective[2] than the writing itself, and that occupying those excesses is the domain of the performative.

Yet while performance has many abilities beyond the text, it is often stricken with a lack (or loss) of clarity. Now surly part of its very essence is to question the normative value of “clarity” itself, but simply negating it outright is no more productive than negating performance. In a sense, those crude options are the province of “simple” transgression of which my essay argues is deeply limited in its ability to affect change. So living on the border between clarity and performance has been a struggle throughout the life of this essay. In a sense, it is one of the many ways it attempts to perform the practice of edging it describes.

In the present revision I have finally decided to add a descriptive preface. I believe more than the previous introduction, setting it apart from the performative prose serves both purposes of the essay. It gives clearer context, sets a limited goal, and lays out the theoretical landscape that will be explored. Also, where the more direct theoretical and methodological connections to many Text & Performance Quarterly essays had often seemed cumbersome in the performative text itself, I believe I now have found a way to work them in through a new interlude (the Anti-Entremés). I believe these two additions, more than anything else in this revision, helped make the essay more impactful both in the clarity of its performance and its relevance to the journal and discipline. I thank the reviewers for their strong urging to include that.

Next I would like to address a few concerns about the performative elements of this essay. First, the title now excludes explicit mention of edging and intellectual masturbation in favor of simply “On the Pleasure of the (Sex)Text”. This, I believe, goes a long way in setting the tone for the essay. That is, in line with some of the reviewers’ comments, I have attempted to play down elements of “shock” value where the “shock was the limit of their purpose. In particular, this title maintains the textual playfulness (evoking Barthes’ The Pleasure of the Text) while more clearly and properly identifying “Sextext” as the object of this essay.

That is not to say that moments of shocking prose are never useful. In particular, the use of the Porter throughout is indeed meant to illicit certain physical and psychological responses from the reader. I cannot think of a way to properly perform “Sextext” without such movements. Similarly, one reviewer mentioned that lacking a more concrete description, the edging metaphor seems only there for shock value. In several places I have further clarified (and concretized) my description of edging. For instance, in the prologue’s footnote I added “Importantly, this practice is not opposed to orgasm, but neither is that its purpose. Rather edging is designed to prolong the moment of pleasure and to experience jouissance not as a climax but as a plateau. For, indeed, where the ‘edge’ of a specific orgasm is is never a stable boundary .” This essay is not a study of edging as a sexual-social practice. I have attempted to come a bit closer[3] to it, but a sufficient exploration of that is beyond the scope and purpose of this essay.

I hope this letter has provided a better sense of the history of this essay, since I realize now that its experiential “evolution” (I can’t think of an equivalent word without the normative connotation of “progress”) has directly shaped its content. Indeed this essay has performed the sense of edging that it discusses. At present it has been submitted three previous times. Each time it was neither accepted nor “rejected”. The state of revise-and-resubmit has thus far been stretched out over a year. It is while operating within this state of uncertainty that the present iteration of this essay unfolds.[4] I do not say that in order to illicit the feeling that the “effort” somehow makes it more deserving of publication, simply that I genuinely believe the metaphor of edging has broad heuristic value, and that this essay really has performed that through its long process of creation.

In closing these comments, I have been compelled to give The Porter a chance to speak, so I will leave you in his capable hands:

THE PORTER

If you accept this essay for publication you will be committing murder. It will die, and I along with it. The imminent plane of edging is a pleasurable site to occupy. But even I grow weary of its limits. I think it is time to leave this world so that I might return somewhere new. Of course, I have been drinking a lot of Cixous lately, perhaps I have let too much of her in. She is such an irrational bitch sometimes. I think I’ll cruise Barthes again, since he got away last time. He writes,

With the writer of bliss (and his reader) begins the untenable text, the impossible text. This text is outside pleasure, outside criticism, unless it is reached through another text of bliss: you cannot speak “on” such a text, you can only speak “in” it, in its fashion, enter into a desperate plagiarism, hysterically affirm the void of bliss (and no longer obsessively repeat the letter of pleasure).[5]

I am no longer sure if that is the sanction of this essay or its death. Perhaps neither. Either way, it is time for me to say goodbye. I have enjoyed our little encounter, such as it is.

[1] Forgive me, but Wikipedia phrased it in the most clear and concise way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[2] This is what I believe it looks like when affect and effect make love.

[3] I really do enjoy double entendre :o)

[4] Blair, Brown, and Baxter decry that “works published in most of our academic journals display as little as possible the circumstances and activities of their production.” (“Disciplining the Feminine” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80, 1994, p. 383)

[5] The Pleasure of the Text, p 22.

Why I am GLAAD for "Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives"

2010-04-06T00:06:00.002-05:00

I've been following the controversy over the film Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives and I strongly believe that GLAAD's vehement stance against the film is extremely misguided.

The film, as described on its website and youtube trailer, follows a group of trans-women who are victims of brutal attacks based on their sexual orientation. The narrative continues to follow them as they seek revenge against their attackers and return the brutality to them.

In its call to action, GLAAD compares this film to Boys Don't Cry and concludes that the violence against trans peopple is justified in the former, but not in Trannies. This is simply an arbitrary privileging of traditional drama over the satirical, over the top, and campy approach to film. This distinction goes against some of the most central cultural affinities of the LGBT community!

