Podcasts about rhetorically

Welcome to another episode of Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu! In today's compelling conversation, we're joined by the outspoken and influential Candace Owens. Known for her critical stance on social policies and extensive research into controversial issues, Candace dives deep into the idea of freedom in America, revealing why she believes the nation is drifting from its founding ideals towards socialism. Throughout the episode, Candace critiques welfare systems, forced vaccinations, and educational standards, passionately advocating for self-sufficiency and practical skills like homeschooling and food growing. She also brings a personal dimension to the discussion, sharing her own experiences with vaccine injuries and why she distrusts the medical industry. Together with Tom, Candace navigates complex issues, touching upon everything from government manipulation and economic motives to cultural empowerment and the erosion of public trust. If you're ready for a thought-provoking discussion that challenges conventional wisdom and encourages critical thinking, then this is an episode you won't want to miss. So, settle in and let's explore what true freedom means in today's world with Candace Owens on Impact Theory. SHOWNOTES 00:00 America is an illusion of freedom, weak leadership. 10:30 Beliefs' utility matters more than appearances. 12:43 Homelessness and filth contrast with America's greatness. 21:27 Homeschooling promotes freedom and educational excellence. 24:12 People lack memory of past hard times. 28:01 I provided study access, encouraging informed decisions. 37:15 Trust in experts erodes, prompting skepticism and uncertainty. 42:26 Parents claim vaccines harmed their children; gaslighting. 49:13 Rhetorically gifted, logical arguments, offer life shortcuts. 50:38 Beliefs inform how we interpret data. 56:00 Varicella fear unfounded; statistics show minimal risk. 01:03:26 Matrix of lies shapes education and narratives. 01:08:45 Value intuition, family, faith; they're unshakable blessings. CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORS ButcherBox: Get your choice of a free protein in every box for a year, plus that $20 off your first order with code IMPACT at https://butcherbox.com/impact. Tonal: Go to https://tonal.com and get $200 off with promo code IMPACT. Huel: Try Huel with 15% OFF today using code IMPACT at https://huel.com/impact. Miro: Bring your teams to Miro's revolutionary Innovation Workspace and be faster from idea to outcome at https://miro.com. Design.com: Ready to transform your brand? Head to https://design.com/impacttheory and get up to 88% off. FOLLOW TOM: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here. If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast, Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. LISTEN AD FREE + BONUS EPISODES on APPLE PODCASTS: apple.co/impacttheory Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I do get a kick out of Senator JD Vance howling with indignation that folks on the left need to dial down the divisive rhetoric as if we're all unaware who his running mate is. As a matter of fact, before my day got away from me yesterday, I'd planned to splice together a batch of clips of one Donald John Trump and his many years of heated rancor. Fortunately, the Daily Show has a staff capable of doing that while I'm just a staff of one. There's plenty of coverage pre-January 6th that we could (and do) go back to ... or just last year with Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg having to hire private security (wonder why?) Quietly, and without much fanfare, the three Atlanta Solidarity Fund organizers who had money laundering charges up to their eyeballs were let off the hook by the Georgia Attorney General for all bout one charge. Meanwhile, protestors have a lot of balls - ping pong balls - to drop on city council for their inaction on the ballot measure more than 100,000 residents signed a petition for. Lastly, we now know The Fed lowered their prime rate by a whopping 0.5% - more than I and most experts expected - but good news for just about all of us not named Donald Trump.

Rhetorically people proclaim commonly claim independence, practically few are when voting.

