it's synth-pop friday!

joshcast: summer of frogs II

Music: Jon Hopkins: Contact Note (2004)

Here's a new ambient mix to work by. You can download the the cover art here. You can download the 76 minute mix here. The track list is as follows:

1. Jon Hopkins: "Black and Red"
2. Kraddy: "Loops of Self #1"
3. The Legendary Pink Dots: "Ocean's Blue"
4. Jim Cole and Spectral Voices: "Once Upon a Playground"
5. Haujobb: "Overflow (for a space remix)"
6. Between Interval: "Sea of Darkness"
7. Arrocata: "Sedona"
8. Fever Ray: "Concrete Walls"
9. Perfect Blue: "Solyaris"
10. Stars of the Lid: "Mullholland"
11. Lenny Ibizarre: "The Aoen"

Of course, as always, joshcasts are for preview purposes only. If you enjoy hearing an artist, go out and purchase their album or mp3 . . . .

my geeksake

Music: Fever Ray: self titled (2009) Today I dared to walk into my stereotype: Jeff Albertson. I hope, pray Goddess, I don't resemble this character, at least too much, but I did walk into a comic shop today. I haven't been in a comic shop in many, many years. In fact, I remember my last visit to a comic shop being before I was able to drive. I must admit, however, I was captivated today; I must have been in the place for two hours.

As a pre-teen and young teen, I did covet the comic book. I read Hellblazer (I have the first five issues, mint), Captain Carrot and the Zoo Crew, Blue Devil, Dare Devil, and Dr. Strange. I was a big fan of Crisis on Infinite Earths and I read all of my cousin's Ghost Rider comics (he went away to the Marines, and I devoured his complete set). And as a kid, I remember making my mother buy me Mad, Cracked, Conan and Creepy. The latter were Savage rags, black-and-white throw-always that were super cheap and that my mother always caved into buying (because they were cheap). I remember vividly being an eleven-year-old and reading Creepy in my parent's living room while noshing on cherries and spitting out the pits.

I was also a subscriber to Fangoria magazine, a monster movie rag, since it's inception. My earliest memories as a kid were watching monster movies with my dad late at night. I remember watching the original debut of Stephen King's Salem's Lot on television and identifying with the character who was into "monsters" (his little brother bit him and made him into a vampire). I also remember watching Dark Shadows with my dad, to my mother's objections. I collected monster masks and was really into gory make-up for Halloween. Yeah, I was that kid. This is probably not surprising to those of y'all who know me.

So, today I revisited my past by going into a comic shop. It was filled with people . . . uh, like me. I was sort of surprised. Dudes in their 30s, with goatees, with beer guts and long hair. What? What? I felt a little strange, because this was a world I have not visited for many, many years . . . and yet, there were people who resembled me there, mulling over comics about zombies and . . . men and women in tights . . . .

Why was I there? Well, I had recently learned that my childhood mainstay, a rag called Creepy, was now being anthologized and reprinted in hardback collections. . Learning this news was like a giant black hole: I could not resist. I picked up a volume. I read. I almost cried reading the back issues, again.

I don't have anything to say of profundity, except that reading these back issues of my childhood reading reminds me of where my values were formed. Perhaps there's a paper is this, I don't know. But reading these old "creepy" stories reminds me of my youth, and the values that were certainly instilled in me as a young person. The values advanced, however subtly, by these comics are "liberal" by today's standards—progressive. It's weird to read these comics, but I see now at 36 years of age how the left-ish lean of these tales influenced me. Huh. Comics did mold me. I guess I'm pleased to see the politics underwriting these "tales of horror" were progressive. And, just, wow. Who knew?

publishing: new frustrations

Music: Phoenix: Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix (2009)

I have spent the last three days reviewing the proofs of two, separate journal articles slated for publication this fall. Both essays are with different journals at different publishing houses. Both essays are co-authored. I am frustrated with these publishers. Somehow, between the last, revised MSWord edition I submitted and the typeset version, an incompetent person---or gremlin---decided to do a little editing.

I am angry. It has taken me almost a decade to learn how to write competently. Lord knows "Sloppy" should be my middle name, as I am always making mistakes (and fortunately, increasingly better at catching them). I am uncertain if the improvement in my own writing has caused me to notice errors more, or rather, if it is the case that publishers are hiring people to typeset and proofread that are increasingly incompetent (and have you looked at the abstracts of our work on EBSCO? Who writes those? Eighth graders?). Regardless, I resent the fact my co-authors and I slaved over our final drafts, only to have a host of new errors and mistakes to correct---costing me, thus far, a full day's work (eight hours). By the time I'm finished making corrections, I suspect I'll have lost most of my weekend. How do these mistakes happen? Why so many? How come our discipline's publishers make the most inane/idiotic author queries? Here's a sampling of what I'm correcting today:

• Both articles have co-authors. Both sets of proofs are missing co-author contact information, even though I sent it. One proof is missing the co-author entirely; on that same proof, my name is listed as "Gunn Joshua."
• In one proof, someone rewrote our abstract. The sentences do not make grammatical sense. For example, some well-meaning editor wrote: "And idealist understanding of agency in which a subject can fulfill needs and desires . . . ." My co-author and I did have a verb, and did not start a sentence this way.
• "Almost a decade ago anthropologies Jean and John L. Comaroff & Comaroff (1999) advanced the . . . . " Uh, what? We didn’t write this.
• ". . . proper manipulation of thoughts and symbols (i.e. language)." Um, my co-author and I had written "(e.g., language)." The difference is important. "i.e." means "that is," such that the line would make symbols and language synonymous. They're not, which is why we went for "e.g." This kind of editorializing is infuriating.
• All our numbers, written in word if below 20, were changed to numerals—but inconsistently. So, for example, "two" appears as "2," but "three" remains "three."
• "For simplicity, we can reduce these characteristics to three interrelated components: (1) wish fulfillment . . . ; (2) social constructivism; and (4) radical individualism." Um, shouldn't that be "(3)" . . . yes, or maybe the press prefers "(three)."
• One author's query: "Divya, make this consistent." Who is Divya?
• One author's query: "Paolo Virno, 2008 has not been included in Reference List, please supply publication details." Um, no. Why? Because Virno is referenced in someone else's piece from 2008. Do the proofreaders actually READ the essay they're typesetting?
• Numerous author's queries state that we have not cited such-and-so and author in the text, when we clearly have. Apparently they don't have a "find" feature on their typesetting software.