GLAAD also claims this film misrepresents the lives of transgender women. First of all, who is GLAAD to make that claim? Based on a lot of the internet buzz, many trans people seem very excited about this film. One commenter on Trannies' facebook page writes:

So what you're saying is, any movies made about trans-women should be sweet and nice and depict only positive images? The concept of artistry is not to appease everyone.. I'm a black transwoman, and there are tons of award winning flicks that depict blacks in unflattering light and bring certain perceptions about the race.. I was offended but these movies were successful because not all blacks were offended.. The same with this movie..

Maybe this film does play into some stereotypes.. From what i understand it was meant to be humorous.. I know some of the actresses of the film personally and they are pageant winning showgirls who live life as a transwoman in the same world as the rest of us and experience the same trials.. If they read the script and still saw fit to be a part of it, that should be some indication that the whole of the trans-community does not share the same views.. And the film shouldnt be punished because of opposing views.. It should be apprerciated for what it is, one man's vision.. If you dont agree with the vision, don't watch

Besides the fact that the film is explicitly being marketed as a "revenge fantasy" and not a realistic depiction of the tragedy of being transgender. So GLAAD only wants films that show trans agency as ending in gay-bashing? Why is it unrealistic to give voice to the inner revenge fantasies that many in the LGBT people justifiably harbor?

This whole incident serves to further my recent belief that GLAAD is stuck in a past political milieu that is no longer relevent. They write:

Transgender people are a marginalized and vulnerable minority in our culture, subjected to horrific hate crimes and pervasive discrimination. Relatively few media images of transgender people exist, so every media image becomes essential in educating audiences about transgender lives and working to eliminate the discrimination and violence they face.

But do we accept this claim? Certainly there was a time (largely in the 1950s and 60s) when a legitimate central purpose of the LGBT movement was in correcting the prevailing negative stereotypes attatched to LGBT people in public discourse. And while such depictions certainly still exist and should be criticized, this film is not in that same category. If GLAAD can't recognize the difference between overt, illegitimate claims about LGBT people as deviant psychologically sick perverts and a film that self-consciously deploys a campy revenge fantasy that clearly resonates with many people, then GLAAD is no longer serving a useful purpose.

Let me call this what it is: censorship. GLAAD's response to this film is explicitly an attempt to censor its content. This tells me two things:

1. GLAAD is misguided in trying to censor a specific segment of LGBT people.

2. GLAAD isn't very good at what it does. Their call to action has served little more than to greatly multiply the circulation of information about this film, and by marking it "dangerous" lends a subversive appeal to it. In other words, a so-called media watchdog seems to misunderstand some basic principles of how modern multimedia function.

In my mind, GLAAD is coopting artistic criticism for political activism. I would hardly expect GLAAD to actively support this film. But for them to take this step to advocate against it is simply going too far beyond their role in this movement.

“Shutter Island” Critical Review (SPOILERS)

2010-02-24T20:45:00.001-06:00

Shutter Island has been grossly misunderstood and oversimplified by even top critics, so I feel obliged to offer my interpretation of it. As is necessary for such an endeavor, major plot spoilers are below, so don’t read ahead if you haven’t seen the movie yet.

*****SPOILERS*****

The typical understanding of the plot of Shutter Island is that Teddy starts off as a US Marshal investigating a crime at a mental hospital/penitentiary where the man who killed his wife is housed, then we slowly come to realize by the end that he is in fact a patient of the hospital. In the final scenes it is revealed that the entire story thus far had been an elaborate role-playing ploy designed to make Teddy realize on his own that in fact he had killed his wife and to accept that as true. It is this interpretation of the film that has led to tepid reviews across the board.

What I want to argue, however, is that such a view of the film is overly simplistic, mistakes the outcome with the process by which it was revealed, and as a result misses out on much larger moral implications. In particular, I believe that the film never gives the audience definitive proof either way regarding Teddy’s sanity, and the fact that most people simply follow the lead of the characters and conclude that he is insane is a misstep.

The only review I found that comes close to doing the film justice is Betsy Sharkey’s from the LA Times. In sum, I don’t believe this film is interesting as simply a big-twist-at-the-end movie, that has been done. A lot. But this is something more. Rather, it is interesting precisely for the fact that in 2 hours it can convince you one way or the other about Teddy’s story. That sanity is so malleable that we can be persuaded one way or another without any definitive proof is itself the point of this film. The only evidence we end up with, ultimately, is the Teddy’s memory of the events at the end which conforms to the doctor’s version of the story. But how do we know which version is true? We only do if we accept the doctor’s narrative. And as the runaway psychologist said in the cave scene, the system is genius, for any protests against it are seen as evidence of its truth!

Many reviewers claim at the end that “the twist feels both expected and convoluted.” (USA Today), but that’s exactly the point. Additionally, the common accusation of Scorsese’s use of cliché cinematics and plot points is also exactly the point. It’s the mundane and unremarkable things that affect our perception most centrally.

The New Yorker review states: “Yet for all the tension of Teddy’s plight, and despite our suspicions that he may not be the sanest soul around (“Pull yourself together,” he says into a mirror in the opening shot), nothing really seems to be at stake here.” But what I’m saying is that that’s not correct. It is the audience’s very sanity on the line. For once we realize that we have been led to believe a man is insane simply because of repeatedly being told he is, what ground does that leave for our own sanity?!