On today's show, Calvin and Alex sit down with Dr. Robin Reames - Associate Professor of English at the University of Chicago - to discuss her new book The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself: The Power of Rhetoric in Polarized Times. In this book, Robin synthesizes rhetorical theories and concepts from Greek antiquity to the 20th century to deliver some of the most practical lessons that rhetorical knowledge can offer. In our conversation, we discuss what it means to be a rhetorical thinker, some of the key characters from ancient Greek rhetorical history who hold important lessons for our current era, and illustrate some examples of how thinking like a rhetorician can help us reason more critically in our day-to-day lives. We conclude with a meditation on how rhetorical knowledge can help us better understand disagreements - from those in our interpersonal relationships to the larger divides that seem to define and constrict our current political reality.Robin Reames's The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself is available now from Basic BooksListen to our episode on Stasis Theory hereAn accessible transcript of this episode can be found here

Scripture Reading: Acts 4:1-31 While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests and the commander of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, 2 angry because they were teaching the people and announcing in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 So they seized them and put them in jail until the next day (for it was already evening). 4 But many of those who had listened to the message believed, and the number of the men came to about 5,000.5 On the next day, their rulers, elders, and experts in the law came together in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and others who were members of the high priest's family. 7 After making Peter and John stand in their midst, they began to inquire, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, replied, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man—by what means this man was healed— 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus. 14 And because they saw the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say against this. 15 But when they had ordered them to go outside the council, they began to confer with one another, 16 saying, “What should we do with these men? For it is plain to all who live in Jerusalem that a notable miraculous sign has come about through them, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to keep this matter from spreading any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 And they called them in and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, 20 for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.” 21 After threatening them further, they released them, for they could not find how to punish them on account of the people, because they were all praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man, on whom this miraculous sign of healing had been performed, was over forty years old.23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them, 25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather,‘Why do the nations rage,and the peoples plot foolish things?26 The kings of the earth stood together,and the rulers assembled together,against the Lord and against his Christ.'27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen. 29 And now, Lord, pay attention to their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your message with great courage, 30 while you extend your hand to heal, and to bring about miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously.Main ThemesIntroductionPersecution (But Not Immediately)Persecution is a major theme in Acts. More broadly, persecution seems inseparable with the spreading of the gospel. Christian persecution is recorded by Luke, Paul, non-Christian ancient historians, and early Christian writers. This remains a true fact today. According to data by Open Doors (which I have not corroborated but I have also not heard to be disputed), about 360 million Christians experience intense persecution today. That is about one out of every seven Christians.Nevertheless, despite the intense persecution endured by Christian in the Acts narrative, we might ask: why was the Jesus revolution not completely eliminated quickly and swiftly? Authorities did not move against Jesus' followers the way they did against the followers of other revolutionaries, such as Theudas, the Samaritan prophet, or the Egyptian prophet. Perhaps differences between the political leaders involved accounts for the slower response to early Christians. The more likely reason is that the authorities did not perceive early Jesus followers as a real threat. Neither Jesus nor his followers had taken up arms or spoken of overthrowing the government.The Parable of the VinyardThe above notwithstanding, in chapter 4, the disciples must confront the municipal aristocracy. As I am sure you remember from our study of John, the chief priests and scribes were particular targets of Jesus' criticisms and were his most critical enemies. The same is true in the Gospel of Luke. To understand the conflict in Acts 4, we should read the parable of the vineyard and the tenants found in Luke's first volume.Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.' But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let's kill him so the inheritance will be ours!' So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:9-19The parable treats the religious elite as people who may have had legitimate power, but who now have exceeded their proper station rendering them illegitimate usurpers of Jesus the king's rightful position.Public Perception of the AuthoritiesJesus' criticisms of the elite were shared by many others. Most of the minority Jewish sects viewed the elite as little more than Roman political lackeys. Why? Because they were little more than Roman political lackeys.The Sanhedrin—Jerusalem's ruling council—became completely dominated by quasi-Roman appointments and Roman sympathizers. With Rome's support, Herod the Great had installed his own backers in the Sanhedrin, and Rome determined who filled the high-priestly office. By the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were the dominant (although not exclusive) voice in the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees would be unnervingly familiar to us. They claimed to believe in the Scriptures—in the Jewish constitution, so to speak—while denying the Scripture's heart and soul. They did not believe in an afterlife, or the promises and curses of the Bible. The were much like modern “progressive Christians.”This background information helps us to frame the conflict between the apostles and the Sanhedrin correctly. We might be tempted to think of it as Christians versus Jews. This is utterly anachronistic. Both the apostles and the Sadducees claim to lead the people. The apostles claim legitimacy through truth. The Sadducees claim legitimacy through power. The issue is one of political power versus truth.Inventing PersecutionWe should also ask one more introductory question. Would Luke lie about the persecution of Christians? What I mean is, would Luke make it up to make Christians seem courageous? Is Luke going for those highly coveted victimhood points? (Forgive me is my commentary today sounds overly political, but what we read in chapter 4 is quite similar to modern political conflicts. Using language more familiar to us can help us understand what is happening in Acts 4.) The likely answer to these questions is no.To invent political persecution would have been counterproductive to Luke's Christian apologetic. Portraying Christians as opponents of a Roman-friendly ruling council would only worsen Christianity's reputation in the rest of the empire. I say worsen because many in Rome already disliked Jews for their foreign ways and attempts (sometimes successful) to convert Romans. If Luke was inclined to fiction or exaggeration, the more useful narrative would have been to portray Jesus followers as endorsed by the establishment.Trouble with the FuzzPriests, Commander of the Temple Guard, and the SadduceesThe apostles are arrested by the priests, commander of the temple guard, and the Sadducees. “Priests” obviously refers to various priests in the temple. We should keep in mind that they would have been under or part of the leadership of the aristocratic priests—a large percentage of whom were Sadducees.The “commander of the temple guard” was a high officer who, according to some ancient reports, occasionally even rose to the office of high priest. His rank seemed to have been only second to the high priest, and his duties included preserving order in the temple. One individual who filled this office close to the time period of Acts 4 is Ananus, who we have reason to believe was the son of the high priest Ananias. If Ananus is the same temple officer as in Acts 4, he later became high priest himself and executed James the Lord's brother.The Sadducees are mentioned only once in the Gospel of Luke—those who deny the resurrection (Luke 20:27). As we read Acts, Luke also tells us that they are the circle around the high priests (Acts 5:17) and form a significant part of the ruling assembly (4:5, 15). From other historical sources, we know they were most likely a well-to-do priestly sect who returned to power after the Maccabean era due to Roman influence. Sadducees rejected Pharisaic tradition probably by claiming Scripture as their only authority. However, because of the people's support for the more Israel-friendly Pharisees, sometimes Sadducees had to play along. In other words, Sadducees had to accommodate populist sentiments.The ArrestChapter 3 ends with Peter calling Israel to repentance. Quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus, Peter tells them, “Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.” This is the context of the arrest. If one believes Peter's words, then the Jewish authorities appear as the very people disobeying “the prophet.”Why are the authorities arresting the apostles? Is it because the Sadducees reject the doctrine of the resurrection? On its own, that is not the issue. Pharisees also preached an eschatological resurrection of dead people. This theological difference generated considerable conflict with the Sadducees. Yet, we do not have record of the Sadducees using force against the Pharisees. So what's the difference between the apostles and the Pharisees? The apostles preached the resurrection “in Jesus”—the man the Sadducees tortured and killed. This same Jesus was the man that claimed to be the true owner of the vineyard—or, put politically, an alternative and more legitimate priestly authority. By preaching Jesus, the apostles are publicly dishonoring the ruling class. Honor was a paramount value in this society.Night trials were extremely rare in the ancient world. So, the fact that the authorities jailed the apostles overnight and convened in the morning is in keeping with standard procedure.5,000 BelieversLuke clarifies that the political pressure on the Jesus movement does not dissuade the apostles or new converts. This is in keeping with Jesus' predictions.But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses. Luke 21:12-13Luke reports that the number of believers “came to” five thousand. This could mean that 5,000 converted on that occasion or that the total number of believers came to 5,000 in total. Given the population of Jerusalem at the time, the latter is more likely.Rulers, Elders, Experts in the Law (“Scribes”), and the Sanhedrin“Rulers” could refer to temple administrators but more likely refers to the ruling priests, who appear alongside “scribes” and “elders” in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 9:22; 20:1). The term “elders” can apply to local synagogue leadership but can also be connected with chief priests. We should keep in mind that the apostles were