As my students start writing their first paper in my Comp I course, I have had many conversations w/ students this week on the differences between the writing they have done in high school and the writing I expect from them in college. Some students seem to embrace the freedom that comes with using "I," "you," more than 5 paragraphs, and "In this paper, I will discuss..." in their papers. Others seem indifferent and have just rolled w/ it. And, one student stormed out angry yesterday.
My conversations w/ students is much like the conversation happening online on the WPA list serv. I found this exchange between a high school teacher and college department chair to be especially interesting. In the interest of furthering the conversation about student writing, student needs, and professional development, I'm posting it here, too.
http://illinois.edu/db/view/25/22040?count=1&ACTION=DIALOG
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Recent News on Autism, Wakefield, and the MMR Fraud
Looks like Andrew Wakefield will probably lose his license--as he should. I feel nothing but contempt for the man for the pain and suffering that he has put autistic individuals through because of his quackery.
And, now, The Lancet has finally retracted Wakefield's 1998 article that made the supposed connections between autism and the MMR vaccine. Again, 'bout time.
If you're interested in sound, scholarly research that discredits any connection between autism spectrum disorders and MMR vaccinations or mercury, check out Paul Offit's book, Autism's False Prophets. As a rhetorician, Offit's book is such an excellent example of logical analysis that I can't recommend it enough.
And, now, The Lancet has finally retracted Wakefield's 1998 article that made the supposed connections between autism and the MMR vaccine. Again, 'bout time.
If you're interested in sound, scholarly research that discredits any connection between autism spectrum disorders and MMR vaccinations or mercury, check out Paul Offit's book, Autism's False Prophets. As a rhetorician, Offit's book is such an excellent example of logical analysis that I can't recommend it enough.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Emanuel, Palin, and the "R" Word
What is just as offensive as Rahm Emanuel's use of the word "retarded" to describe Conservative ads against health care reform? Sarah Palin exploiting the situation to get herself back in the spotlight by insisting that he should resign.
Emanuel reminds me of the student who says something off the cuff without malice intent. Palin, on the other hand, is completely exploiting the "I have a child w/ special needs" to further her own political celebrity. [Groan]
Emanuel reminds me of the student who says something off the cuff without malice intent. Palin, on the other hand, is completely exploiting the "I have a child w/ special needs" to further her own political celebrity. [Groan]
Monday, January 25, 2010
Back to Blogging...
I have neglected this blog.
I'm a terrible owner because--after what could only be described as 9 months of a dissertation writing frenzy--I have had quite a bit of writer's block. My desire to write has been strictly limited to updating my Facebook status, which--like Chris--I do much too often. I'm sure my friends have just been dying to know that I am on my 6th cup of coffee, that I need to run to the post office, or that I really, REALLY hate Glenn Beck. And, yet, they all do.
Still, during my dissertation defense, my chair and two readers suggested that I return to my blog and present a public discursive presence. They encouraged me to continue posting on disability and rhetoric in the public culture. Too often, academics get "locked into" their own offices writing for the 3-4 people who will be at their conference presentation. But, it's important that academics contribute to the public discourse--even if it's from our tiny, little speck of the Interwebs. So, now that the dissertation is done and I'm Ph[inishe]D, I am returning to my blog to use my powers for good.
I'm a terrible owner because--after what could only be described as 9 months of a dissertation writing frenzy--I have had quite a bit of writer's block. My desire to write has been strictly limited to updating my Facebook status, which--like Chris--I do much too often. I'm sure my friends have just been dying to know that I am on my 6th cup of coffee, that I need to run to the post office, or that I really, REALLY hate Glenn Beck. And, yet, they all do.
Still, during my dissertation defense, my chair and two readers suggested that I return to my blog and present a public discursive presence. They encouraged me to continue posting on disability and rhetoric in the public culture. Too often, academics get "locked into" their own offices writing for the 3-4 people who will be at their conference presentation. But, it's important that academics contribute to the public discourse--even if it's from our tiny, little speck of the Interwebs. So, now that the dissertation is done and I'm Ph[inishe]D, I am returning to my blog to use my powers for good.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
And, scene...