Oh, I could go on with my complaining, but I think readers get the drift at this point. Correcting errors my co-authors and I did not make is very tiresome and should not happen. Unfortunately, increasingly, it seems par for the course in this gig. Worse: they always say you have to return corrections in three days. Just this last December 23rd I had a publisher do this to me. I didn't send it back in three days; a fat man in a red suit got in my way.

it's synth-pop friday!

on political mendacity

Music: Soma FM's "Drone Zone"

In yesterday's weekly radio address, President Obama reacted to "a range of 'outrageous myths' including that illegal immigrants will be covered, that abortions will be funded by taxpayer dollars, that so-called 'death panels' will be formed to decide who receives treatment, and that reform will lead to a government takeover of health care." Obama's reaction was much more measured than Barney Frank's response to a young woman who suggested the current health care reform plan was a reenactment of the Nazi "Action T4" plan (if you have not seen this, watch):

The woman is apparently a member of Lyndon LaRouche's "political action committee" and was wielding one of their publicity posters featuring Obama with a Hitler-esque moustache. In a number of statements, LaRouche has argued the Obama administrations health care play is "exactly the infamous 'T-4' policy imposed by Adolph Hitler in 1939, for which the Nazi regime was tried and condemned at Nuremberg." I confess I have not read the proposed plan in its entirety---I have classes to research and prep---but I am fairly confident the new plan is not an "exact" copy of Hitler's secret memo, nor is it the same policy as this young woman maintains.

Of course, the "death panel" idea is not limited to conspiracy theorists such as LaRouche; Sarah Palin infamously suggested her "down syndrome baby" might be euthanized because of certain provisions in the plan, extending a critique made by Betsy McCaughey over a decade ago in respect to the Clinton health care plan. Palin withdrew her statement the next day, however, that seems to have done very little to diminish the truth effect of such statements.

As James Fallows confessed last week, these outright mendacious statements seem relatively impervious to fact-checking. In our contemporary world of instantaneous information and dissemination, it is possible to research and correct the record in a matter of minutes. Fallows had assumed, he said, that folks like McCaughey could no longer get away with the shocking statements that derived their truth effect from the shear recency of publicity: immediately such statements would be corrected. He says, however, that he was wrong. Case in point: despite the fact Palin immediately withdrew and corrected her statement about the death panels, other politicians and citizens continued to believe the lie.

Frank is right: attempting to have a conversation with people who believe Obama is evil is akin to having a conversation with a dinner table. Nothing will be set or rearranged. Somehow, something as benign as health care has become an issue as intractable as abortion. This means, then, that the health care overhaul has traversed the relatively simple, fact-based formation of beliefs into the domain of values, deeply held beliefs that are anchored by equally deep affects. Why do people believe in patently false things, even when brute facts are brought to their attention? The answer is because it's really not about simple beliefs, which are easily altered with facts. It's about values and a soul-deep commitment of faith.

For example, sitting at a table with the health care plan in front of her, McCaughey attempts to convince John Stewart the death panel is actually in the plan, flipping through pages frantically, stuttering, and in general appearing flustered. It is painfully obvious there is nothing of the sort in the bill, a point exploited by Stewart in his humorously smug manner. It's not obvious, however, that McCaughey is lying---she really seems to be sincerely committed to her fears. Are Palin, McCaughey, Grassley, and others deliberately spreading mistruths? Or are they actually talking about something else? Is this mendacious rhetoric, in other words, all craft and no conviction?

I think it is a little of column A and a little of column B, which is why Obama's radio denouncement---and all the talking heads you want---cannot completely eliminate the idea that the health care plan will lead to "death panels." Let us look closer at the way in which Palin went "viral":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

What are the "god" and "devil" terms here? We have "baby," "down syndrome," "death," "bureaucrats," and "evil." On the side of god is an innocent human life, a baby. The baby's innocence is signaled by the qualifier that he has "down syndrome." In the same sentence, we have the idea of "death" and "evil." Where else do we typically see these god and devil terms? Of course, we see them in pro-life discourse: abortion is the murder of innocent human life. Palin evokes the very same terms, and therefore the same value set, that mobilizes the so-called "right" in political contexts. In other words, the false idea of the "death panel" is simply another way of reasserting a pro-life value set. We're talking about abortion, folks, and I don't mean "abortion" as an argument about a medical procedure, I mean anti-abortion as a signifier for a certain kind of subject position that is widely known: Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and so on. No one will ever get rid of the "death panel" topos because it's really not about death panels at all.

When I go home to visit with my parents, I'm often astonished by the political scripts that exit their mouths. We all have our "scripts," me too. What's astonishing about their scripts is that they are all claims with no evidence, and often I cannot even understand what the underlying warrant or reasoning is (at least other than a certain set of values). Having recently picked-up cable television, I've started watching a lot of the so-called news stations and can see where my parents are picking up these "scripts." They are ardent watchers of Fox News, a cable program designed to reinforce a certain form of political subjectivity, a form very easily demonstrable when watching, for example, how they edited Frank's exchange with the LaRouche follower (no mention is made of the fact she compared Obama to Hitler). Frank is right: reasoned discussion is not possible when you are confronting a series of claims, anchored to certain values and feelings, based on a faith in their truth effects.