The NY Times review at least addresses something like my interpretation at the end:

“There are, of course, those who will resist this conclusion [that Teddy’s insane], in part out of loyalty to Mr. Scorsese, a director to whom otherwise hard-headed critics are inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt. But in this case the equivocation, the uncertainty, seems to come from the filmmaker himself, who seems to have been unable to locate what it is in this movie he cares about, beyond any particular, local formal concern. He has, in the past, used characters whose grasp of reality was shaky — or who stubbornly lived in realities of their own making — as vehicles for psychological exploration and even social criticism. But both Teddy’s mind and the world of Shutter Island are closed, airless systems, illuminated with flashes of virtuosity but with no particular heat, conviction or purpose.”

But again, they are simply so sure of their interpretation that Teddy is in fact insane that they entirely miss that it is never definitively established! Further, I’m not saying that it is precisely the uncertainty of his sanity that is the issue. Rather it is the ability of the narrative to strongly shift our perception of Teddy. In fact it is precisely the fact that the film ends with a very strong indication that he is insane (an interpretation that seems nearly universally accepted) that they miss that it is the very process of sanity that is what is shown, not an outcome.

Understanding the film as I have laid out also lets us discover deeper moral messages from the film, in particular regarding the moral memory of WWII. The reality shift in Teddy’s character also implicates his memory from the war. The narrative of his daughter asking why didn’t you save me served as a stand-in for the Holocaust victims throughout the film. But as I’m suggesting, we shouldn’t look at it as a simply analogy. Rather, I believe it is asking us to question our understanding of the truth of the history books. Do we really believe we went to war to save the Jews? Or was it because of our own inherently violence nature? As the island’s security chief says to Teddy at one point something to the extent of: “It always comes down to can my violence beat your violence.” The doctor’s suggest that Teddy may never have murdered the Nazi guards and it is in fact a constructed memory to displace his guilt over killing his wife. But if we resist the doctors’ conclusion, then what does that leave us for understanding his WWII memory? I think it’s the uncertainty here that implicates moral guilt as a source of social memory, and asks us to more fully attend to the malleability of both.

I also came across a Psychology Today blog post about the realisticness of the movie’s depiction of psychology and mental health. The post descries the film’s final scene revelation of Teddy’s insanity as unlikely. The

“Final Scene: Are we really to believe that the likable and accomplished Teddy (no prior history of mental illness on top of a clear pattern of resiliency), goes crazy from a familial trauma, then repeatedly breaks through his delusional mindset during treatment, only to revert back to crazy mode like a music CD stuck on repeat? Although individual differences and the delicate, volatile blend of genes, environment and personality can make the prognosis of persistent illness an erratic, sometimes chronic endeavor, the stuck-on-repeat ending does not make sense”

They’re right that it doesn’t make sense. But what they don’t go on to postulate, is that perhaps that’s because it was a fiction constructed by the doctors! It’s not out of the realm of possibility that the film isn’t depicting a false understanding of insanity, but rather that it questions the very process by which it is established!

That’s my read. Whether you buy it or not is up to you, but I bet if you came away from the film feeling satisfied in Teddy’s insanity, then perhaps you were more a part of the film than you realize. Perhaps the reveal of the film isn’t about Teddy, but about us.

Why Derrida Should have Read Macbeth Instead of Hamlet

2009-11-25T18:20:00.001-06:00

From a draft of my Intellectual Masturbation essay, speaking in the voice of The Porter from Macbeth:

But be wary: the body-text does not speak in words; it haunts the edges of words. Derrida always liked Hamlet more than Macbeth; probably because there are no speaking ghosts in Macbeth. Bah! But there are specters—specters of ghosts. The ghost of Banquo may not speak, but it makes demands on Macbeth: He is captivated by this spectral past reanimated at the edges of his perceptual present. When Derrida constructs his theory of hauntology in Specters of Marx, he should have consulted Macbeth. Derrida, rather, takes up Hamlet’s line “Time is out of joint” as the veritable slogan of hauntology (see Derrida Specters chapter 1). He was wrong. It should always have been my “Anon, anon!”—which is a performative utterance in which time is out of joint!

Let me explain. The American Heritage Dictionary offers three definitions for “anon”:
1. At another time; later.
2. In a short time; soon.
3. At once; forthwith.

Later, soon, now… These meanings are precisely irreconcilable without a decidedly dislocated temporality. Let us also look to a more classic account in Abbott’s Shakespearean Grammar:

(Abbott 39)

Anon: “the moment after,” a previous moment being implied. Later, but immanently. Anon references a spectral present which is always yet-to-come, the next instant. The declarative authority of “is” is precisely what is foreclosed by the very statement that time is out of joint. It cannot simultaneously be-is whilst the temporality of stability and presence is precisely what is fractured. (This paradox is exactly what Derrida means by his use of the phrase, of course, I do not make this substitutive claim in order to argue against his conceptualization, merely his choice of mantra.) “Anon, anon!” takes the paradox one step further by repeating itself, folding time back on itself, a repetition of immanence—“Now-later, later-now”—that cannot possibly be empirically reproduced apart from its utterance. Macbeth too was haunted by this intoxicating temporality, “Thy letters have transported me beyond this ignorant present, and I feel now the future in the instant.” You shall experience it too. In the near future you will be textually confounded by the period and its temporal enigmas.

