oh, to have had a lovely weekend

does progress count?
what do we consider to be progress anyway?
whenever we humans claim to have made progress more problems sprout up like in a leaky boat. progress, really, is just dependent upon one's perspective no matter how open or narrow it might be. i am determined to complete my thought with this essay. i have many thoughts tho. just for the sake of documentation, i'll post some of my more put together work. bon soir.


The Essay so far

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has elicited strong responses from both its supporters and its detractors. The ESA is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). It was born out of earlier attempts by the U.S. government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation, which grew out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world which prompted the creation of this unique and influential law.

Long have arguments been made, throughout the history of the U.S., supporting the preservation of wildlife which have regularly butted up against the interests of other individuals, governments, and industries that revere property rights (as supported by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), industrial progress and business profits. These arguments have been brought to public attention more recently through the Bush Administration’s attempts at weakening the ESA and other environmental laws and Congress’ role in facilitating that.

The House of Representatives passed what has come to be known as the Pombo Bill named after its author Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) on September 29, 2005. Critics of the bill are many and include biologists, wildlife and environmental groups, and members of Congress including members of Pombo’s own Republican Party such as Rep. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI). Opposition voices to the bill speak of the revisions as being detrimental to the environment and wildlife. Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has said that the revisions “systematically strip all of the recovery tools from the Act” (Jim Motavalli e-Magazine.co m). This House bill “calls for the elimination of habitat protection for endangered species, weakens oversight of federal agency actions and undermines the use of sound science in decision-making about imperiled wildlife. It would also require taxpayers to pay developers not to kill endangered species” (Defenders of Wildlife web article).

But there are supporters of the bill within the House and Senate, and among hunters, farmers and property rights activists. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) spoke about his bill in a written statement saying that “Upholding this right (property rights as described in the Fifth Amendment) and partnering with the landowner is the only way we are going to improve the Endangered Species Act’s failing results for recovery…This legislation does just that” (redorbit.com/news/science/ 256999/pombos_bill_clears_house_hurd le/ & Denis Cuff, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.).

Rhetorical situations are invaluable and inevitable realities. It is through these fleeting confluences of events which create the impetus, the necessity for rhetorical response. Lloyd Bitzer argued that
“human relations operate[d] in the context of rhetorical situations governed by exigencies, that is, social, political, economic, and ethical urgencies that invited discursive responses. Rhetoric occurs[red] when a speaker responded to the perception of exigency by addressing an audience that could be persuaded to make changes that would modify the urgency” ( ).

These moments of inspiration are ever present in the universe and within our own personal sphere of interactions. Just as rhetorical situations exist in the air so to does rhetoric. It is through rhetoric that we humans are able to make sense of, and interact with, each other and our environment. When we consider these contexts when analyzing two opposing arguments it helps us understand the influence of, and the purpose of, the rhetoric being utilized.

It is my objective to shed some light on the role of rhetoric in the contentious arguments in recent debates about the Endangered Species Act (ESA). When the ESA was up for renewal in Congress in 2005 a controversial bill was passed that year, which spread concern throughout the scientific, wildlife preservation and environmental communities that the Senate’s bill would lead to a much weakened version of the ESA. For my purposes, I have chosen two documents that present two different opinions about the success of the ESA at conserving endangered species. It is my contention that it is through rhetorical situations that rhetoric is given the fuel for action/life and that each rhetorical situation dictates a course for a particular rhetorical response.

Each document has its genesis in the form of a direct response to congressional bills, one passed in the House, and the other up for a vote in the Senate. The exigencies are one and the same here with the actions of the Senate being top-most on the minds of the authors. Will the Senate pass a bill that would complement the one passed earlier in the House? Perhaps, the Senate would pass a bill that would be at odds with the House’s bill? Just the same, the Senate could decide not to take any formal action and the issue, for the moment, anyway, could die. With any one of these scenarios being equally plausible why have the authors of these documents chosen to write? Why have they made their particular rhetorical choices? One argument is made in support of the ESA while the other argues that the ESA is a failure. Which, of any, argument is more successful, and why? In order to answer these questions let us evaluate these two documents.

It is inevitable that science and politics will intermingle – each laying some claim as the true important factor in the improvement of the lives of the citizens. Both are rife with rhetorical displays and both depend on rhetoric for their sustenance and survival. The arguments made in the first document entitled A Letter from Biologists to the United States Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species Act had the weight of the biological science community lauding the Endangered Species Act for its importance in conserving endangered species, its success dependent upon its ‘solid foundation in science.’ Through the course of the history of the ESA a premium has been placed on the word and the work of the science community to best serve the intentions of the ESA. The opposition viewpoint, as characterized by Peyton Knight, the director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. ( ), is that the ESA is a failure. His article, entitled The “Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act”: An Analysis of the Senate Proposal to Reform the Endangered Species Act, argues that the senate’s revision of the ESA is not good, yet he does not approve of the ESA as presently constituted either.