Finally, there is this: some people literally believe that Deity enfleshed Himself, was born unto a virgin mother, lived as a carpenter, then had himself nailed to a cross so that he could bleed to death and, thereby, atone for all the imperfections of humankind. None of this is based in fact, but the values hitched to this story are so deep-seated that it does not matter.

the boot code, with regards to leslie hahner

Music: Charlatans: Simpatico (2006)

One of my favorite coffee table books is Mel Gordon's deliciously fascinating Volumptuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin (Los Angles: Feral House, 2006). From it, we learn various tidbits about prostitutes. Since prostitution was illegal, these skilled professionals had to signal their vocational offerings with their fashion choices. Of particular interest are the "boot girls," who were dominatrices that used the following "code":

black boots (stifling the impulse to write "highway broads"): Will crop your ass lying down.

brown boots: will try to choke you wearing boots or stockings.

blue boots: she'll get busy with a strap on.

scarlet boots: she'll humiliate you by making you wear a dress and then poke fun at you.

black laces: short-whip spankings.

gold laces: did you say you wanted poop on your chest?

white laces: ruff ruff, you get to wear a collar!

white ribbons on the top of boots: you get to start off as the dom, but the tables get turned by the end.

Of course, they couldn't have possibly known about my favorite: purple laces and a small padlock. And don't ask me what that's code for; if you don't already know, then there's no sense in telling you.

it's synth-pop friday!

david lynch goes to church

Music: The Jayhawks: Tomorrow the Green Grass (1995)

Through a bourbon-sot fog I remember the first time I saw Quintron and Miss Pussycat. About six or seven years ago I was touring the French Quarter with Jenn the Master Piercer (again) and she was berating me for not having hung out at the Shim Sham Club. Amazingly, we somehow managed to walk from Decatur street near the Marigny where all the bartenders gave her---and therefore me---free drinks to the Shim Sham (now One Eyed Jacks). The Shim Sham originally appears as a small, hole-in-the-wall bar in the middle of the Quarter; it had a rock-a-billy aesthetic with devil imagery all over the place, with a few naked women on velvet thrown in for added taste. I remember thinking something like, "what? Came all this way for a small bar with four tables, devils, and pin-ups! Cripes!"

But I was fooled. The "front bar" is just a tiny waiting room, what was apparently the lobby of a former opera house. Jenn pointed to some double-doors with two large, porthole windows at the top. She said it was a live music and burlesque venue now. "Wait! Is that Quintron?" she said with excitement. A bouncer near the portholes confirmed it was Quintron, and invited us to go in because "the show's almost over" (gosh, I miss the free-drink/free-show attitude of New Orleans! They're so anal here in Austin about their cover charges). So we walked in and it was like a scene right out of the Wizard of Oz, you know, the one when Dorothy walks out of the house in Munchkin Land and discovers Technicolor and little people with flowers on their heads for the first time?

Except it wasn't The Wizard of Oz. Instead, it was more like walking into Lynch's opening sequence in Mulholland Drive. The entire room was painted in red and blue light. On the stage was a very sweaty man with shaggy hair, half-naked, banging himself into a frenzy on a series of organs set into an old car-grill. A contraption made out of a coffee can and a light bulb created a rhythmic drone (apparently Mr. Quintron sells these things as "the drum buddy"). A woman dressed in a 50s-style pink dress with a pomm in her hair, large breasts, and with matching maracas shook away like she was a possessed. Behind them was what appeared to be a weird, Cronenberg-esduqe television set (I learned later it was an enclosure for a puppet show).

And then, there was the music. It was soulful and dominated by organs, but also a bit droney. It reminded me of mid-period Jim Thirlwell (Foetus) , except with much more maracas percussion and much less grunting. Every now and then, Miss Pussycat would scream something, like with the B-52s. In fact, Quintron and Miss Kitten probably invite comparisons to the B-52s the most for sonorous and aesthetic reasons, but Mr. Quintron's voice is much too soulful. It's like church music on acid. It's like David Lynch goes to church.

Upon first encountering Quintron and Miss Kitten, I was totally confused. Just at the point I thought I was "getting it," hundreds and hundreds of multi-colored balloons dropped from the very, very high ceiling on the audience. People went nuts and starting popping them left and right. Quintron started audience surfing and Miss Kitten was screaming something about being a "swamp boogie bad ass." It was utter pandemonium in this opera house, and I thought perhaps Jenn had dosed my drink with acid, cause I just wasn't sure what I'm seeing was real.

Since that day, I've seen the duo (who are also husband and wife) multiple times. I drove to Houston once to see them. But something named Katrina, and the Rita, hit New Orleans and this most amazing musical institution had to call it quits for a while. Then, my friend Macy (whom I had hooked on Quintron) said she was driving to Austin to see the band. I immediately got excited.

Last night I saw Quintron and Miss Pussycat play, and it was truly an evangelical revival. I swear half the audience consisted of displaced and now Austin-homed New Orleanians. I spread the gospel, telling friends that they should go to the show. I pleaded with a group celebrating Matt's birthday party they should attend the show. I managed to convince two beautiful and obviously brilliant friends they should attend. They are now die-hard converts to the Quintron and Miss Pussycat experience.

Here is a gallery of last night's saving experience. Here's a video, but it simply cannot capture the magical spirit of a live show:

Won't you convert to Quintronianism?

it's synth-pop friday!

rhetoric and psychoanalysis, yet again

Music: Harold Budd: Luxa (1996) As most academics know, summer is for writing. This summer I had high hopes to work on four projects: a solo-authored essay and three co-authored essays. Well, I at least got the first one done and out, but the other three I am just now getting to (sorry Adria, Chris, and Ken). Part of the problem is that I traveled a bit, but the biggest albatross that got in the way was the tenure packet. I knew it would be work; I didn't realize it was so much work, and that hours upon hours and still yet hours would be spent policing periods, colons, and "table rows." Hell hath no fur(r)y like an anally retentive bureaucrat.