young men. So, they would be much younger than these “elders” in a culture that valued age.Experts in the law, that is “scribes,” had knowledge of the law (obviously) and could draft legal documents. Some scribes may well have been Pharisees, given the Pharisees' popular reputation for skill in the law and their availability for training. However, not all scribes were Pharisees. Many of the scribes may have been priests, who may have been better equipped financially to pursue such training.The assembly described in Acts 4:5 consists of the same groups as Jerusalem's “council,” or Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin was a ruling council equivalent to a senate. Many cities in the ancient world had their own ruling senates composed of the leading citizens. Rome ruled through local aristocracies, and Judea was no different.According to rabbinic (and probably Pharisaic) ideals, judges who proved themselves locally could be promoted to the Sanhedrin, but in actuality the Sanhedrin in the apostles' day probably consisted mainly of members of the Jerusalem aristocracy and wealthy landowners in the vicinity.Jerusalem's Sanhedrin was the ruling council for Jerusalem, the major urban center that watched over Judea. Just as the Roman senate wielded power far beyond Rome because of Rome's power, Jerusalem's Sanhedrin wielded some influence in Jewish national affairs.At some point the Sanhedrin may have held seventy-one members, as tradition indicates. However, even if that were the case, not all members would have been present on all occasions, especially for an emergency meeting.Rulers could use sanhedrins to secure the end they wanted without taking full responsibility for their decision.The high priest presided over the ruling council and hence was Jerusalem's most powerful resident (with the exception of an appointed or visiting Roman ruler), to whom the Roman prefect would likely defer many decisions. Moreover, Luke assumes his audience's knowledge of Annas and Caiaphas, whom he introduced as high priests in his gospel. That Caiaphas held power as long as he did (nineteen years) reinforces the suspicion he was a skilled and ruthless politician.Some people suggest that Luke was incorrect about Annas being the high priest, since Caiaphas was officially high priest in this period. However, as we discussed during our study of John, Luke is aware (Luke 3:2) that there can be a difference between who technically holds the office and who truly wields the power. Annas reigned as paterfamilias. Besides, Luke clearly employs the term “high priests” in the plural for all the leading priests. One could argue that there was only one high priest, since that is what the Old Testament established. However, even Josephus, the Jewish historian, used the plural “high priests” (and more often than Luke). It was standard terminology at the time. This could reflect foreign influence. Perhaps the Jews began to treat the priestly aristocracy just like Greeks and Romans treated their aristocracies, removing some of the religious connotations.The TrialPeter and John stand in the “midst” of the rulers, elders, and scribes. This fits the tradition that the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle.The authorities begin the trial with the most important question: by what power or by what name did you do this? In this question, “name” signifies authority. Notice that this is the exact question that Peter sought to answer time and time again in chapter 3. He repeatedly made clear that the miracle and the message he preached came by the power and authority of Jesus.Before Peter responds to the question, he is described as “having been filled” with the Holy Spirit—using the aorist passive participle. This verb tense more naturally points back to an earlier infilling of the Spirit (probably Pentecost) but it could mean a new infilling—meaning that Peter received fresh power and inspiration for this particular instance. Grammar alone may not be sufficient to settle the question. Some point to other passages that seem to show multiple infillings of the Spirit.Informed readers might also make a connection between Peter's God-inspired, bold testimony, and that of prophets of old. In the Old Testament, sometimes prophets were empowered by God to confront Kings and other institutions.When Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem, he summoned 180,000 skilled warriors from all Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to attack Israel and restore the kingdom to Rehoboam son of Solomon. But God told Shemaiah the prophet, “Say this to King Rehoboam son of Solomon of Judah, and to all Judah and Benjamin, as well as the rest of the people, ‘This is what the Lord has said: “Do not attack and make war with your brothers, the Israelites. Each of you go home. Indeed this thing has happened because of me.”'” So they obeyed the Lord's message. They went home in keeping with the Lord's message. 1 Kings 12:21-24He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet and I will speak with you.” As he spoke to me, a wind came into me and stood me on my feet, and I heard the one speaking to me. He said to me, “Son of man, I am sending you to the house of Israel, to rebellious nations who have rebelled against me; both they and their fathers have revolted against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and hard-hearted, and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.'” Ezekiel 2:1-4Peter ends up responding “boldly,” but he begins with a respectful address, “rulers of the people and elders.” In rhetoric, this would have been the customary captatio benevolentiae.After the address, Peter's response drips with sarcasm. He asks whether the apostles are being detained for doing a good deed, literally an “act of kindness.” Or perhaps they were detained because a man was healed—literally “delivered.” (Keep in mind the semantic range of the word translated as “healed.” This will be important later.)Peter is both providing a defense and