The dissertation defense is complete. I am officially, Dr. Rochelle Gregory, PhD. I had some great feedback during my defense from my committee members, all of whom commented on my blogging over the past five years. So, I'm thinking of pursuing what Dr. Greer referred to as a "professional intellectual" more seriously. He suggested blogging about disability and rhetoric since I have the expertise, interest, and education. So, that's what I've been thinking about in more detail over the past couple days. That, and other things. Now, I just need to get the revisions made and turn in this bad boy.... Hahh, the sound of a done dissertation is wonderful...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The end is near...
Yes, the dissertation is turned in. And, a defense date has been announced. August 26th at 1:00 on the 9th floor conference room.
I'm going to gather some resources so that I feel the confidence that I hope to project.
Now, what to do about this blog... I'm thinking of changing the name and moving forward with it. Blogging on FYC theory, disability theory, new book ideas, etc. Because I've got several.
Graduation: December 17th. (I'm so random this morning)
I'm going to gather some resources so that I feel the confidence that I hope to project.
Now, what to do about this blog... I'm thinking of changing the name and moving forward with it. Blogging on FYC theory, disability theory, new book ideas, etc. Because I've got several.
Graduation: December 17th. (I'm so random this morning)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
June Expense Report
Okay. I've got 10 minutes to type up the blog before I have to get back to cleaning the house. My mother, father, sister, her boyfriend, her twins, my aunt, and my grandfather will be here with me, my boys, and Marc in about 2 hours. It's going to be a looooooong day.
But, here's my June expense report. Some areas were a great improvement. Others could use some more work.
Overall, medical went way up, but that was to be expected between my minor medical procedure and Tobey's medication. It will probably go down some in the next couple months, but not by much. However, I was able to compensate for the increase in medical expenses with less grocery expenses.
Education was way up, but that was including a Sallie Mae payment and some much needed resources for the fall and my dissertation. That will go down dramatically next month. But, I need to start thinking about the student loan payments that'll be there in the next couple months.
Still, the winner for this month were the groceries and restaurant expenses, which went waaaay down. Last month was almost $1100. This month, $800. That was a huge improvement for us, especially considering that this is the summer when the boys are home and doing nothing but eating, sleeping, and swimming.
But, here's my June expense report. Some areas were a great improvement. Others could use some more work.
- Groceries $589.42 (Huge improvement from last month--$400 less than last month)
- Healthcare/Medical 562.21 (This will probably be a bit high for a while.)
- Education 476.60 (This is high b/c I had to buy a buttload of books for next fall and for my dissertation. This should go down a lot next month.)
- Mom 300.00
- Car Payment 300.00
- Utilities 290.00
- Gasoline 259.48
- Restaurant 202.83 (A huge improvement from the $400 we spent last month.)
- Travel 190.00
- Home Improvement 159.35 (This was a bit higher b/c I did some home improvements in the yard. Dirt therapy.)
- Insurance 150.00
- Entertainment 128.43
- Telephone 111.55
- Cable 100.00
- Hobbies 93.39 (This went down b/c I dropped Tobey from karate.)
- Service Fees 77.00 (Okay, this is seriously all my fault and way too much--six $10 overdraft fees to move money from savings to checking when I don't pay attention and have insufficient funds in my checking. I have GOT to do better here.)
- General Merch. 62.28
- Auto 57.69 (Yearly inspection and oil change.)
- Clothing 39.40
- Other 40.00
Overall, medical went way up, but that was to be expected between my minor medical procedure and Tobey's medication. It will probably go down some in the next couple months, but not by much. However, I was able to compensate for the increase in medical expenses with less grocery expenses.
Education was way up, but that was including a Sallie Mae payment and some much needed resources for the fall and my dissertation. That will go down dramatically next month. But, I need to start thinking about the student loan payments that'll be there in the next couple months.
Still, the winner for this month were the groceries and restaurant expenses, which went waaaay down. Last month was almost $1100. This month, $800. That was a huge improvement for us, especially considering that this is the summer when the boys are home and doing nothing but eating, sleeping, and swimming.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Interesting Quote for the Day...