In any event, I managed to bang-out a beginning to a new essay I hope my co-author and I can wrap up in a few weeks. I think it's possible (though I don't know what he's got going on). I plan to draft as much as I can next week and punt it over. I'm leaving town to get away with some friends for a few days, so while the fire is hot---it'll have to wait. A teaser:

Sixth Myths of Psychoanalysis: A Post-amble for Rhetorical Studies

In my opinion, psychoanalysis can only be studied at the university at research level. Some of my colleagues disagree, but I think that students only reach the point when they can approach analytic thinking at the end of their studies. There is no point in teaching students to construct main psychoanalytic concepts after high school, because they have nothing to go back over. Analysis is retrospective, it demands a return. It constructs in deconstructing.
--Jean Laplanche[1]

In an interview with his translator and fellow psychoanalyst Martin Stanton, Jean Laplanche provocatively denies a direct link between psychoanalytic training and research. He claims "a doctorate in psychoanalysis is . . . the same thing as having a doctorate in letters," for "no one thinks a doctorate of letters entails the right to be a writer."[2] At some level, Laplanche is expressing cynicism toward the various credentialing psychoanalytic institutes that hamper academic research by imposing the prescriptive demands of the regulated clinic on to those whom they credential. At another level, however, the famed "critical archaeologist of Freudian concepts" disavows any "distinction between the clinical and the theoretical."[3] Such a distinction is instrumental and prescriptive, establishing the "social aim" of the cure when there is much more to the enterprise than the clinic. Laplance clarifies: "I think that all research in psychoanalysis touches on two or more of the following realms: the theoretical, the clinical, psychoanalysis outside of the realm of the cure, and the history of psychoanalytic ideas."[4] While psychoanalysis is unquestionably a therapeutic practice that emerged in treating clients, producing results (not always preferred results) for those suffering from psychosomatic symptoms, it has also emerged as a metaphysics ("metaphsychology"), a social or cultural theory, a mode of critique, and a way of understanding the self and others. It is both a perspective on the human subject as well as a method of interpretation. Jacques Lacan even maintained that psychoanalysis was an ethic.[5]

Despite these many "realms," as Laplance puts it, the entire enterprise of psychoanalysis is often dismissed by its distracters on the basis of a widely held-yet nevertheless erroneous-myth: science (whatever this is) has disproved psychoanalysis as a clinical practice. In response to such a statement we answer with two questions: "whose psychoanalysis?" and "which clinical practice?" Such an instrumental generalization presumes precisely the scientistic values, as well as the monolithic discourse, that Laplance urges us to reject. Moreover, within the context of the theoretical humanities, such a myth subordinates interpretive and analytic discourse to the values of prediction.

Even taken at face value, that suggestion that all of psychoanalysis has been scientifically disproved is false. For example, although there is disagreement among scholars as to whether Freud was best understood as a medical scientist, a social theorist, or both,6 the debate between those who find his understanding of the interpretation of dreams compelling and the proponents of more recent neurophysiological models is far from over,7 as recent theories have worked assiduously to reconcile the two.8 And although a large number of Freud's assumptions-the hydraulic model of the nervous system and feminine sexuality, to name a couple-are by contemporary standards demonstrably false, as John E. Gedo has argued, Freud's analytical technique, his concept of the unconscious, his understanding of repetition compulsion, and his insistence on the importance of early childhood experience have all been clinically and even scientifically validated to various degrees (e.g., PET scans for the existence of non-conscious brain activity).9 Much of what Freud asserted as scientific conjecture turned out wrong, but not all. Moreover, a focus on Freud's early scientific aspirations completely ignores his shift to cultural and social theory and critique in his lesser read works, such as Civiliztion and Its Discontents (1930) or Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921).

The insights of psychoanalysis are not reducible to what neurophysiology or brain research bears out, then, but nor do they contract to Freud either. Rather, in this essay we endeavor a retrospective of the abuse and neglect of psychoanalysis in the field of U.S. rhetorical studies to encourage further, less reticent research from both psychoanalytic and post-psychoanalytic perspectives. Our thesis is simply that a psychoanalytic perspective is useful for critical work. Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood among rhetorical scholars, and it is difficult to advance any positive claim without a ground-clearing. To this end, then, we present a "post-amble" or retrospective prologue by first discussing the reception of psychoanalysis in rhetorical studies, suggesting why its insights have been slow to up-take in the field. Then, we proceed by addressing six of the most prominent myths one reads or hears (usually informally or in a classroom setting) about psychoanalysis. Finally, we conclude with a summary of what we think are the most compelling reasons a psychoanalytic perspective is useful for critical work.

celebrity culture

Music: The Dirty Projectors: Bitte Orca (2005)

Today I finished prepping both my graduate seminar and my large lecture undergraduate class. I'm excited about teaching both classes, but I'm particularly pumped about my undergraduate class, which is brand spanking new. I have not prepped a new undergraduate class, in fact, for five years. At LSU I was helping to rebuild the curriculum with Laura, and so new course preps were the norm for the first couple of years. When I got to UT, however, the curriculum was already set, and so I basically got to teach whatever I thought was important to teach. I simply have taught what I have already prepped.

The year before last a benefactor---apparently an entertainment lawyer in Hollywood---donated funds with the express condition that the college develop an "entertainment studies" track. I proposed that we develop a "celebrity culture" course to get on this gravy train. The gravy ain't coming yet (perhaps never), but the course got developed anyway and I'm teaching it for the first time this fall.

I enjoyed reading the stuff in preparation for the class, and was happy to discover that there is a lot of scholarship out there on celebrity and the influence of celebrity on culture. There's so much good stuff out there, in fact, that I had trouble deciding what I should teach!

I'm also excited to see how my new "group project" assignment will go. Basically, a student group has to upload a video on YouTube.com or start a blog and promote it. Their grade is based on how many viewers or readers they are able to get over the course of two months. We shall see!

Anyhoo, if you'd like a peek at the tentative syllabus, you can download a PDF here.

it's synth-hot friday!

why crackbook?

Music: David Bowie: Reality (2003)

Recently an older friend asked if he should bother with singing on to Facebook. My first response was "no," that he did enough social networking without a screen. I said that it is little more than a way to procrastinate. I said that I keep my facebook page open when I'm doing something distasteful (like grading, or trying to write something that just won't come) in the hopes someone will want to "chat" (thanks, Matt, by the way). While I enjoy spending time on Facebook, I cannot say it is productive for much. Ok, so we can organize political groups, I'll admit that. But most of the time, nothing productive is achieved (oh, the hours I spent attacking someone's zombie will never be returned to me).