going on offense. The claim is that Peter and John did nothing wrong. In fact, they did something good. And, that the authorities are opposing a good act, which by implication makes them evil. This probably goes without saying, but the argument is predicated on the idea that benefaction is virtuous—an idea universally accepted in the ancient world. Moreover, in the ancient Mediterranean ideology of reciprocity, the proper response to benefaction was gratitude. The ungrateful person was viewed negatively, and to harm benefactors was grossly wicked.Peter then reloads with the phrase, “Let it be known to you.” This prepares the audience for a shocking statement. In rhetoric, a standard practice was charging one's accuser with something. However, to employ that tactic against one's judges was highly unusual. Appealing positively to them would be expected and probably more effective in obtaining a favorable ruling.And what is the shocking truth the authorities must know? “By the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy.” Rhetorically speaking, he stabs and then twists the knife.Peter then applies prophecy to bolster his case. “Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone.” This is a quotation from Psalm 118:22, but Peter inserts the word “you” to remove all doubt as to whom the prophecy is condemning.The irony in the use of Ps 118:22-23 here is that in the Old Testament, Israel was the one rejected (or perhaps her king) by the Gentiles, but in the New Testament it is Jesus who is rejected by Israel. Remember that this is exactly the prophecy that Jesus used to condemn the authorities.What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:15b-19.Jesus implied the identity of the “builders.” Peter outright stated it.The cornerstone or topstone (also called capstone) to which Psalm 118 refers is part of the architecture of the temple. Many scholars interpret the “cornerstone” as a “capstone,” the final stone fitted in place to hold the others in place. However, notice what the translators of the NET have to say:[The Greek word can be translated as] “capstone,” “keystone.” Although these meanings are lexically possible, the imagery in Eph 2:20-22 and 1 Cor 3:11 indicates that the term κεφαλὴ γωνίας (kephalē gōnias) refers to a cornerstone, not a capstone.The TwistPeter finishes his argument by returning to the idea of being saved or delivered. Recall earlier I pointed out that the word used to convey the lame man was “healed” also means “delivered” or “saved.” In verse 12, Peter claims this deliverance can come only through Christ, alluding to a greater kind of deliverance.That no other name provides salvation “under heaven” means that no other name provides it “anywhere.” Notice that Peter leaves little question that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. There are many Christians and so-called Christians who deny that, but the text does not seem to allow for such theology. (However, exactly how exclusive is the group of people saved through Christ could be debated.) Moreover, early Jewish groups held a range of views, from universalism to the salvation only of a single sect. So, Peter's statement is probably not careless but an idea thoughtfully considered.Uneducated and Ordinary MenThe authorities did not expect the “boldness” of these “uneducated” and “ordinary” men.The authorities almost surely expected these commoners to fear them and seek their favor—as certainly most would have done. But Peter and John answer to a higher authority.The word translated as “uneducated” literally means “illiterate.” Many, if not most, Jewish boys would have had training at least in reciting Torah, and fishermen probably had more education than that. Instead, the term indicates lack of formal education (hence the translation “uneducated”). The term is particularly poignant in the presence of scribes—highlighting the difference between the elite authorities and the disciples.The word translated as “ordinary” formally designates an ignorant person or one who lacks training, such as in philosophy or rhetoric. However, it was used to refer to less educated “common” people.We should notice that the authorities recognized that these men had been with Jesus. Recall the last time people recognized that Peter had been with Jesus. Peter denied his lord three times and let him die alone. This scene in chapter 4 is, in a sense, the redemption in Peter's story arc. The fact that Peter lacked boldness before shows the impact of the Holy Spirit.Although the apostles are uneducated commoners, the authorities are silenced by the facts. The miracle is undeniable. A man lame from birth, a fact to which multitudes could attest since he was placed at the temple daily, was standing right in front of them (see verse 14). What to do?Saving Face—They Get Off with a WarningThe authorities need to save face. They simply cannot allow the apostles to have “the last word.” At the same time, they cannot antagonize the people, who have witnessed a miracle and an act of kindness for a member of the most disenfranchised class. Should they punish a benefaction by having the apostles flogged? This would be unwise. So the authorities release the apostles with a mere warning. The ability to issue the warning shows who is in power without having to actually punish the apostles.We should note that the leaders do not seem to question their own position. Although they cannot deny the miracle, they refuse to consider its implications. Luke may be implying political corruption and hardness of heart among the elite. This would be in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, which explicitly addressed people so set in their wicked ways they would not see the truth. In Matthew 13, Jesus applied a text from Isaiah to them:You will listen carefully yet will never understand,you will look closely yet will never comprehend.For the heart of this people has become dull;they are hard of hearing,and they have shut their eyes,so that they would not see with their