For the biologists, they reacted to the exigency provided by the House when they passed the Pombo Bill. In this context, the scientists felt that a threat to the ESA, and implicitly, then, to wildlife had come to the fore. The degradation of the science, as rendered in the Pombo Bill, involved with the research, proliferation of information, administrative tasks, and execution of duties might even prove detrimental to the employment potential of scientists, though this is in no way implied through the writings of these scientists. It makes the role of rhetoric that of facilitator when it is applied to achieving the ends implied by the rhetorical situation.

From the beginning, the authors and signatories of the biologists’ letter had made it obvious that they were going to get their message out through the use of ethos. The best rhetorical weapon they could have when addressing a scientific issue to politicians would be to portray themselves as experts, and through creating this ethos, a voice of authority, it becomes a undeniably powerful form of persuasion. They include at the outset five different quotes from scientists commenting on why the ESA is important, why it should be protected. Comments such as:


Scientists know we must protect
species because they are working
parts of our life-support system.
Paul Ehrlich, Entomologist, Population Biologist
Bing Professor of Population Studies and president,
Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University,
California; member, National Academy of Sciences;
MacArthur Fellow; and Crafoord Prize winner in
Bioscience

To weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered
Species Act is to doom more species to extinction.
Walter V. Reid, Ecologist
Consulting professor, Institute for the Environment,
Stanford University, California; former director,
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; and past board
member, Society for Conservation Biology

are strong rhetoric meant to set the tone for the entire letter and serve as expert advice for senators who might not understand the significance of wildlife conservation.

This rhetorical device is continued farther down the letter into what I might consider a banner, which states that this is “A Letter from 5,738 Biologists to the United States Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species Act.” Again, the writer(s) of this letter are not being subtle in their attempts to draw attention to the sheer volume of scientific experts who are supporting the ESA.

By choosing a strong character to voice the concerns of

....and something like that

You're a Blockhead, Charlie Brown! pt. 2

Holy balls, man, really!

this is like the hardest thing i have ever, and i mean ever EVER had to write in my whole entire life. Ahem. now having said that. i think i may have had a stroke of, (well, not genius so much as competence) yes, competence with a capital Comp.

so, i have been trying everything to get this damned essay written or at least started on the right track from typing aimlessly, staring blankly to standing on my head and nothing. Zip, Zilch, nothing. my topic seems to go nowhere -- circular -- or uneventful. i cannot for the life of me discover a thesis (inventio is a no go).

all the gazillion resources i've come across are only mildly helpful or are entirely irrelevant to my essay. but i have found some related help in some of the articles we've read and whatever web article that i can find of use. anyway, anyway, anyway....the point is i may have solved the problem tonite. i am planning on going ahead with this full steam regardless of the consequences no matter how dreadful or embarrassing it will be for me or my family or my family's family's grandchildren's family. so here it is...

instead of making the endangered species act my primary topic of discussion (cos my goodness knows that ain't getting me anywhere) i will instead make the rhetorical tools/rhetorical theories i was planning on analyzing the two documents (with two opposing arguments on the goodness/effectiveness of the ESA) as my primary focus. like a lot of the articles we've read which were excuses for smarty pants' to theorize and philosophize using documents to help them along i shall do the same. picture this, my primary concern will be to discuss rhetorical situation and rhetoric especially aristotelian rhetorical theory which i long ago decided would be an interesting an appropriate theory to apply to these texts. the two documents referencing the ESA will serve as my vehicle for discussing these theories both as i have learned of them and as i will add my own take to. so instead of wasting energy on trying to make the ESA work i will make the ESA work for me.

if anyone has a problem with this leave a message with my secretary and i'll get back with you at my earliest convenience. until then, i am gonna write this bitch.

You're a Blockhead, Charlie Brown!

Oh, my poor brain

I have been laboring over this essay in my head and my computer for so long. centuries it seems and whenever i feel like i 'Got It' i don't.

my last post was a sigh of relief, a triumphant declaration of success; breaking through the wall -- 'i'm on my way , baby!' and, perhaps i am. yet my brain will not work. i stare and i stare at my computer i read and i read trying to absorb, trying to take helpful notes and still i cannot make form out of air. right now, i am wondering about my thesis. i don't seem to have one and i am not sure where to find one. perhaps craigslist could be of help.

