Ha! Gay penguins steal eggs from straight couples (via The Blogora).
I’m not even sure what to say. Just “hmm.”
Though, I did like the keeper’s attempt at political correctness when saying that the gay penguins would have to be separated from the other penguins:
“It’s not discrimination. We have to fence them separately, otherwise the whole group will be disturbed during hatching time,” he added.
Still, hmm.
So I was out in Denver recently to revisit the Peter-Pan lifestyle that I used to lead not all that long ago. While pulling out of the Whole Foods (which used to be a Wild Oats) I noticed perhaps one of the most effective (public) rhetorical maneuvers that I’ve seen in a long time.
Envision if you will walking up to these two containers:
As I walk up with a plastic bottle, I look for the recycling option, which is not only there, but has a nice list of what’s acceptable and what’s not. I was thrilled with the fact that an effort was being made to not only sort but educate at the same time, knowing that recycling literacy is pitiful — even among those that self-identify as “green.” (Click here to see what Columbus accepts, which is a pretty standard list.)
But I was even more THRILLED when I saw this label on the other can:
What an effective way to redirect someone’s thought-path to consequences that aren’t otherwise considered in throwing away something into a “trash” bin. Even though it’s a move done by Whole Foods (a company whose ethical principles sometimes walk the line), it’s an excellent example of micro-politics: the making of everyday occurrences into conscious political acts.
And here’s the best part: this is easily transferable into an activist project that anyone can participate in. Stickers, stencils, or a simple crossed out “trash” with a penned in “landfill” in its spot will redirect otherwise mindless acts of devastation.
Perhaps someone should take the time to create a “landfill sticker depot” where you can get landfill stickers sent to you so that you can do some redirecting whenever you find the chance. A similar thing happened with the “Fuck” project. If you want to get some immature kicks, the book, “Fuck this Book” is relentlessly funny. Some sample shots below. Enjoy.
But seriously, thoughts on trashy rhetorics?
When the BBC writes, “Al Gore’s [Nobel Prize] acceptance speech was a powerful piece of rhetoric,” is there an underlying political critique happening? We’re all aware that popular use of the word “rhetoric” doesn’t always line up with scholarly connotations. Shocking, I know. Does it mean something, though, that they didn’t tag it as a “powerful speech” or “powerful message”? How is the article contextualizing the speech by calling it a “piece of rhetoric”? (click here for the full speech)
“Mr. Gore’s speech,” the article says, “was a rhetorical tour de force.” Under the section heading “Rhetorical Power,” there is, however, only an implicit rhetorical analysis: “The former vice-president painted a gloomy picture of the climate impacts that might lie ahead. But he was more upbeat in his assessment that carbon emissions could be tackled.”
Emotional roller-coaster = rhetorically effective? Gore’s speech is ripe for rhetorical analysis . . . thoughts anyone?
Harlot: A Revealing Look at the Arts of Persuasion
2008