eyesand hear with their earsand understand with their heartsand turn, and I would heal them. Matthew 13:14b-15 quoting Isaiah 6:9-10No More Talking About JesusThe authorities order the apostles not to speak in Jesus' name. This means not to speak as his representatives or acting on his authority, thus drawing attention to a person who was executed by the authorities. The phrasing, however, creates a narrative contrast between the elite and the apostles. The name of Jesus is precisely the authority and power by which miracles are happening and, ultimately, deliverance.Peter and John openly refuse to abide by the order. There is a sad and almost mocking difference between the “inability” of the apostles and that of the authorities. The apostles are not able to deny or keep secret that which they have seen and heard. The authorities are also unable to deny the miracle (4:16) but they are also unable to acknowledge its implications.The Jewish tradition contained examples of justified civil disobedience, particularly when obedience to God and obedience to the government became unavoidably contradictory. Perhaps the most memorable example is in Daniel 3.Then Nebuchadnezzar in a fit of rage demanded that they bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego before him. So they brought them before the king. Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you don't serve my gods and that you don't pay homage to the golden statue that I erected? Now if you are ready, when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, trigon, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music, you must bow down and pay homage to the statue that I had made. If you don't pay homage to it, you will immediately be thrown into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire. Now, who is that god who can rescue you from my power?” Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, “We do not need to give you a reply concerning this. If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. But if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don't serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.” Daniel 3:13-18A more prescient example that was probably in the minds of apostles and the authorities was the Maccabean revolt. In the 2nd century BC, when Antiochus ruled over Israel, he encouraged the Semitic peoples of the Mediterranean coast to regard him as the ancient god Baal of the Canaanites. Consider how Britannica explains the lead up to revolution:This conception of revealed religion and of loyalty to the Word of God, rather than to a human king, Antiochus could not appreciate, particularly since he himself delighted in the name God Manifest. In order to extirpate the faith of Israel, therefore, he attacked Israel's religious practices. He thus forbade the observance of the Sabbath and of the traditional feasts, for these had been ordained by a “jealous,” or intolerant, God. All sacrifices were to come to an end. He forbade the reading of the Law of Moses and gave orders to search out and burn any copies that could be found. He forbade the practice of circumcision, for it was this that set the Jews off from other peoples as the one “people of God.” In place of these practices, Antiochus encouraged the development of cultural clubs called gymnasia, in which people gathered to study, to learn, and to enjoy each other's company. After competing in various forms of athletics, men and women used to soak themselves in hot baths. But because the pursuit of the “good” included a delight in the body beautiful, such activities were performed naked. A circumcised Jew taking part in the games in a gymnasium could not therefore hide where his loyalty lay. Finally, in 168 BCE, Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and desacralized the Holy of Holies in the Temple. This was the one place on earth about which Yahweh said “My name” (the expression of his Person) “shall be there” (I Kings).A number of Jews, under their leader Jason, the high priest, took the easy way of conformity with the new universal trends. But with Antiochus's impious act, a strong general reaction set in. Thus, when, later in the same year, Antiochus again entered Jerusalem, this time plundering and burning and setting up his citadel, the Acra, on the hill overlooking the Temple courts, he went too far, for his final act of spite, on December 25, 167 BCE, was to rededicate the Temple in Jerusalem to the Olympian god Zeus.I provide the long quotation above because the Maccabean Revolt was brutal and bloody. (It is from its success in rededicating the temple that the holiday of Hanukkah finds its origin.) This is exactly the kind of revolution the authorities sought to prevent. But, we should notice by now, this is not quite the kind of revolution the apostles sought to start. Should We Be Like Peter?Is the boldness and disobedience of Peter an example for all Christians—an example for us today? Answering this question could take an entire Bible study session, but perhaps we can discern some general principles from Luke's writing.In Luke 20, Jesus is asked about paying taxes to the Romans (Caesar in particular). Jesus responds,“Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” They said, “Caesar's.” So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Luke 20-24-25We must keep in mind that the context of Luke 20 is people attempting to deceive Jesus into saying something treacherous and worthy of arrest and death. So we should expect his answer to be less than straightforward. However, it is still clear from his answer that government has a proper sphere in which it deserves obedience.At the same time, we must keep in mind Peter's attitude in chapter 4. “Is it “right before God to obey the [authorities] rather than God”? Peter answer, in word and deed, is no.Put broadly, Luke's writings seem to suggest that we should obey the government unless doing so is directly contrary to obeying God. In practice, however, this principle can be hard to apply.