Just before I hit "send," however, I remembered two things. First, I remembered Katherine Hayles' talk here at UT a couple of years ago on changing modes of literacy. She argued that we need to change-up our pedagogy to incorporate more screens and examples. Although almost all research on "multi-tasking" demonstrates that one oscillates among attention targets (there is no such thing as simultaneously engaged attention targets), folks in younger generations think and process information differently than my generation. These folks are capable of switching how they attend to targets rapidly. This implicates a vast yet thin epistemological schema: a little is understood about a lot of things. The schema developed and nurtured in the academy for centuries is increasingly specialized and deep. Hayles seems to be predicting, Paul Virilio style, a coming crash. Let us dub this the "coming classroom crash," the moment when our student's brains have been completely integrated into multi-mediated dispositions such that they are incapable of learning the old, Sunday school way (open book, read, discuss).

Second, I remembered an NPR story from a few days ago about the resignation of Google, Inc., executive Eric Schmidt from Apple's board. Schmidt resigned after increasing scrutiny by FTC, but really, he would have eventually done it anyway because of the tension between Google and Apple. This tension has everything to do with Hayles' discussion of changing modes of consciousness and thought. Aside from getting snubbed by Apple for an iPhone application it developed, Google has also announced its intentions to develop a rival OS called "Chrome," which will utilize the browser as a locus for software. In other words, Google and Apple disagree about how the computing experience should be: Apple believes in the "old school" way of having applications ride on top of the OS, while Google thinks the Facebook model is the better way to go. In Facebook you have all kinds of applications running in the browser at the same time, status and chats and games and so forth.

So, before telling my friend to wave off Facebook, I said that it may be important to be on the dang thing because it gives one a sense of how his or her students are thinking; it may very well provide one a sense of how to modify teaching. For example, during lecture one might show an outline and lecture traditionally, switch to close reading for a while, then visit a webpage, then so a video, back to lecture, and so forth. I'm going to try to facebook my teaching in the fall for my Celebrity Culture course by doing this sort of multi-attention target approach. Perhaps if I do this, in class students will attend more studiously to the classroom and less to, well, Facebook.

it is done

Music: Various Artists: Pop Ambient 2008 (2008)

Yesterday I turned in my tenure packet to the angels in the department office. Although I had planned to photograph the ritual, I just sort of ran out of steam because of the events of last week. The gesture was somewhat anticlimactic, because I also know I'm not really done. I'll be asked to redo things after it comes back from the department committee. Then, I'll be asked to redo some things from the dean's office before it goes to college committee. After the packet comes back from the college committee, I'll be asked to tweak things yet again---and rinse, repeat for each remaining stage (university-wide committe, central administration, provost, and so on). It's not really "done," then. But at least the bulk of the labor is finished.

Speaking of finished, I'd like to turn to more cheerful things, like my garden and its gnomes. My garden is also "finished," in the sense that the plants cannot take much more of this triple digit heat any longer! When I was out of town, the neighbor didn't water the hanging plants for some reason, and when I returned they were dead. Or almost dead. I pruned and fertilized the crap out of them and put them in sunny spots. They are re-sprouting leaves, so to borrow a phrase from Skinny Puppy, they ain't dead yet!. I went to Home Duh-Pot and replaced the hanging plants with new ones that were literally $2.50 a piece, on clearance.

The rest of the garden is still growing, however, with two waterings a day. So much so, in fact, that over half of the gnomes are now grown over! You can only see their little red hats poking through the leaves. I'm somewhat disappointed that my zucchini plant didn't produce me something. And I confess I'm not terribly excited about the Tabasco peppers I planted instead of jalapenos. I think I will go back to jalapenos next year.

So, to see the progress, you can compare my garden from the planting season, to a couple months after planting season in early summer, to the dog days of August.

my shadow knows

Music: A Covenant of Thorns: If the Heavens Should Fall (2004)

I've protected this post with a password because it is serving multiple functions. First, this post is largely therapeutic for me to "get it all out." Second, I need a written record of this week's events, might as well do it while it's all fresh. Third, if I'm sharing it with you, it's because I personally know you. This is not a public post for many reasons, some of which are legal.

You may have noticed some changes to the blog recently, including a shift in tone and topic, as well as some disappearing posts (they have not been deleted, just set to "private" for a while). This is because---as many of you know---I have a cyberstalker, and last week he started attempting to post again. I have set to "private" every post in the past two years that this person has tried to post to, or has successfully posted to (because I did not yet know it was him). I did this for two reasons. The first reason is because he attempted to post this on the recent, fruitful discussion about plagiarism and cruelty:

Anonymous
swan-necklace@hotmail.com
68.76.44.62
Submitted on 2009/07/21 at 11:41pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRw98ALGgBA
Start at 7:14 and then watch the beginning of the next video in the sequence. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzR9yR18L2Y
Some people deserve the break. Some people don’t.

The film Wit, based on a play by the same name, is about a professor dying of cancer and regretting that she was cruel to her students. Obviously the stalker knows how to walk right up to the line of physical threat without crossing it.

Of course, all the posts on my blog are now moderated because this guy started posting stuff like this in January, 2008. Prior to that date, my blog was not moderated and only filtered for spam.

Just weeks prior I had installed software on my server that allowed me to block certain IP addresses. I immediately blocked "68.76.44.62." The next day, the stalker tried to post three times. All he would see is this: "You Are Banned for Failing to Disclose Your Identity and/or for Being a Jerk." Actually, I'm not sure if he can even read my blog, but I know he cannot post unless he goes to a different IP.

Apparently this made the stalker very angry. In response, on the 23rd the stalker emailed the following message to my dean and the president of the University of Texas:

From: Sean Jacobs [mailto:seanjcbs@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:24 PM
To: Hart, Roderick P
Subject: Concerned CMS Student.