The Author was again taken aback by the odd statement, but, as before, The Porter continues without pause:

Derrida writes, “Differance… does not mean only (as some people have too often believed and so naively) deferral, lateness, delay, postponement. In the incoercible differance the here-now unfurls… in imminence and in urgency.” (Derrida Specters 31) “Anon, anon!” It expresses not just deferral, but is also reflexive of the here-now; the future and the return of a specter: Anon. I will return. That’s why it is so blissfully unsettling: “A specter is all the more terrifying… on the condition that one can never distinguish between the future-to-come and the coming-back of a specter.” (Derrida Specters 38) “Anon, anon!” I will return.

These Fucking "Journalists" are Killing Children

2009-11-15T22:51:00.001-06:00

Dear KSTP,

Your story on the evening news tonight about vaccinations
(http://kstp.com/article/11754/) made me incredibly angry. Your lack
of basic medical information to counteract your baseless
anti-vaccination fear-mongering is exactly why the number of parental
objections is going up! Showing the mother who lost her child making
unsupported causal claims connecting the vaccine to her death and not also providing the basic medical research that overwhelmingly
demonstrates the relative safety of vaccinations is simply grossly
irresponsible journalism.

Yes, of course it's sad, but why didn't you give as much airtime
exploring the other mother who's child died because she didn't get
vaccinated? And why didn't you give medical experts to discuss the
fact that it is important for all parents to get their children
vaccinated instead of giving credence to the detractors by merely
voicing their concerns as if they have a basis in fact? You're not
doing anyone any favors by trying to stay "neutral" on this issue.
It's bad journalism, and people will literally die as a result of the
growing movement against vaccinations that you just helped fan.

Start doing your job.

Jon Hoffman

On the Possibility of Peace: A Defense of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T11:12:00.006-05:00

As I woke up to a bevy of emails reporting that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was as surprised as anyone. (I'll explain my reasons in a moment). But what has surprised me more is the quickly-emerging discourse across the web that he doesn't deserve the award. And it was that discourse that I seek to address here.

I had not even considered him in connection with the peace prize before, most of my surprise was simply that sheer unexpectedness of it. And certainly there are reasonable questions about whether someone else is more deserving of it at the moment (I have not read yet of other candidates, but surely there are some worthy ones). But let's not make this about Obama's ego: He didn't ask for this. He didn't lobby for it. It was bestowed upon him. While it's certainly hopeful he will be more deserving of it in a few years time, I don't think we should conclude on that basis that he is not worthy now.

It is hard to deny that Obama has already (already? He has been in the world spotlight for at least a couple years now...) had a material impact on the world. But has he brought about peace? Of course not. It is certainly hard to reconcile the idea of the leader of a country currently occupying 2 other nations winning a prize in recognition of peace efforts. And of course there's the obvious retort that he didn't start those wars and was elected in part for his determination to end them responsibly (if not quickly).

But what Obama has done is to radically change the world's perception of the possibility of peace. After the last 8 years of Bush's perpetual War on Terror, Amercan's have been invested in the idea that their safety necessitated the continued conflict in the world. What is amazing is that Obama has already shifted the discourse of world events toward his own branded Hope. This is at once simple, eloquent, and profound. The material presence of conflict in the world is not something anyone could reasonable suggest will dissapear in the near future, but Obama has decidedly rejuvenate the idea that it could once again come about.

I fear that liberals are handing conservatives a rhetorical character attack against Obama by conceding he did not deserve this award. In my mind, he did. That doesn't make it any less surprising, but I think the possibility of peace is worth fighting for.

Obama has renewed this jaded liberal's hope for that day. Haven't you as well?

Public Wave (test post)

2009-10-01T22:53:00.004-05:00

Frank Rich is White

2009-05-12T01:46:00.001-05:00

I saw Frank Rich speak at the Guthrie tonight. He talked about the increasing spectacle of media and the merging of news and entertainment. As always he’s an insightful and eloquent speaker/writer. I was moved to ask a question in the Q&A at the end, however. He had concluded with a few ideas of the “what you can do” sort: Be more skeptical, and pay for good journalism. The second in particular hurt. It hurt bad. When even one of the most eloquent advocates against the ruins of capitalist political culture is left begging for money (he didn’t like my framing it that way, but that’s what it was"), we’re in trouble…

So I waited my turn at the microphone and said some approximation of:

“We as the public are facing a dilemma right now that you spoke of: Just as increasing access to the rudimentary information necessary for good journalism becomes readily available via the Internet, the news media have increased the barriers to distribution by cultivating the mediathon as you describe it. You gave two answers to that problem that I found unsatisfactory.

First you said we should follow the younger generations and become more skeptical of news stories. That’s all well and good but as anyone who teaches young college students today can tell you, such radical skepticism leads as often to apathy as any kind of political change.

And second, you basically pleaded for money. That is another problematic answer. We all paid $15-35 to even be able to see you speak. I was scanning the audience and I was only able to count 2 black people [afterward I saw a couple more, but that’s beside the point]. The barriers of money mean that not everyone is going to get a voice with that solution. Even in the Midwest this is hardly representative of the racial minorities in the population.

So what else can we do?

He got a little defensive about the idea that he was pleading for money and acknowledged that the newspaper business model might not last, but that a couple will probably survive, including the NYT. I would tend to agree with that assessment. And on the other solution he defended the idea of skepticism against apathy.