What is the value of The Tunnel?   In this episode we talk about strange summer winds steering us back to shore. The Osborne Curriculum (always have something to do). Learning to trust what you Herd. Stage managing the depths of downtime prep. The confidence of Method (performing to standard). Wincing at flaming pedagogies. A game where you learn as you flee. Working through Decisiveness and Decision.    Barbie vs. Oppenheimer (The Barbenheimer Phenomena). Having poor taste toward atrocities. Celebrated Brutality. Vibing with the Sirens. The facade of the Nuclear Dolls. Sifting through the Emblematic Rubble. The plastic significance of Mattel Omens. The Sinister Joylessness of Cartoon Idolons. The inherent hauntedness of bad cinematic magic. The intelligence of context, timing, and precise delivery. Rhetorically numb religiosity. Dignified responses to advanced weaponry (Atomic Insanity). Sacrificial rites of Destruction and Exploration. Anesthetic Luxury Curses and Idiot Compassion. The necessity for tough magic. The Jargonized Victim-Agent. The resurgence of Lost Psychologies (Do Good to Be Good).    The Obsession with Potentiality in a Limited Space. Pragmatic instrumentation and the Myth of Life. The Vibrancy of a Constricted Path. The sunk cost of eternal infancy in the face of commitment. Psychopathic Poltergeists of Potential vs. The Practicality of Regret. The Linguistic Ecology Sweepstakes. Courageous Re-Evaluations. Giving yourself a well deserved reward. Erotic Lucid Escape Dreams. "Now entering Sunken City, CA" and the delusion of abiding by Dream Logic.   Thanks to Nick Searfoss for the summary!

In this fast paced world full of echo chambers and outrage machines, we are fooled into a misguided view of justice and rhetoric. Dr. Joshua Phillips joins us to talk about how we can properly understand the connection between justice and humility and the distinction between thinking wonderfully and thinking critically.   Joshua Phillips received a Ph.D. in Speech Communication from Southern Illinois University in 2014. His academic focus is rhetoric and intercultural communication with particular interests in civil rights, free speech, media, and poverty. As a Ph.D. student, Dr. Phillips published 15 academic manuscripts, received 4 top paper awards from academic conferences, and presented over 50 keynotes at colleges and universities throughout the United States and Canada. His book, Homeless: Narratives from the Streets derives from his dissertation research and was published by McFarland in 2016.  You can follow him on twitter @Joshphillipsphd

Addiction! Somehow, whenever this word is heard, a negative impression is evoked, and we feel sorry for the associated individual. It points to some form of dependence, creating this victim mode, and its bearer appears helpless. It makes this scenario which point to a state of despondency that seriously begs for help. It puts its character in situations of loss and waste.We often see this characterized in movies, where an addiction epidemic exists in a City or town, and those most affected are neglected and abandoned. They are seen as the dirt and scorn of society, and there is this dearth of compassion and empathy towards them.Rhetorically, I asked myself, can one be 'addicted' to something good? Something that brings out the best in us when we get 'hooked' on it, feeding our minds, body, and spirit with its content, and the results undoubtedly are apparent for all to see and embrace, referring to it, sighting it as the standard, encouraging all to emulate it?So I threw the question above out there to see what the response would be, and I got the following answers;'Positive sleep, eating, drinking, and even social habits can be addictions that can help you live a better life each day and even live longerA positive addiction does not dominate one's life; it stays confined within time. The beneficial consequences of the activity can spill over into one's entire life, but the action itself is limited. One's attitude toward the activity is crucial.So, I said to myself, we can look for that thing that will bring out the best in us, eliciting the beauty from within which undeniably brings our externals under our control; we can be addicted to life, placing a demand on it, because it is a gift that has the capacity and potency to bring us into that perpetual state of prosperity, with eternal hope, freeing us from any harm that what life is not may present.In this episode of the Word Café Podcast, I focus on what I title Life addict. I share some thoughts in this regard. Support the showYou can support this show via the link below;https://www.buzzsprout.com/1718587/supporters/new

