see ya on the flip side

I'm bracing for a busy week (two, actually), and likely won't have a chance to post anything this week. I try not to let too much time pass between posts, but I don't think it can be avoided this time around. Who knows, maybe I'll be wrong; but in case I'm not, just wanted to give you the heads up and ask you to stay tuned. I shall return!

Dear Purple Panda: a reader seeks advice

I'm reprinting a question posted by one of my faithful readers in the comments section following an earlier post, because it's a great question and because it's a chance for me to talk rhetoric, which you all know I love to do...

hi. i have a writing question, and i wasn't sure where to ask it, but it's kinda political, so i thought this would be a good place. i am opposed to a proposed federal mandate which is in a 30-public-feedback stage. i desperately want to comment on the proposal, but because of the way that the bill is written (very well) i'm having a hard time attacking it on a rhetorical level. what do you do when you want to write a strong argument but there isn't anything glaringly wrong (i just morally oppose the bill)? i mean, how do you shape an attack when you don't have a blatant target??(to clear it up a bit, the bill is trying to protect healthcare providers from being forced to perform any action that they are morally opposed to. it's trying to help them, and this is very clear in the way that it is written. however, i feel that this is negligent of the patient, simplistic in its view of access to care, and potentially dangerous in a downward spiral kind of way....but i feel like the argument isn't that strong. i want to say "it's my duty not to harm the patient. it's my duty to educate them about potential care and see that they receive the best possible care whether or not i provide it. but in the end, it's my utmost duty to respect the patient's right to be in control of their own healthcare." or some snappy version thereof. so wow, this comment is long, but i'm curious how to proceed with argument when you feel your rhetoric is weakly based.)


Ahhh, this reminds me of a "debate" we had in my Writing About Popular Culture class almost ten years ago (egad, where the hell did that time go?). We had to argue whether a student (hypothetically) had the right to hang a Nazi flag outside his dorm room door, and my group was assigned to argue in favor.
Oh goody.
Naturally, we all found this morally abhorrent, but I rallied my groupmates and said, "We're not going to address the moral issue; we're going to argue First Amendment down the line. We can say that it's abhorrent, but it's still that person's right." (In hindsight, I'm wondering whether that position would no longer be valid under the hate speech laws.)

Technically, my group won the debate because we had a more sound argument and anticipated that the opposition was gonna play the pathos card (the opposition, and my groupmates, I think, was especially speechless when I brought up the US's internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII-- don't remember what I was specifically responding to, but it worked). But I wrote a follow-up essay as part of the assignment that was more reflective of my own morality albeit still rhetorically effective.

Now, in your case, you're saying the argument to restrict practitioners from exercising treatments/practices to which they are morally opposed (such as administering birth control or the Morning After pill after a rape has been committed because it violates their pro-life stance, I assume) is sound-- or, at least, the written proposal is well-crafted.

Here's my suggestion:

• For one thing, acknowledge the moral dilemma and make the concession that it exists. I'm trying to think of an instance in my own profession that matches this, but the closest I come to is maybe something like school prayer. (I don't find it "dangerous" or "harmful" as much as alienating and prejudicial, however.) You may even share your own propensity for personal morality and its role in your practice, or even spiritual values that may not necessarily be integrated in your practice (such as praying for patients), but is essentially a part of your own life and being. This will disarm your audience who supports this legislation.
• Next, redefine the moral obligation. You said: however, i feel that this is negligent of the patient, simplistic in its view of access to care, and potentially dangerous in a downward spiral kind of way....but i feel like the argument isn't that strong. i want to say "it's my duty not to harm the patient. it's my duty to educate them about potential care and see that they receive the best possible care whether or not i provide it. but in the end, it's my utmost duty to respect the patient's right to be in control of their own healthcare." I disagree w. you; I think that's quite valid and actually *really* strong. Your first statement is a powerful claim -- you now need to provide the evidence to support it. Show me examples/evidence of negligence; show me how/why the view is simplistic; show me the cause-effect of the downward spiral. In other words, it's just as morally reprehensible if we withheld an option such as contraception from a patient as if we withheld an option such as chemotherapy and radiation because we're against violence of all kinds (and I think that's a form of violence), for example. (Maybe that analogy was too extreme and thus faulty in logic, but hopefully you get my drift.)
• Finally, offer potential solutions or even compromises. Is there a way for those who stand in opposition to refer patients to other specialists? Is it acceptable to say, "I'm personally opposed to this, but it's my duty as a practitioner to inform you of all your options (or is that intimidating? based on all the Law & Order I've watched it seems that even counsel will still carry out their clients' wishes under protest). And if there are no good compromises, then stand your ground anyway. Your position is not an unreasonable one. It may be that if the person is *that* morally opposed, then she/he needs to leave the profession, or open a private practice in which she/he explicitly states that she/he will not perform such services, thus allowing the patient to go elsewhere. (I see this creeping up more and more w/ pharmacists, too, who won't fill prescriptions for birth control pills, for example. Kinda scary, if you ask me.)
• What's up w/ the Patient Bill of Rights that John Edwards had a hand in? I might not bring his name into it, but I heard it was an excellent bill (or am I thinking of a West Wing episode? seriously, it's possible!)