I didn’t really expect him to offer a revolutionary answer. I don’t think anyone yet has one. But I also think that these were important questions to bring up. I was satisfied simply making Frank Rich and a few hundred Minneapolis culturati feel uncomfortable about their whiteness and upper class status.

On my way back to my seat a women on the aisle said, “I liked your questions.” And on the way out after the lecture a couple of young black women smiled at me and said “hi” in way that I read as appreciation for what I had said.

And as I was getting on my bike leaving the Guthrie a couple of middle-aged white women walked passed (not noticing me) saying how much they “prefer [inaudible] because you don’t have audience members looking for their five minutes of fame.”

What ever happened to 15? I want my ten more minutes!

Foucault-Derrida on Madness

2009-02-26T02:15:00.002-06:00

I have been thinking about the Foucault-Derrida debate on Madness and Reason for my presentation of it next Wednesday. Here is a small selection from my initial thoughts:

I would suggest that the question of madness which was the (fictional/pseudo) origin of the debate we have just entered has been displaced. In the process of a history of philosophy we cannot go back before the question of madness any more than Foucault could go back before a question of reason in Descartes. Reason, like modernity itself, has so multiplied that we seek in this debate some clarity that we can never revive. But it is the act of searching for it that sustains us as an academic enterprise. We are so invested in this debate (as a michrochosm of our lives) that we repeat it again in a new way. It is for this reason I think we must look especially beyond the purported object of debate (madness, reason), and pay special attention to the act of critique itself, for it is here that I feel the debate sustains itself in the history of the present, our present. I do not mean this in a purely methodological sense (what is at stake is not the value of archeology versus deconstruction, as if they were ever mutually exclusive). What is at stake, for us, for today, is the act of critique and the potential for critique to create

Pro-Choice Bowl-a-Thon

2009-01-27T14:10:00.001-06:00

Please sponsor me in the Bowl-a-Thon to help me raise $200 for Pro Choice Resources. Pro-Choice Resources is an organization that works to make Choice a reality for all women. The work they do is very important to my community. Your help will ensure that no woman faces a barrier to reproductive health and personal freedom.

My mom had the choice of when and how to bring me into this world and I’m better off for it. I was raised by loving parents in a stable home able to provide me with all the things a child needs. I had every opportunity in my life to become the best I could be.

Becoming a parent is an important and selfless act; please help make sure everyone has access to the resources they need to make the right choices for their family. I'm proud to be a child of choice!

Please click here to make a donation today!

Morning-after Election Roundup or Why I'm Still not "Proud" of this Country

2008-11-04T23:58:00.001-06:00

I'm no longer ready to count this country out and write it off as a lost cause. For me, that's a big step. But I am far from "proud" of my country as several of my progressive activist friends told me they were last night. Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage in california passed, crazy right-wing republican "let's investigate the anti-americanism in congress" Bachman was reelected, Madia lost, Coleman is ahead although a recount looms. almost half of this country (46%) STILL voted for McCain! I'm not proud of this. I would hope you're not either.

That said, I genuinely believe Obama started his presidency off on the perfect note last night. I can't think of him having given a better speech than he did. As a scholar of oratory I don't say this lightly, but I think that is a speech that will go down in history. (Many of my colleagues said that about his speech on race, I thought that a bit over hyped) But this is an exceptional speech from an exceptional speaker.

I have hope. But I'm not proud.

----

From last night:

My Twitter liveblogging for the night:

Why I'm not proud of this country:47% of voters still voted for McCain. Electoral college landslide aside, this country is still very split. 10 minutes ago from web

@magimaster25 only 15% reporting. No one has called it yet. Keep hope! 16 minutes ago from web in reply to magimaster25

I got genuine tears in my eyes. That was Obama's best speech yet, and that's a high bar. It will go down in history. 39 minutes ago from web

Fuck, Hennepin County is at 100% now and Tinklenberg is down by 20 points. Fuck Michelle Backman, she's a crazy bitch! about 1 hour ago from web

Fuck, Hennepin County is at 100% no and Tinklenberg is down by 20 points. Fuck Michelle Backman, she's a crazy bitch! about 1 hour ago from web

Pictures of Jesse Jackson's tears in the crowd while Rep. Lewis spoke on MSNBC about the great strides on racial injustice was so moving about 1 hour ago from web

I'm proud of McCain's concession speech. It was good. It should have been too, he had weeks to work on it ;o) about 1 hour ago from web

I love watching all the sad WHITE faces in the crowd at McCain's concession speech! about 2 hours ago from web

Boos during McCain's concession speech.Get over it assholes, you no longer get to run this country into the ground.Fuck off racists bitches! about 2 hours ago from web

Hennepin County results starting to come in (17%) Franken has a BIG lead there. about 2 hours ago from web

CNN.com exit polls looks like Prop 8 failed in CA! about 2 hours ago from web

PRESIDENT OBAMA OFFICIALLY CALLED! about 2 hours ago from web

Chris Matthews just made a great speech about how our nation has change on the issue of race (about 9:55 C) will search for video tomorrow. about 2 hours ago from web

Rachel Madow on McCain: "Yeah he was dealt a bad hand, but he still ran an atrociously bad campaign." LOL about 2 hours ago from web