Dear Dr. Roderick P. Hart,
I'm writing this letter to inform you of the absolute disgraceful conduct one of the professors in the college of communication is showing. Yesterday evening on Joshua Gunn's website joshiejuice.com, there was the posting of a letter that exposed a current students name for supposedly plagiarizing on a final paper. Throughout josh's post he gives out this students name numerous times and then goes on to degrade and disrespect the individual.
Although I am in no position to judge neither the student nor the instructor, Joshua Gunn's belligerent actions are completely unacceptable. From what I know and from what Josh has wrote in his blog, the student unintentionally forgot to cite 3 lines from his 10 page final paper. I understand there are strict rules and penalty's that comes with plagiarism intentional or not, but the bashing and cruelty that took place in this letter is unacceptable and is really must stop.
Last semester I had professor Gunn as my teacher and for several months now, I and many others have been following his blog. It really seems to me that Instead of sensibly coping with his anger (mainly due to not being a tenured professor); he frequently tries to insult and belittle students by calling them failures and so forth. Through his rhetoric we can all clearly see that this man is evil and really should be reprimanded for his aggressive rude actions. To take pride in calling people failures, cheaters, and horrible people (in previous blog post) is completely offensive. Think of what these words due to one's self esteem/ image all just for making an honest mistake? This is absolutely unbelievable.
Also, I'm not sure what fetish Joshua has with exposing letters/emails and names of students that are supposed to be confidential. It's very unprofessional and says a lot about the instructor's character. I also was browsing through a previous post from Mr. Gunn's blog and I happened to find one especially striking! A student, obviously African American, had made comment about the black nails and the strange looking cane that is currently in the communication website photo of him. The reply from Josh was, "The cane was my great grandmother's. I'll bet you'll never know where this cane has been." If I'm not mistaking I'm pretty sure he is referring to slavery and the beating of blacks! Take a look for yourself if he hasn't deleted the post already as I've just discovered that the one from yesterday is longer there.
Although I am willing to bet that this isn't the first rodeo that we've seen dealing with Mr. Gunn's behavior, I would appreciate it if you would bring this to his attention. I have emailed the president as well as the Texas State Board of Education in hopes that someone will further look into this matter.
Sean

The president and the dean received two identical emails on Thursday. Rod emailed me---along with my chair---to ask for our reactions. I replied thusly:

Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:57:14 -0500
To: "Hart, Roderick P" , Barry Brummett
From: Joshua Gunn
Subject: Re: FW: Concerned CMS Student.
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Dear Rod and Barry,

First, this post is fraudulent. There is no "Sean Jacobs" in the UT directory, nor did I have a Sean or anyone by the name of Jacobs in my course last semester.

Second, I have never mentioned a student by name on my personal web-log or "blog." I have discussed plagiarism frequently, but I do not discuss students' identities.

Third, for going-on two years I have been dealing with a disgruntled "stalker" student on my blog. I have a rather large stockpile of messages similar to the one you received. I have filed a case with the University Police that remains open. Thus far, the police have said they cannot pursue the harasser because these nasty messages are on my personal web space.

Fourth, this message to you comes on the heels of a lot of activity from the "stalker." I recently installed software that allows me to +block+ people from posting if the are hailing from a certain ISP address. The "stalker" has tried numerous times to post on the blog this week, but he only gets a "you have been banned" message. I think his message to you was in part inspired by my blocking him.

Finally, now that he has emailed you directly, I think the police can act. Would you mind forwarding me the full email, with all the gobbledy-gook at the top of the email? We need the IP numbers. If these numbers match the numbers I have blocked this week, I will finally have the evidence I need to press charges.

This man has been harassing me since January of 2008, when I failed him for plagiarizing thirteen pages of internet material in a "personal reflection journal" assignment. I would really like to do something about it. It's not fun having someone this angry at you for so long; in fact, it's scary.

Sincerely,

Josh

Reading this exchange should catch most of y'all up to date. I made a police report last November of the stalker, submitting all the attempted and actual posts on the blog that I had saved. I went to the police station with this new "evidence" and submitted copies in a "supplemental report." The police said they would check with such-and-so department to see if the emails were criminal. If so, they could subpoena ISPs and Google mail for identity information.

I then went to visit with the dean. The issue with the timing of this "attack" is that my tenure packet will be turned in, literally, next Monday. The dean explained that this is not the time one wants attention from "The Tower" (slang for central administration, and because they are located in a big monstrous phallus-like building that you can see from all parts of Austin)---no controversy is always best around promotion time, since "The Tower" are a fairly conservative bunch. Apparently, the university president's office punted this email immediately to a central administration legal team who are undertaking an investigation of Rosechron. Even though the allegations are not true, for legal reasons they must look into it. Frankly, I'm pissed the stalker has succeeded in something, but I'm also not too worried about this because I have never disclosed a student's identity or even hinted at who a given student is or may be. Nevertheless, I've been advised to "blog about kittens" for the next year until the promotion is official.

Rod, as many of you know, is something of a wordsmith and no doubt he ran the stalker's email through Diction, a content analysis program he authored. He is of the opinion the writer is either a second-language speaker or psychotic. We profiled in a geeky rhetorician-cum-FBI profiler style for some minutes. He was of the opinion the stalker was not the former athlete I suspected, but someone else, perhaps someone not even affiliated with the university. I said I thought the stalker knew too much about my classroom for it not to be a former student.

The identity of the stalker became this week's "obsession" for me, not just because it's a mystery, but because I was concerned for my safety. For some reason driving home from my meeting with the dean, I remembered a nasty couple of emails sent by a student I had in the fall of 2005, my first semester here. These emails were the basis of my series of "petulant demand" posts (all of which are not available at the moment).