Overall, I think that approaching readers as a co-thinker (i.e. not going on the attack) while maintaining your position -- i.e., use of rhetorical appeals: ethos, pathos (carefully), logos -- is your best bet. And knowing you as I do (that is to say, knowing your writing skills), I have the utmost confidence that you'll pull it off and earn the respect of your colleagues, not to mention the trust of your patients.

And with that, I think I hear the bell ringing... Class dismissed!

critical reading in critical condition

The older I get, the longer it takes me to get through a stack of papers, be it for feedback or grading or both. I don't know what happened to my grad school days, when I used to rise early on a Saturday morning, drive to Uncle Jon's coffeeshop, and park myself in one of the comfy corner chairs with my vanilla chai, choc chip muffin, and stack of papers. I'd zip through 10-15 until noon. (I may be exaggerating. I seem to recall spending 20 minutes per paper in the early days, although I think by the end of my TA days, I'd gotten it down to 10. These days I'm averaging about 15) Then I'd hit whatever academic reading I was assigned for my own courses.

No mas.

I'm lucky to get through ten in a day now. A whole day, with breaks in between. Again, ten is the high point. Sometimes five is the goal.

And yet, I can get through two chapters of a book no problem. Of course, pleasure reading and critical reading are two very different cognitive functions, as I frequently tell my students. But I also tell them that reading is reading. It may be just my low-volume-high-content thing kicking in for me, the volume decreasing as my chronological age increases. It's certainly not disinterest or disdain.

What's fascinating is the disdain for reading they've developed thanks to their educational upbringing, and I don't blame them one bit. What some of them have described (and sure, they might be biased, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt), as indicated by the language they've used ("forced," "drilled," "shoved down our throats," "tortured," etc.), shows that there's a problem not only with the way students are being taught to read and about literature, but also, and more seriously, with the attitude and manner in which students are exposed to reading. I don't get on the bandwagon of blaming the teacher -- I think many of them are yearning to pass on their own passions for reading -- but something is very wrong with the system.

Ditto for writing. And again, I'm not getting on the bandwagon of "students can't even write a complete sentence" (hell, I'm willing to bet my salary that some members of Congress, from both parties, can't do it either). I'm not convinced that the problem.

I'm sorry that Kairos has become so political these last few posts. My work is spilling over onto this blog. So are the times we live in. But I'm convinced that we're in this crisis (and not just economic) not only because of greed and all the other 10-second sound-bite excuses, but because we're producing generations that are not reading and writing enough, partly because they don't know how, but more so because they don't want to. And I'm wondering what I can do to change that, if what little I'm doing now is making a difference.