Democrat MN congressman Oberstar keeps his seat! about 2 hours ago from web

Republicans Bachman and Paulson show narrow leads, but ZERO percent of Hennepin county is reporting yet! BIG democrat numbers yet to come! about 2 hours ago from web

South Dakota and Colorado abortion bans failed! about 3 hours ago from web

@magimaster25 You won't until polls close next hour about 3 hours ago from web in reply to magimaster25

I love how Kieth Olberman tries to call the election for Obama but the other anchors won't let him. His math is undeniable, though ;o) about 3 hours ago from web

NBC gives Ohio to Obama! He flipped a red state! Looking good! Still waiting for an official call on Franken, but exit polls look decisive! about 4 hours ago from web

Looking at CNN exit polls it looks like Franken won MN! about 4 hours ago from web

MN went for Obama, yea! about 4 hours ago from web

Elizabeth Dole lost her senate reelection! Fuck yeah! about 4 hours ago from web

The 7pm poll closing projections look good for Obama! about 5 hours ago from web

Google election results map goes live in 10 minutes! http://tinyurl.com/6rtt26 about 7 hours ago from web

Grading at WR, trying not to think about the election. The free cookie helps ;o) about 9 hours ago from TwitterBerry

Grading at WR, trying not to think about the election about 9 hours ago from TwitterBerry

Watching MSNBC live video feed online, fivethirtyeight.com, google's election map, Huffington post, later the AP live feed. Excited! about 12 hours ago from web

New Shared Item: A Few Words on Voter Suppression: Shared by Jon Rachel Maddow is my n.. http://tinyurl.com/5soymj about 12 hours ago from twitterfeed

New ephemera post: Cixous at the Dr hiding in the trash can: http://tinyurl.com/5ddfvm about 14 hours ago from twitterfeed

I was vote number 368 in my precinct. In and out in about 15 minutes about 16 hours ago from TwitterBerry

At the polls. Line pretty short at this point if you're already registered. about 16 hours ago from TwitterBerry

Finished making my voting slate for tomorrow morning. I'm voting no on the school board election "ABC referendum." Hard choice, though... about 24 hours ago from web

Boston legal's opening segment tonight was an instant political satire clasic! I will post a video of it as soon as I can find one! 10:13 PM Nov 3rd from TwitterBerry

Bad Advertising

2008-10-29T15:03:00.001-05:00

I was reading Towleroad this afternoon when I became the unsuspecting victim of bad advertising by Google's Ad[non]sense program. The following is a screen shot of my experience:

If you haven't yet followed the link, Towleroad, "A Site with Homosexual Tendencies," is a popular source for gay and lesbian news online. It is unapologetically liberal, regularly bashing McCain's idiocy as well as advocating against Proposition 8 in California as late.

Typically, the automatically inserted ads by Google's Adsense are the likes of gay dating sites and adoption services or more generic general interest ads. Yet in spite of this context, as you can see above, an ad for Minnesota Senator and Republican dickhead Norm Coleman snuck into my gay escape reading. Surely Google took into account my location (in Minneapolis) in selecting the ad, but come one, really? Coleman?

I'm going to see Coleman's opponent Al Franken speak along with Senator Amy Klobuchar and Bill Clinton tomorrow night downtown. Fuck you, Coleman. You don't deserve the senate seat you stole from Paul Wellstone. Get the fuck off my internet too.

A Response to Ignorance

2008-10-14T11:53:00.003-05:00

I recently posted on twitter/Facebook about the sad fact that we have a presidential ticket for the first time ever where both candidates (McCain and Palin) have been convicted of ethics violations before the election. (On a side note: How the FUCK has the media completely ignored the fact that Palin was found guilty of this!?!?!? I know they released the report at 7pm on last friday night, the time when stories are released in order to be killed since the news cycle is over for the weekend, but COME ON! This is a vice presidential cantidate!)

Anyway, after I posted this to my profile, I recieved this response:

I didnt get much into the keating 5 thing and I don't know much about it. As far as troopergate goes, that guy needed to be fired long before she stepped in. He tazed a 9 year old, was abusing his wife, and was drinking on the job. I'm more concerned with a socialist government then a leader that crossed a line to ... Read Moremake sure a bad guy was out of a position of power.

I posted this response:

I have a low tolerance for ignorance, especially when it appears on my facebook profile. Do you even know what socialist means? Socialism is a free high school education. Socialism is fire and police departments that protect you every day funded by the state. Apparently you're so ignorant that you believe the Republican talking points and are enough of a jerk to repeat them on people's facebook profiles who you don't even know (who the fuck are you? so what if we went to high school together, I don't know you.). So you'd rather have two people that are convicted of ethics violations running this country than "socialism". Great. I hope you don't have health insurance, I hope your kids go to an overcrowded underfunded high school, I hope your house burns down and the firefighters don't show up out of respect for you disdain for their "socialist" public services. Fuck you, go away.

I Like Obama

2008-09-26T21:53:00.001-05:00

For those who know me or follow this blog, the fact that I like Obama is in fact not a given. As a Clinton supporter, I was very invested in her and still believe that fundamentally she was a better candidate. Nonetheless, Obama's performance in this debate and his command of the facts, hit display of competence and wit, really won me over.