I have two documents. Both are utilizing the same or similar rhetorical elements of ethos and logos. Both writers are utilizing data and opinion/analysis to support their claims. One article is written by scientists addressed to US Senators and is supporting the ESA and offering opinions about why it should remain as is and how it can be improved/strengthened. The other article is written by a non-scientist and is addressed to an undetermined audience that is arguing that the ESA is a failure. I will apply Aristotelian rhetorical theory to analyze and understand the arguments and discern the effectiveness of each argument.

this is what i have. this is giving me fits. i need a thesis it seems.

should my thesis be arguing for the more successful argument? could i write minus a thesis and just deliver the analysis on a platter for the reader to absorb and make their own determination?
i really don't know

Endangered Species Me pt. 2

Alrighty,

My goal for the week is to have a completed rough draft of my essay by Friday-ish. The hardest part about this essay, for me, has been organizing my thoughts and information and then figuring out how to organize my paper. Up until this past Saturday evening whilst watching my beloved Hockey Night in Canada broadcast (you tell 'em Barry! stupid lightning are stupid...) I was hopelessly confused, doubtful about what i was writing about and how i was going to write it. thankfully my gf helped me out. i am feeling much better about writing this thing now. so indulge me as i write out my thoughts here.

my plan for this essay, as of now, is to analyze the the rhetorical elements of two documents. The first document is a letter written and signed by a whole bunch of individual biologists and other scientists and 900 relevant organizations arguing for the support of the Endangered Species Act, that congress should not weaken it, and that they should provide more financial and legislative support for the ESA. Since this letter is written by scientists i thought it would be interesting to analyze it through the lens of Aristotle. I have identified usage of ethos, logos, and pathos, but mostly ethos. It is possible that I might find some other something to analyze this letter with if i need to.

Next, i will analyze a document that argues against the ESA, and just like before i will find a theory or theorist to be my primary tool for study. I have found a letter that has been written by a guy named Peyton Knight who works for a conservative think tank that i think will work. it was written in response to some legislation that he disagreed with (of which i also have available) and as he argues against the legislation he is also arguing against the ESA. (Alternatively, i could just contrast the legislative article with the response letter but only if it is advised).

Finally, i will conclude the essay by comparing and contrasting the two documents. i will discuss how each document was successful or not, and why as well as explore why each document chose to use the rhetorical elements that it did.

 

Theories of Technical Dysfunction

It makes sense that within an organization there is social activity, and so being, that there is a rhetorical context within an organization. If we are in agreement that knowledge is part of a social contract – that “social communities frame contexts for knowing,” then it should be of the utmost importance for organizations, groups, businesses and schools to acknowledge that and educate those workers, members and students how to engage in these environments successfully.

Teresa Harrison, in her article “Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts,” even proposes the idea that organizations are systems of knowledge. “An organization is constituted in part because its members share in a potentially unique worldview…the content and structure of a knowledge or cognitive system is generated by individuals interacting with each other and with their environments.” The focus of recent articles I’ve read are exploring the relationship between technical communication and rhetoric within organizations, how knowledge in generated or shared, and how educators should approach teaching their students. What I’ve come away with after reading these articles, among them Harrison’s above mentioned piece and “Writing Technologies at White Sands” by Powell Henderson is a strong sense that there are problems with the relationships between people and people with technology.

Whereas I am not wholly surprised by the apparent confusion and conflicts found in the workplace -- within groups and organizations, what do surprise me, though, is the consistent documentation of it over several decades. As far back as the sixties you have people such as Lloyd Bitzer making inroads as to the nature of rhetoric and few, if any, of the aforementioned articles I’ve read recently were written within this century. This makes me curious as to why there is so much past theory, observation and documentation on technical communication within the classroom and workplace environments, the various problems that exist in the workplace and how it relates to technical communication but yet there are no solutions referenced. With so much apparent dysfunction within organizations, et al, with so much apparent need for better, particular education for technical communicators we are reading study after study, article after article documenting and expressing these sentiments. Has no progress been made over the years? Should we expect that there will be any progress any time soon?

What’s the point of reading and analyzing such theoretical articles about things that I agree are interesting and important, yet there is a lack of evidence that any positive changes have happened in industry and education? The same set of questions arises in these studies as do the same observations of conflicts and problems. How are we supposed to respond to all of this?

Emerging Organizational Conflict

...And because of collaborative writing peace was brought to the land. Bunny rabbits and all of the other woodland creatures came together, drank apple juice and rejoiced.

in a way, this is how the Donehy-Farina article "Writing in an Emerging Organization" comes across as he tells the story of Microware. All because of collaborative writing the company was able to begin the process for business success. you know, for all the attention to the process of an emerging organization. i don't recall any reporting on what eventually happened to Microwave. did it survive? was it successful overall? if so, what role did the writing & rhetorical processes play in the future of the company.

i still kinda wish that an article like this were available that is more contemporary than the earl 1980s. for me, personally, it would help put the role of writing in  modern careers & industries in perspective, it would help me understand how important writing is nowadays.

his ideas for how collaborative writing refines the focus of 'reality' & rhetoric seems to make sense. he definitely wants to emphasize the social aspect of writing & the writing process which i can agree with. what i found interesting was his thoughts about oral discussions & interactions with co-workers as a vital part of the social aspect of the writing process. i know that employers are not going to like the argument that social time, 'goofing off' is actually work when it comes to writing.