On that note, I must get off my soapbox and tackle the final eight papers awaiting a grade. I'm hoping to do at least four w/in the next hour. I sure do miss Uncle Jon's vanilla chai.

visit from an old friend

Enjoy this "what if" by my hero Aaron Sorkin. You might not agree w/ what's being said, but ya gotta love the writing. I do! I outright cheered in my apartment (and it's not even 9am yet) when I read the part about democrats taking back the words "elite" and "patriot". And heck, I miss Jed Bartlet!

all dressed up and no chance to read

Maybe it wasn't meant to be.
Maybe it was because my name was drawn at the last open mic, and it was someone else's turn this time. Maybe I got greedy. Or overconfident. Or complacent.
Maybe it was because I'm not to read my novel until it's released to the public, so people can buy it once they hear it. Maybe I'm meant to debut it on its own, w/out the help of an open mic contest.
Maybe it was because my supporters (like Mit) weren't there tonight, and there wasn't a great turnout, and my novel is meant to be heard by the masses. Maybe it wasn't the right crowd.
Maybe it was because I was headachey, hungry, and inexplicably sneezing all day at random. Maybe I wouldn't have put out a good performance despite my rehearsal.
Maybe it wouldn't have won.
Or maybe I'm just not in alignment with the universe this month.

At any rate, I'm disappointed. I wanted to read again. I rehearsed. I wore my sexy boots and my makeup came out flawless. I straightened my hair.
Alas, there will be other opportunities, I'm sure.

...and I approve this message

My brother and I have been engaged in a lot of political discussion and debate these last few weeks. Thank goodness my long distance plan is no longer paid by the minute, otherwise I'd be paying some pretty high bills! Often times my brother and I don't see eye to eye on the issues. He tends to be fiscally conservative, while I tend to be more on the idealistic side.

But conversing w/ my brother about these things has been stimulating, even enjoyable, because he does not conform to the 10 second sound bites and viral headlines that media outlet after outlet are so quick to take out of context and squeeze into a consumerable package. He does not jump on bandwagon slogans and shock rhetoric. He does his homework. He consults multiple sources and evaluates them for their validity. He not only reads the speeches, but analyzes and interprets them beyond flashy partisan punditry. He listens to others' points of view with an open mind. And when he presents his argument, he provides evidence to support his claims, and works to make them as valid as possible. (And he throws in a bit of humor, too.)

In fact, I wish our own presidential candidates took a page from his conduct.

Kairos Calling is a blog that celebrates writing, and when I started this blog, my intent was to make the conversation about creative fiction and nonfiction. But I'm also a rhetoric girl--that's my bread and butter, my diploma on the wall, and it's the way I approach my fiction and nonfiction. And so, I'm pleased to see him following these basic rhetorical prinicples, and I grow more and more frustrated that the political debate in this country follows the template of a Mac vs. PC commercial rather than substantive, rhetorical, intelligent discourse.

This is where he and I are in staunch agreement.

When I listened to Obama's speeches during the primaries, I was struck by his message of hope. He spoke of change, but change came through ideas, through inclusion, through peace, through hope, and through visionary thinking. He spoke of the promise of restoring faith and pride in our government and in politics. For the first time in a long, long time, he made me feel good. Indeed, I felt hope.

But where has that message gone?

He has gone from ideas to ideology. He has gone from visionary thinking to playing it safe. He has gone from peace to tough-guy persona. He has gone from inclusion to regulation. He has gone from hope to placating. And he has stopped engaging in thoughtful, encouraging, intelligent debate. He has succumbed to the sound bite. He has turned his attention from positive proactiveness ("fired up-ready to go") to defensive reaction ("I have experience-Palin doesn't").

I read Obama's morning radio address in which he says he has a plan to fix the economy, to fix health care; but unless I'm looking in the wrong places, I don't see the actual plan. I want details. I want to see the ideas -- whether I agree w/ them or not. I'm tired of the validation that the situation sucks and I'm even more tired of the endless, childish finger-pointing -- I want to know what you're going to do to keep this from falling into my wallet when I had no say in either the problem or the solution.

Enough.

For all the comparisons to Reagan that the Republicans use to align themselves, no one really understands what his policies were all about, because no one takes the time to study them anymore. We only remember a charismatic figure and the classic "Tear down that wall!"

For all the talk about experience, no one turns to the Cuban Missile Crisis and how a young JFK responded to it; we only see the photos of him sailing and being serenaded by Marilyn Monroe.

