Wednesday, January 31, 2007
My Ring Name is JC Superfreak
You know what I like? Seagram's 7. Other than that, I like pro wrestling. Yes, you read that correctly, pro wrestling. Now, many of you may remember the boom that most of us experienced in middle school, circa 1997-1999. Some of these names may ring a bell: Steve Austin, The Rock, Goldberg, Bret Hart. While most of us have fallen away from today's wrestling product, I have enjoyed it since seeing my first televised show in November 1999. My point is this: Don't critique a current day wrestling fan due to his or her enjoyment of it. I believe that wrestling is just as entertaining as any current day sitcom, and is much better than any of the schlock than what's on MTV. (If I see another 16 year old whiny girl want a freakin' massive party...)
First off, if your female, there's plenty of beefcake. Sounds shallow, but if I happen to be watching on a Monday night, and my girlfriend happens to be over, and a wrestler by the name of John Cena appears on the screen, she's quasi-hypnotized. The man isn't the best wrestler in the world (neither was Hulk Hogan, but look how that turned out), but he's got the look. There's plenty of fine looking guys out there for you to ogle.
Secondly, for the males out there, there are many scantily clad women. I think that's all that needs to be said.
But, for all people, there is the athletic prowess. Every non-wrestling fan schmo in the universe is going to tell you that "wrestling is fake." The correct thing to say is "wrestling is predetermined." Yes, the wrestlers know who will win at the end of the match, but in between, they ad-lib it. Some of the moves they do look cool, and are legitimately DANGEROUS. If you ever have the chance to see the Main Event of WCW Sin 2001 and see Sid Vicious break his tib and fib leg bones jumping off the top rope, don't do it. It is the WORST thing I have ever witnessed in my life. Absolutely disgusting. Sure, the punches don't land straight on, but if they did, everyone would be hurt all the time, and that doesn't leave much of a roster to work with.
My point is this: Wrestling, in its base form, as entertainment, is great. All you have to do is suspend your disbelief, just as you do for ANY drama, comedy, or movie, for a few hours, and let the entertainment overwhelm you. You can make any homo-erotic touching comment you like. Wrestling will always be something I make time for on my Monday nights.
Monday, January 29, 2007
English Post #1 - Rhetoric
Blog #1: Prior to reading Herrick's introduction, how would you have defined rhetoric? How does today's reading change your perceptions of rhetoric? Do you have a new definition of rhetoric? What is it?
When I think of rhetoric, I think of Bill O’Reilly and his “’No-Spin’ Zone.” There’s a reason I use quotes there, but that’s another story. Rhetoric to me, is spin. Communication is all about how you say something, and Rhetoric is how you say it. Whether you add innuendo, or inflect a certain word you say, or anything else to sway someone, that’s rhetoric.
Now, after reading the Herrick article, I’ve kept some of my opinions and changed others. You certainly plan out what you will say, you think about the audience you influence, and rhetoric certainly has motives behind it. I never really thought of the uses of rhetoric other than the political version of it. Rhetoric and its use to persuade in a positive way is certain useful (advocacy). What is most enlightening to me, is rhetoric as a fact finder. I never thought about the critical thinking that Herrick speaks of in the article. To either create rhetoric or address it, you need to think about what you will say, and possible objections to it. You also have to think about the other things previously mentioned (audience, etc.). You have to think about any evidence in any situation you respond to. Rhetoric, and any communication, (though I would argue that most communication is rhetorical) one needs to evaluate each situation as it occurs.
Coming back to Mr. O‘Reilly, and any pundit out there, rhetoric is useful. Influential speaking is what makes communication tremendously useful.
When I think of rhetoric, I think of Bill O’Reilly and his “’No-Spin’ Zone.” There’s a reason I use quotes there, but that’s another story. Rhetoric to me, is spin. Communication is all about how you say something, and Rhetoric is how you say it. Whether you add innuendo, or inflect a certain word you say, or anything else to sway someone, that’s rhetoric.
Now, after reading the Herrick article, I’ve kept some of my opinions and changed others. You certainly plan out what you will say, you think about the audience you influence, and rhetoric certainly has motives behind it. I never really thought of the uses of rhetoric other than the political version of it. Rhetoric and its use to persuade in a positive way is certain useful (advocacy). What is most enlightening to me, is rhetoric as a fact finder. I never thought about the critical thinking that Herrick speaks of in the article. To either create rhetoric or address it, you need to think about what you will say, and possible objections to it. You also have to think about the other things previously mentioned (audience, etc.). You have to think about any evidence in any situation you respond to. Rhetoric, and any communication, (though I would argue that most communication is rhetorical) one needs to evaluate each situation as it occurs.
Coming back to Mr. O‘Reilly, and any pundit out there, rhetoric is useful. Influential speaking is what makes communication tremendously useful.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Hold 'Back' for score
Well, guess I have to start somewhere. I've tried the whole blog/journal/xanga/whatever thing so many times. Now I have to do it for my English 201 class. Hopefully I will actually keep doing it afterward. Everyone should be privy to what I have to say. It's quite important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)