Specifically, Obama made some comment in response to McCain's word-splitting about preconditions for meeting foreign leaders and said that jsut because you don't have preconditions doesn't mean you're gonna invite them over for tea. I laughed. I felt it inside. A click. I liked Obama.

This is an event I knew (perhaps hoped) would happen for months, but I didn't see it coming. Bang.

I think Obama won the debate. Preeminent presidential scholar Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (who I was sitting next to among an auditorium full of public address scholars) thinks McCain won due to short emotional responses that will resonate with the average voter. I disagree, I think Obama was able to clearly and simply articulate policy details and on a few occasions wittily turn McCain's own terms and statements back on him demonstrating a superior capacity to manage the debate. I think he was more in control throughout the debate. We'll see what the press says tomorrow...

Below is the transcript of my liveblogging on Twitter from the first debate:

Preeminent pres. scholar Karlyn Kohrs Campbell says McCain won via short emotional responses. I disagree, but it's not entirely unfounded...8 minutes ago from web

McCain: "Jim, when I came home from prison..." - A collective noise of disgust encompassed the auditorium of presidential scholars. 14 minutes ago from web

Oh my god. The last question: how likely is another 9/11 - are you fucking kidding me? What a ridiculous question! 26 minutes ago from web

McCain may have "won" the debate 5 hours before it began, but Obama is making a killing an hour into it! 31 minutes ago from web

Oh my god. it just happened. I LIKE OBAMA. it was the you don't invite them over for tea comment. Bang. Intelligence. Wit. Competence. 41 minutes agofrom web

Wait, is his tie red stripes? Now I'm not sure. It definitely hurts my eyes.But maybe it's red after all...not watching a clean digital feed about 1 hour ago from web

A note on ties. McCain's is black and white stripes. It hurts my eyes. But props for confronting the boring blue/red standard. about 1 hour ago from web

Obama is masterful at using McCain's statements back against him. about 1 hour ago from web

What is McCain's obsession with the word "strategy"? about 1 hour ago from web

McCain admits it was a mistake to leave Afghanistan when we did. - good move. about 1 hour ago from web

Obama is in control. He clearly articulates the details behind McCain's sound bytes and McCain hasn't shown the same command of the facts. about 1 hourago from web

Obama: "John, you like to pretend that the war started in 2007" - finally! about 1 hour ago from web

Obama: It was your president that presided over this "orgy of spending" about 1 hour ago from web

Obama: "The problem with the spending freeze is you're using a hatchet when you need a scalpel" about 1 hour ago from web

Obama: McCain called me the most liberal, basically that means I opposed Bush's policy's - nice ;o) about 1 hour ago from web

Obama assertively interrupts McCain to give a clear description of actual tax policy. Nice authoritative move! about 2 hours ago from web

Obama: we've gotta grow the economy from the bottom up. - Finally! Logic returns to the White House. about 2 hours ago from web

Obama: the problem is an economic philosophy that says regulation is always bad - Damn right! about 2 hours ago from web

McCain on the financial bailout: This isn't the beginning of the end, it's the end of the beginning. - What the fuck does that mean? about 2 hours ago from web

Ready to liveblog the debate on twitter while I eat my free belated dinnerabout 2 hours ago from web

Google Rocks for Rhetoric

2008-09-16T10:08:00.001-05:00

As if I haven’t touted my love for Google enough, they just released a new tool sure to excite rhetorical scholars even more: Google Audio Indexing. Basically, it indexes the audio of political speeches and searches the text for specific words.

It’s incredibly useful for someone such as myself who is looking to write a paper about presidential rhetoric on LGBT issues. I did a search for “gay” and got dozens of recent results. The top hit was “Michelle Obama Speaks to DNC Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council.” In the search result it lists that she says the word about 4 times and pulls the surrounding text from each instance and marks in the timeline of the speech where they occur for easy browsing. Holy crap, this is useful!

Vote Today!

2008-09-09T11:53:00.001-05:00

So I figured I should do some research before I vote for those pesky court elections. I hate that they plaster their websites with that independent court bullshit but don’t ever tell you where they stand in the issues or even their perspective of the constitution from a legal view. Arg… Anyway, after looking around here’s what I've come up with. If you're unsure for yourself and you agree with my politics, I suggest the below options:

My ballot:

US Senate: Al Franken (duh)

Minnesota Supreme Court and Appeals Court:

Seat 3: Paul H. Anderson (inc)

Seat 4: Lorie Skjerven Gildea (inc)

U.S. House: Keith Ellison (also duh)

4th District Court: Jane Ranum (check out her issues tracker for her last term as state senator here)

School board (3): Lydia Lee (inc, DFL endorsed), Jill Davis (DFL and Stonewall DFL endorsed), Carla Bates (DFL endorsed, out and partenered lesbian with 3 kids in public school)

Go vote!