While reading Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, I came across this quote from The Satanism Scare by James Richardson, Joel Best, and David Bromley about the witchcraft/devil worshipping scares of the fifteenth, eighteenth, and twentieth centuries, and I immediately thought about the recent "Obama is a socialist" craze that's been filtering through the media here lately. (I even saw a bumper sticker at Wal-Mart yesterday that featured the Obama trademarked sunrise with the statement underneath: "Socialism. Poverty Trickling Up")
So, Richardson, Best, and Bromley describe a moral panic as "a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evlauted or resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates.' Such events are used as weapons 'for various political groups in their campaigns' when someone stands to gain and someone stands to lose by the focus on such events and their outcome" (qtd in Shermer 106).
Therefore, question: Who needs the moral panic that Obama is a socialist?!? Answer: FoxNews. "Talk-show hosts, book publishers, anti-cult groups, fundamentalists, and certain religious groups" all thrive on such claims (Shermer 107).
One has to wonder whether the exec's at FoxNews didn't high five each other the night Obama was elected. I mean, would 4 years of a McCain love-in really help their ratings? The whole Obama is a socialist ploy is the gift that keeps on giving FoxNews.
So, Richardson, Best, and Bromley describe a moral panic as "a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evlauted or resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates.' Such events are used as weapons 'for various political groups in their campaigns' when someone stands to gain and someone stands to lose by the focus on such events and their outcome" (qtd in Shermer 106).
Therefore, question: Who needs the moral panic that Obama is a socialist?!? Answer: FoxNews. "Talk-show hosts, book publishers, anti-cult groups, fundamentalists, and certain religious groups" all thrive on such claims (Shermer 107).
One has to wonder whether the exec's at FoxNews didn't high five each other the night Obama was elected. I mean, would 4 years of a McCain love-in really help their ratings? The whole Obama is a socialist ploy is the gift that keeps on giving FoxNews.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Update on the finances...
So, my goals were to cut my grocery bills in 1/2 and to not eat out this entire month of June.
Update: While I have eaten out this month on several occasions, I have cut my restaurant spending in half, which is good. Whereas I might spend $5-10 per meal for myself, this month, so far, I've spent no more than $3 for myself by eating off the a la carte menus.
I've also cut my grocery bills in 1/2. Whereas I usually spend $200 every 7-10 days for groceries, I have spent this month only $200 on groceries for the first two weeks of June.
Ten more days until payday and when I need to reassess my spending this month.
Update: While I have eaten out this month on several occasions, I have cut my restaurant spending in half, which is good. Whereas I might spend $5-10 per meal for myself, this month, so far, I've spent no more than $3 for myself by eating off the a la carte menus.
I've also cut my grocery bills in 1/2. Whereas I usually spend $200 every 7-10 days for groceries, I have spent this month only $200 on groceries for the first two weeks of June.
Ten more days until payday and when I need to reassess my spending this month.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Rhetoric of Autism Speaks
I wrote this blog entry several years ago on the rhetoric of "tragedy" in an Autism Speaks online video and I recently revisited it for my dissertation. So, I thought I would repost it here in case some of my colleagues might be interested.
_________________
On May 13, 2006, Katherine McCarron, a three year-old autistic girl, was allegedly murdered by her mother, Dr. Karen McCarron, by suffocation. In the months that have followed, however, autism advocates and disability rights organizations have been outraged with the sympathy Dr. McCarron has received in the media for having the "burden" of raising an autistic child. Not Dead Yet argues, "Recent media coverage of mothers being charged with killing or attempting to kill their disabled daughters solicits sympathy and understanding for the heinous acts." In fact, Autism Speaks, a national organization dedicated to "funding global biomedical research into the causes, prevention, treatments, and cure for autism; to raising public awareness about autism and its effects on individuals, families, and society; and to bringing hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disorder," has even produced and published Autism Everyday, a video available online that attempts to show the everyday struggles parents of autistic children face daily.