In the fall of 2005 a student used an old architecture paper in his journal for my class on popular music. The student received a "C" or something (it was not an F) because I just didn't give him credit for those pages. Over the winter holiday break he was harassing me on email about his grade---sent a nasty note on Christmas day, as I recall. Anyway, when I got back to Austin I found his journal, saw what the issue was, and as a courtesy phoned him. He went into a rage, screaming into the phone. He was so over-the-top I just decided to hang up with him. Shortly thereafter, I received this email:

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:46:26 -0600 From: ---------- @mail.utexas.edu To: Joshua Gunn Subject: Fun with scathing emails

Josh, First let me say that i really regret writing you such a good course review, i fully intend to retract it through the appropriate channels. It is unfortunate that you seem to view this issue as some kind of competition between us where your position trumps mine, as opposed to an entirely understandable problem to be solved. Education is the most fullfilling thing in life and grades are really inconsequential but as a professor you have a duty to your students to treat them fairly and with integrity. In this, Dr. Gunn, I believe you have failed. Since you seem unwilling to carry on a rational phone conversation without dancing around the issues like a politician on Crossfire or hanging up i thought i'd write you this friendly email. I'm absolutely astounded at your willingness to let this be drawn out through official and unecessary channels leading to weeks of headaches and more bad press for your "tenure run" when you know as well as i do that they will rule in my favor. Before our correspondence about my final grade had begun i had commented to several people about you being one of the better professors i've had at UT. Clearly, my impression of you was uninformed. While you're a very interesting lecturer and clearly very informed on the subject matter it appears to me that your inexperience with your authority has comprimised your integrity and your ability to effectively profess. Your obvious depression mingles into your lectures by way of a condecending and generally prickish tone (perhaps, Dr. Gunn, it gets lost in emails but it doesn't in person) and you've allowed your anti-establishment image and behaviour which you've worked so hard to cultivate (and which, in part, makes you a good lecturer) compromise your ability to communicate equitably. Your obviously a very intelligent person, unfortunately you, like so many intelligent people, have made the mistake of assuming that any legitimate afront to your authority is also one to your intelligence. So let me, a very intelligent person myself, give you some advice. Operating rationally and with concession gains one much more credibility in intellectual circles (that is what intelligent people like us are looking for, isn't it, eh?) than the alternative. So before you write me off as some snot-nosed, grade-grubing, student who doesn't really "know" you, you should realize that being privy to another's true view of you is a rare and invaluable tool in regards to advancing your career and (not to mention) enriching your life. So if you feel you need to write back an equally scathing review of me, i'll welcome it as i'm always interested in improving how I project myself and for that matter i'm interested in delightfully scathing emails in general. So that "none of the tone is lost" Dr. Gunn, this email is intended to be read as condecending and arrogant (and oh so therapeutic! thanks, joshie!) in hopes that it's message will resonate and that future students of yours will be treated with a little more due justice. Later, ----.

The student then disappeared and I never heard from him again . . . until six months later, when on June 5th he sent Rod this email:

Fwd: Re: In regards to Dr. Joshua Gunn

Doctor______, my name is _____ and i was a student in Dr. Joshua Gunn's rhetoric of popular music class last semester. I am writing you this email to express my displeasure with him as a professor. I'm sure you've gotten many emails about his "anti-establishment" behaviour and his propensity for foul language during lecture, these are not where my concerns lie. In fact, i think those characteristics make him an entertaining and effective lecturer. Dr. Gunn demonstrated a complete lack of ethical principals in my personal dealings with him, the details of which are long and arduous and will be provided upon request (my aim is not to get my grade changed or anything like that, simply to voice my opinion that he is not a professor of the caliber that the college should be employing) He is perfectly willing to flat out lie to his students (only to unwittingly reveal his lies when he calls your home to rudely dismiss your problem wiuthout even knowing what it is and then hang up on you),and in fact, his general attitude seems to be to coast by without actually doing any work on his was to a nice fat tenur. Which, by the way, he actively campaigns for during course evaluations, encouraging students to give him good evaluations so that he may make tenur quickly. This, i believe, is not only extremely unethical but also presumptious and highly premature considering it was his fist semester at UT. This email is already long enough and you no doubt are a very busy man, so feel free to contact me if you would like further details about his unethical behaviour, otherwise i would just like to reiterate my extreme dissatisfaction with him as a teacher. Thank you, --petulant student.

I sat these years-old messages along side the recent ones. I then compared them all to this student's journal, which for some reason (thank you unconscious) I kept. It's the same rhetorical style; I think it is the same person.

Of course, I reported this to the police. I now have a specific name, and it wasn’t whom I had originally suspected. I have a situation where a student from 2005 has now come back two years later and has been harassing me ever since.

We did a search on this student in the UT databases. His last enrollment at UT was 2005. He never finished his degree. He was a psychology major. Apparently, after his class with me, he dropped out of school---and I gather blames me for this.

One has to wonder: what kind of person holds a grudge for four years for something he did wrong? The obvious answer is only someone who is "unstable" (or better, psychotic).

This past week I have been in email conversations with both Barry and Rod about the stalker. Rod's advice was to "chill" and focus on scholarship, which is sort of hard to do in this kind of situation. I wish I could! Barry's advice was to "go comic." That is, to email this guy anonymously and tease him---and doing so may have the added benefit of getting him to admit his true identity. So, I set up a fake gmail account under fake name. Barry crafted the message (he's good at this stuff) to play on suspected stalker's true name. I got a friend to hit "send" from another state. Here's what was sent to the stalker:

:

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:45 PM, ~mp wrote:

A little boyd told me you doug yourself in too far with that recent prank and now you are a mark for every cop in the land.

~mp

Within the hour the stalker, with his assumed alias, replied thus:

:

From: Sean Jacobs <seanjcbs@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Subject: Re:
To: MP <mp@gmail.com>

Hey bud,

Boyd and Doug are my 2 best friends! And guess what? Their both cops! The sad thing is... They love me!

P.S. miles, I'm a little bit to old for pranks! Believe me it's all business! A Professor that admits to using acid and binge drinking with the purpose of trying to "keep it up" during sexual activities is a complete freak and Nutty professor! Quoting one of my dear friends who works for the Texas Board of Education, "we must get rid of the bad teachers one day at a time." Joshua Gunn is to be included! You know what they say miles... knowledge is power. And people outta try using it.

Have a good lad!

Sean<

(He is referring to my "sex on acid" post about the iPod). This quick response to my anonymous post, while not evidence that would stand up in court, is enough to convince me I know who the stalker is. It's the psychotic guy I had in class fall of 2005, the same guy who has weird writing errors, who likes to use big words to sound smart, is narcissistic to the core (a signature of psychosis), and so on.