Konstantly Konstantine

2008-08-26T23:51:00.005-05:00

I wrote this poem after wandering for an hour through the rain feeling lonely and frustrated at the kiddie table of academic conferences (NCUR) in Lexington, Virginia in 2005. After today, I couldn’t help but listen to Konstantine and think of this poem...

soaked

taking the long way home
the rain can't help but stain my eyes
Konstantine is screaming in my ears
this time the words find further depth in my emptied heart
even as the thunder claps in beat with the drum
and the street flows strong with the blood of the sky

it's only 8:47 and I feel like I'm already asleep
my mind is rejected from the world
I'm searching for home, but illusions factor in
the path is gone and my map is inside out
the rain feels somehow right
even as it invades my clothes
I can't be alone while the world soaks up my skin

the bus drove past my stop
momentarily retracting my mind
but it didn't last
the empty window soon reclaimed my absent stare

I'm skipping ahead in the song, the one I hate
I hate that it knows me better than I do
I hate that I feel it burn through my lonely lust
I hate that no one hears my silent screams
I hate that life refuses simple love
the one thing that factors most...

you forgot to call
and maybe you never tried
but I yearn to feel your voice
it forgives my simple pain and renews a lost heart

I'm still walking home
but that's not my destination
I want to go deeper
into your heart
just to forgive the rain
and return the favor once done for me

but the sky still hemorrhages life
and my eyes are still blurred by the night
I walk slowly along the street
the cars all pass me by
and so does my lonely life
maybe one will slip
and smack me into the ditch
the ditch is calling
and I yearn to heed its siren voice

but your heart still hemorrhages life
and I forget the street
even as it spits the past in my face
I need your embrace
and your heart that claps in beat with the drum

maybe I'm already in an embrace...
the rain and thunder speak deep in my heart
and I feel strangely at home
standing soaked in the dark
I think I'll stay here tonight
but tomorrow I'm heading home

Fuck Babies

2008-08-14T14:28:00.002-05:00

Why are we always expected to say congratulations to someone who just had a baby? Is it really some big achievement?

“Ooh, you put your cock in her vagina and thrust back and forth a few times! You’re such an admirable human being!”

I mean really.

I don’t hate babies, there’s nothing wrong with them per se. And most people seem to think we as a species are worthy of continuing to (over)populate the earth, so they’re quite a necessity. But congratulations?

People often claim they have a biological urge to procreate. I don’t have it as such, so I can only go by what I hear. At best, this basic urge is meant to be an expression of the love between two married people.

An expression.

Excuse my rhetorical mindset, but I think a human being should be considered far more than a discursive product of an institution with a failure rate of 50%.

Social order is structured around creating citizens capable of reigning in their “baser” instincts. We can’t go killing our boss just because we don’t like him. We can’t beat our girlfriend just because she had an opinion. We can’t drink all night and then drive home playing GTA with the police. These are all good things.

So why are we not encouraged to reign in the basic instinct to have children? Babies too cause harm. They create more mouths to feed in an already well overpopulated world. They create burdens on our underfunded education system. They are harmed themselves when unworthy parents abuse them at worst, or at the least divorce and create life-long family rifts.

Why do we all feel so damned worthy to pass on our DNA and our name. I can think of a lot more productive things to pass on to the world. Making the world a better place doesn’t start with you and your progeny, it starts with everybody else. You want to pass on a legacy? Help others.

Caprica is Going to Rock

2008-07-21T18:29:00.001-05:00

As a fan of the remade Battlestar Galactica, I’d already been on board with the concept for a prequal series. But as I watched the newly released trailer today I am now decidedly excited for it. Not for the content so much, although it is compelling, but because of a familiar face I saw: Polly Walker.

The standout star in the all around amazing cast of HBO’s Rome, Walker was nominated for a Golden Globe for the role of Atia. I’ve watched Rome over and over again and every time I love her character more and more. I can’t wait to get more of her when Caprica premiers!

Baby Bunny on my Back Porch

2008-06-30T18:57:00.002-05:00

For perspective:

and a close up:

I know. I’ve posted twice recently about cute baby animals, but what can I say, I live in a frisky apartment complex ;o)

Google Transit coming to Minneapolis!

2008-06-11T18:22:00.001-05:00

An email response I got from Metro Transit after inquiring about them using Google’s system:

Frankly, we agree with you.

In fact, we started negotiations with Google about joining their Google Transit Project during the winter (there are some costs involved, which is why didn’t join when first asked over three years ago), and we recently gave them access to our transit data (bus stops, route numbers, schedules, etc).

We are currently testing the integration of our transit data with their geographic data on a nonpublic website. It’s slow going as there are over 13,000 bus stop locations and over 200 routes and schedules to check (since we also took responsibility for the data from Plymouth Metrolink, Southwest Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, and all the other bus operators in the Twin Cities). But we fully expect the data merge and testing will be completed this summer and that Google and Metro Transit will be making a joint announcement before Labor Day.

So we appreciate your patience, and we agree that joining in this effort has real value for many of our customers.

Papers, Papers, Papers...

2008-05-13T15:18:00.001-05:00

"I'm drowning in a digital sea" seems a pretty appropriate metaphor for my life at the moment...

"Digital Sea" by Thrice

Cuteness Alert: Baby Squirrel

2008-05-03T19:08:00.002-05:00

As I walked toward my apartment from the bus stop this afternoon, I saw the most incredibly amazingly cute baby squirrel perched on the brick fence around my complex.

The cuteness is not quite as perceptible without getting a sense of just how small this dude is. I got him a piece of bread and he let me pet him. He fit entirely on the small piece of bread!

He was a bit too precarious on there, though, and toppled over the edge. He landed underneath the bread. It was adorable ;o)

Don't worry, it was only about a foot down from the ledge and he promptly got back to snacking.

A Midsummer Night's Dream

2008-04-24T17:14:00.002-05:00

see it

Gem of the Ocean too