However, Autism Everyday has came under intense scrutiny in the past couple months for its negative and fatalistic portrayal of autistic children and the struggles parents face when raising autistic children. Critics have charged that this video portrays autistic children as economic and emotional burdens on their families. One alarming part of the documentary shows a mother discussing (in front of her autistic child) how she's contemplated driving herself and her autistic daughter off of the George Washington Bridge. This mother admits that the only reason she hasn't done so already is because of the needs of her "normal" child. I, too, found this video disturbing when I first watched it in late May following my own son's autism diagnosis. I remember too vividly thinking that for these women, "autism" was a death sentence. The tragedy that defined their lives.
A rhetorical analysis based on Kenneth Burke's theory of cluster criticism of the short documentary (it runs approximately 14 minutes long) would supports such criticisms. Specifically, the directors predominately show throughout the movie the burdens and heartbreak associated with raising a child with autism. The mothers interviewed in the documentary make statements that
Again, such descriptors as "heartbreaking," "angry," "helpless," and "suffering" illustrate the common ideological and rhetorical thread throughout the movie that autistic children are emotional and financial burdens on their families. In fact, the mothers only mention the words "loving" and "hope" in the final minute of the movie and there is no discussion in regard to the children's accomplishments, potentials, or capabilities. The autistic children throughout the movie are portrayed overwhelmingly negative and tragically.
What might be the purpose of funding and distributing a documentary that portrays autism so negatively, especially considering Autism Speaks' mission of "funding global biomedical research [...]; raising public awareness about autism [...]; and to bring hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disorder"? I believe that the rhetoric within the movie answers this question. If we're to accept that producers Lauren Thierry, Jim Watkins, and Eric Solomon selectively choose the footage that was to be used in the final cut, such words as "cure" and "prevention" further the organization's mission--finding a "cure" and "preventing" autism. This movie, then, helps support the Autism Speaks' cause of raising money for autism research aimed at "curing" and "preventing" autism.
Portraying autism as the tragedy that defines one's life is an emotional appeal that plays on the heartstrings (and wallets) of viewers. Would it have been as effective to discuss the biological or behavioral factors that contribute to the frustrations associated with autism? No, probably not. Seeing frustrated and frazzled, white, divorced, middle-aged women is more effective at garnering a "sympathy" response from audiences than seeing women who deal with autism day-in and day-out but live a relatively "normal" life--a life that isn't fatalistically defined by autism. Who would contribute money for a cause that isn't "terrible," "heartbreaking," and "devastating" in every possible way?
Important to note, though, is that it's sentiments like these, that autism is a heartbreaking disorder that leaves parents shattered and children suffering and struggling, that seem to reinforce the ideology that it's okay to murder one's autistic child. These children, it would seem, bring nothing but misery and hopelessness onto their families. This ideological stance argues that murdering the disabled is probably the best thing for the children, their families, and society-at-large. And, it's for this reason that it's important to identify the rhetorical clusters that construct the ideologies of autism.
However, this ideological stance is not indicative of the entire autism communities' approach to autism research, funding, and support. In fact, groups like the Autism Assembly "share the common goal of seeking acceptance for those on the autistic spectrum, who aim to educate about autism, and who are not seeking a cure for autism. This is part of the global autism rights movement." Therefore, if the movie were produced for a different organization, one that supports acceptance and does not support a "cure" for autism, the rhetorical "clusters" might've been completely different.
_________________
On May 13, 2006, Katherine McCarron, a three year-old autistic girl, was allegedly murdered by her mother, Dr. Karen McCarron, by suffocation. In the months that have followed, however, autism advocates and disability rights organizations have been outraged with the sympathy Dr. McCarron has received in the media for having the "burden" of raising an autistic child. Not Dead Yet argues, "Recent media coverage of mothers being charged with killing or attempting to kill their disabled daughters solicits sympathy and understanding for the heinous acts." In fact, Autism Speaks, a national organization dedicated to "funding global biomedical research into the causes, prevention, treatments, and cure for autism; to raising public awareness about autism and its effects on individuals, families, and society; and to bringing hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disorder," has even produced and published Autism Everyday, a video available online that attempts to show the everyday struggles parents of autistic children face daily.