Thursday I decided to run a criminal background check with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on this student's name. What do you suppose that I found? He has been in jail for a 3rd degree felony and is currently on parole. For what, you ask? Why, for Internet fraud and forgery under a fabricated identity, and I gather (I don't read the jargon well on these reports) with something to do with prescription drugs. The student is 27, but his alias is a man by the name of "Clint Moore" (with his real first name as the middle name) who is 36 years old. In short: fabricating fake identities is this man's m.o.

So, in sum: I know my cyberstalker's identity now, he's a convicted felon, and he appears fearless. He believes this is some sort of intellectual duel, that we are engaged in a game. He apparently knows enough about Internet law to know how close he can march up to the line. He knows something about the tenure and promotion process. And he knows just what to say to university officials to cause an investigation. I'm not a profiler and don't have that expertise, but it's clear he is either a classical obsessive neurotic (as are most of us, only less so) or, worse, borderline psychotic. Unquestionably he is malicious.

Unfortunately, the police have told me that they cannot do anything because, in their view, none of this harassment is "criminal." Their advice remains that I should take down my blog. They have suggested I get an attorney and go at this from a civil angle. I have contacted a few attorneys to pursue the "defamation" angle. I will visit with the university lawyer next week to argue for them to get involved, since I'm being harassed for doing my job and no one will do anything about it. And, it stands to reason this guy is on parole; certainly deceptive Internet behavior is a violation of his parole. I'm not interested in suing this guy for money; I'm just interested in my safety. I had a good conversation with Shaun tonight, and a defensive posture is best---if I could just get a restraining order, that would be good. He will violate it in a day's time, of course.

Now you're in the know. And maybe now that I have vomited all of this out, I can get back to work.

it's synth-pop friday!

travels, love, and kittens

Music: Marconi Union: 13 (2009)

I've been whipped up in so much traveling, work, and car repair that I've hardly had the time to blog, and somewhere in the middle I forgot to post about my summer travels. As some of you know, I was invited to speak with my brethren of Enlightenment Lodge in Colorado, Springs. They flew me out and put me up in a nice hotel overlooking Pike's Peak (that's my hotel window to the left). Colorado Springs was b-yew-tee-full! The weather was dry and a comfortable 75 degrees the whole time!

I spoke in the lodge about the significance of orality to Masonic ritual, but was really blown away by the way these brothers ran their ceremony (candlelight, meditation, and other elements that are more typical of "traditional observance" lodges). After the meeting, we retired to the basement for an "agape" or, as we say in Austin, a festive board---lots of toasts and intellectual discussion. The food was marvelous. Finally, I was treated to a mighty fine cigar at a "hidden" speakeasy bar. The whole visit was wonderful!

After my Masonic moment in Colorado Springs, I hiked it up to Boulder and environs, where I visited with Brian and Amy, the first couple I ever married as a minister in the Universal Life faith. Last I saw them, they lived in Baton Rouge---so it's been four years. In that time, they moved to Colorado and had a baby, the adorable Hayden who, I confess, I fell in love with (Uncle Josh had a lot of fun playing with Hayden's toys, too). Readers may remember Hayden from her precious Elvis wig glamour shot over the holidaze. Anyhoo, I had a marvelous time catching up with them, and also found some time to hang out with some peeps from Colorado State and the University of Colorado, and had a moment to reunite with my grad schoolmate Chani.

After Boulder, I met up with my University of Denver buddy Bernadette, and then it was home. But not long, 'cause I turned around and flew to Hotlanta to visit with friends at Georgia State and the University of Georgia, as well as a new colleague from the University of Memphis and my friend Chris Lundberg (we had a "reading group" meeting on Lacan and rhetoric). After pow-wowing with genius, I met-up with fellow former Louisianans Roger, Wendy, Gretchen, and Mindy! I also got to visit with my folks (this is mom to the right) and see my granny, who's in a home.

So, with all these lovely people I got a real love-bombing. That's why it's sometimes hard to get all this affection and friendship and then come back home to triple temps and . . . work. And work I must. So, enjoy some photos (galleries here, here, and here!).

it's synth-pop friday!

recent conversations in cars

Music: A&E Channel's Obsessions "He's going to die. But I can't make him do it, I can't get him to do anything. He just sits in that chair and watches television. His life is television. Josh, he's not going to be around much longer if he keeps goin' like this."

"He's depressed, and until you address his depression, he's not going to be motivated to do anything."

"But he's already on Paxil!"

"Well, it's obvious it's not working. He has all the textbook, I mean, he has all the classic symptoms: self-isolating; lack of interest in things he is usually interested in---"

"He doesn't bathe, I can't get him to wash his hair."

"It cycles on itself. I mean, I've dated depression---a lot. I know it when I smell it. He's depressed. Clinically."

"Well, what do I do?"

"Call his doctor yourself, tell him about your concerns, describe the symptoms. I know we can't get him to therapy, but we can at least get some of the chemical causes under control."

_________________________________________________________________

[tap tap tap; I roll down car window]

"Scuze me, but you just scared the hay-yell out of my mother in law. She was walking the dog and---"

"I'm sorry, I didn't mean to scare anyone, I'm just working."

"What are you doing?"

"I'm just working, I'm answering email. I'm staying with my folks for the weekend, and they don't have Internet access."

"So you're using mine?"

"I don't know sir. Someone has a very strong signal here, and they didn't password protect it. I can even pick it up in my folks house, just very weakly."

"Who are your parents?"

[I told him their names; he didn't know them]

"Alrigh', then. I just wanted to know what the hay-yell were doin' out here."

"Please apologize to your mother-in-law for me."

_________________________________________________________________

[waving to car pulling out just as I lifted my car hood]

"Wait wait! [more waving; she stops; she rolls down her window two inches] I'm sorry to trouble you ma'am, are you in a hurry?"

"I no speak English."

[pointing to my lifted car hood, jumper cables dangling from it; I make the "electrocuting car" gesture]

"I don't have cables."

"No, I have cables [I point to the cables dangling from my car hood]"

"Sorry, I can't help you." [she drives off]