For all the talk of "offensive defense" and "pre-emptive strike" (or my favorite slogan, "peace through strength," or something like that), no one examines the momunmental decision by the IRA, once a terrorist organization w/ the same ferociousness as Al-Queada, to end their methods of violence.

We turn to news footage, bits and clips, footnotes and youtube, cereal box mentality. Why oh why don't we turn to our best resources: our minds and our libraries?

This may be simply a case where I'm using my blog as a forum to get on my soapbox, and I suppose that's my perogative since it is my blog... but there is a message in here, and it's one about rhetoric more than writing. It's also an open call to the candidates: if you want change, start with your rhetoric.

Start by breaking through the consumer culture and engage us through our minds instead of our screens.

Do your homework. Consulte reliable sources. Research. Take the emphasis off the pathos and amp up the logos (it'll do wonders for your ethos).

Stop listening to bullies who call you "elitist" because you turn an elegant phrase. (To steal from Aaron Sorkin and The West Wing: "You think Mao never turned an elegant phrase? How do you think he got 'em all to be communists?") It is high time we start celebrating intelligence not only as a commodity but as patriotic. Jefferson; Madison; Franklin: Elitist?

Talk to the people instead of at the people. You've done a so-so job of listening to the problems, but have you listened to our ideas? Aside from taking my money for more ads and soliciting me for my vote, have you asked anything else of me?

And for the love of Zeus, stop looking at us as demographics. White female liberal. White blue collar worker. Black woman. Gay male. Conservative Republican. Liberal Democrat. War monger. Peacenick. Independent undecided. Obama, four years ago you said we are more than these labels -- and yet, I don't feel any sort of collective comraderie. What happened to "citizen"?

And speaking of, here's a call to citizens: stop playing into the sound clips and out-of-context quotes. Do your homework. Research. Seek to understand. Evaluate your sources. (My advice? Turn off CNN, Fox News, and the whole lot of them.) Engage in open-minded discourse and not shouting matches. Evaluate, analyze, interpret, and then persuade. Be like my brother. He's behaving like a citizen.

Maybe, just maybe, discourse can be the instrument of change. Maybe discourse can restore the hope.

It's worth a try.

what's up w/ the purple panda...

For the record, I'm going to try not to let too much time pass between posts, but now's when my day job takes over, and sometimes I plain have nothing to add. I will catch you up on a couple of things, though.

I've just finished editing an EBook, the second one, for what I believe and hope will be the beginning of a fortuitous partnership of things to come. The dangerous thing about getting into editing mode is that it starts to wear off when I read student papers. Hopefully I'll be out of the habit by the time I collect their first final drafts tomorrow.

My nonfiction book needs to take center stage at this point in time. Things are progressing nicely in terms of aforementioned partnership. I'll say no more about it because you know me and jinxing (it's not in writing yet), but it looks good! The book, however, is shaky at best. Or, at the very least, I am. I am sure this is my perfectionism at work again, but I need a reader for it. I need someone I trust who knows the genre, who can give me both critical and insightful feedback but also understand my rhetorical situation and the needs of the market. My typical Intended Reader, my writing partner, is not the best source on this because she hates the genre (spiritual self-help) -- italics appropriate. On one hand, she's a good reader in that she's someone I can hope to target in terms of the reader who gives the testimonial "I never thought I'd ever pick up a book like this, but..." On the other hand, she knows me too well...

Speaking of books, my novel is still lost in the mail. This has been going on for over a week now. My carrier has been kind enough to get on the stick and track it down, calling me w/ updates, but I've not heard anything yet today. I REFUSE to pay for another one, so I can only hope that either they're gonna find it or someone's gonna reimburse me for losing it in the first place. What's pissing me off is that this is delaying my debut date. I can't move forward until I proof it, and I can't proof it if I DON'T HAVE THE DAMN BOOK IN MY HANDS. I apologize for shouting, but it's been an unpleasant week.

But I have the next open mic contest at QRB to look forward to. I'm entering again, and this time I'm going to read from the novel, and this time I'm going to win, dammit!
Stay tuned...