However, Autism Everyday has came under intense scrutiny in the past couple months for its negative and fatalistic portrayal of autistic children and the struggles parents face when raising autistic children. Critics have charged that this video portrays autistic children as economic and emotional burdens on their families. One alarming part of the documentary shows a mother discussing (in front of her autistic child) how she's contemplated driving herself and her autistic daughter off of the George Washington Bridge. This mother admits that the only reason she hasn't done so already is because of the needs of her "normal" child. I, too, found this video disturbing when I first watched it in late May following my own son's autism diagnosis. I remember too vividly thinking that for these women, "autism" was a death sentence. The tragedy that defined their lives.
A rhetorical analysis based on Kenneth Burke's theory of cluster criticism of the short documentary (it runs approximately 14 minutes long) would supports such criticisms. Specifically, the directors predominately show throughout the movie the burdens and heartbreak associated with raising a child with autism. The mothers interviewed in the documentary make statements that
- they've had to "give up" their entire lives to autism,
- "people have no idea" as to "how difficult life is on a day-to-day basis" for families with autistic children,
- the condition is "heartbreaking,"
- these autistic children are violent, disruptive, and take the joy out of everyday life,
- other siblings suffer due to one child's autism,
- these parents of autistic children are left "angry," "helpless," and "disappointed,"
- these parents have had their children "taken away from them" by autism, and
- these parents "cannot accept that we have to throw away this generation of children" to autism.
Again, such descriptors as "heartbreaking," "angry," "helpless," and "suffering" illustrate the common ideological and rhetorical thread throughout the movie that autistic children are emotional and financial burdens on their families. In fact, the mothers only mention the words "loving" and "hope" in the final minute of the movie and there is no discussion in regard to the children's accomplishments, potentials, or capabilities. The autistic children throughout the movie are portrayed overwhelmingly negative and tragically.
What might be the purpose of funding and distributing a documentary that portrays autism so negatively, especially considering Autism Speaks' mission of "funding global biomedical research [...]; raising public awareness about autism [...]; and to bring hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disorder"? I believe that the rhetoric within the movie answers this question. If we're to accept that producers Lauren Thierry, Jim Watkins, and Eric Solomon selectively choose the footage that was to be used in the final cut, such words as "cure" and "prevention" further the organization's mission--finding a "cure" and "preventing" autism. This movie, then, helps support the Autism Speaks' cause of raising money for autism research aimed at "curing" and "preventing" autism.
Portraying autism as the tragedy that defines one's life is an emotional appeal that plays on the heartstrings (and wallets) of viewers. Would it have been as effective to discuss the biological or behavioral factors that contribute to the frustrations associated with autism? No, probably not. Seeing frustrated and frazzled, white, divorced, middle-aged women is more effective at garnering a "sympathy" response from audiences than seeing women who deal with autism day-in and day-out but live a relatively "normal" life--a life that isn't fatalistically defined by autism. Who would contribute money for a cause that isn't "terrible," "heartbreaking," and "devastating" in every possible way?
Important to note, though, is that it's sentiments like these, that autism is a heartbreaking disorder that leaves parents shattered and children suffering and struggling, that seem to reinforce the ideology that it's okay to murder one's autistic child. These children, it would seem, bring nothing but misery and hopelessness onto their families. This ideological stance argues that murdering the disabled is probably the best thing for the children, their families, and society-at-large. And, it's for this reason that it's important to identify the rhetorical clusters that construct the ideologies of autism.
However, this ideological stance is not indicative of the entire autism communities' approach to autism research, funding, and support. In fact, groups like the Autism Assembly "share the common goal of seeking acceptance for those on the autistic spectrum, who aim to educate about autism, and who are not seeking a cure for autism. This is part of the global autism rights movement." Therefore, if the movie were produced for a different organization, one that supports acceptance and does not support a "cure" for autism, the rhetorical "clusters" might've been completely different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