Thank you so much for helping us achieve our goal of being actively downloaded in 100 countries, globally!On this explosive edition of Light ‘Em Up, ripped straight from the headlines — like a laser, we re-focus our attention on the breaking news in the killing of Jayland Walker, a 25-year-old, unarmed black man, in Akron, Ohio, our hometown.  None of this story is foreign to us, we live here, we work here, we've raised our families here, we broadcast from here.After what seemed like an eternity — the 10-month investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Investigation's Office within the office of the Attorney General for the State of Ohio — the investigators concluded their report of all actions taken in this use-of-force investigation.On Monday, April 17th a Special Summit County Grand Jury that was empaneled to hear the case of the 8 Akron Police Officers who shot 94 rounds, hitting Jayland Walker 46 times, returned a “no bill” verdict and none of the officers will be indicted on any charges stemming from their actions in gunning down Walker in a hail of bullets in an empty parking lot of the Bridgestone Center for Research & Technology at approximately 12:40 am on June 27th, 2022.Rhetorically we ask, “who gets shot 46 times and lives”?  These 8 officers of the Akron Police Department, once they decided to fire upon Jayland Walker, they were determined to shoot until he was dead.  Sadly, it has become more and more apparent that “contempt of cop” can easily get you killed in 2023.The police have very little tolerance for those who don't immediately “comply”.  “Comply or die” sadly, has become more of a standard versus an anomaly or aberration.While there is no way that we can adequately cover the entire story in 1 episode, in this episode, our learning objectives are itemized below, as we endeavor to educate and empower you with facts that explain:♦ What is a Grand Jury?♦ What does a Grand Jury consist of?♦ What is the Grand Jury's role in the judicial process?♦ The State of Ohio's BCI (Bureau of Criminal Investigation's) Official Report.♦ The evidence, sifting through and combing-over the detailed fact-pattern in this case.♦Separating the facts from fiction and the truth from innuendo.The truth is difficult to hear for those who would wish to cover it up!The truth has no agenda and is very much worth fighting for!This case has E-X-P-L-O-D-E-D with breaking news!  We're on the scene with members of our team with boots on the ground in order to keep you up to the minute and informed.You'll also hear:♦ The original police radio transmission of the chase as it unfolded.♦ A portion of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's press conference.♦ And Akron's Chief of Police, Steven Mylett, regarding the aftermath of his department shooting tear gas canisters to disperse a crowd that had been peaceful for two previous hours marching and protesting in accordance with their 1st amendment sanctioned constitutional rights.Note well: We advise you ahead of time — regarding the audio of the original chase you will hear coarse language and you will hear multiple gunshots; anticipate them and be forewarned, some may be disturbed by this content.We want to hear from you!  Share your thoughts at prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.comTune in and be empowered and at the same time follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot here:Thanks!Executive ProducerPhil Rizzo

*Episode Drop* Dr. Chanda joins her friend, Phil Roundtree, LCSW for an episode of "Rhetorically Speaking." They process the murder of Tyre Nichols moments after the disturbing video is released. 

Tonight, on this educational, empowering and explosive episode of Light ‘Em Up — our investigative journalistic focus is on the raw underworld of Confidential Informants or CI's — a term that is often kicked around among the criminal element and the seedy underworld — but in the real-world very little is really known about CI's and their intricate role and the crucial impact they have in and on the criminal justice system.This is another installation in our recent series as we continue to investigate and probe deeply — exploring law enforcement policies, practices, and procedures and their impact on the public's civil-liberties and constitutional rights.Regardless of how you refer to them: snitches, rats, stoolies, stool pigeons … they can be a cop's eyes, ears and calling cards.  Confidential Informants can vouch for undercover investigators and get them inside the inner circles of criminal enterprises. In the criminal justice system, some say “police-generated witness testimony”, by that we mean confessions, police informants, and eyewitness identifications or that testimony from confidential informants, is essential to the overall process — just like the process of plea-bargaining.Among academia in Criminal Justice, we've heard it said that the system would “grind to a halt and collapse without the use of CI's” – while others feel very strongly that CI's are “rats” and rats bring plague and infestation to everything they touch, and the criminal justice system and process is no exception.On the streets it is said that: “Snitches get stitches” … among Italian mobsters — “gli mafiosi” — ALL rats deserve and should get the same treatment … “morte” … or death (in Italian).After tuning in to this fact-packed episode you will know:♦ What exactly is a CI?♦ The 3 different types of informants.♦ How a “CW” (cooperating witness) differs from a CI.♦ The “motivations” of CI's.  (Are CI's paid?)♦ The "Initial Suitability Determination" used by JLEA's (Justice Law Enforcement Agencies).♦ The Standards for Eligibility of becoming a CI.♦ How police & prosecutors use CI's to make their cases against YOU!♦ The use of CI's inside organized crime syndicates.  (Mob snitches)!♦ An exclusive and troubling report on The Chicago PD and its use of informants.♦ Shocking case studies (specifically of Kathryn Johnston): a real-world example where the use of CI's can instantly become deadly and go terribly wrong – especially when law enforcement officers “conjure up,” manufacture and plant evidence.Few crimes are as reprehensible as those committed by police officers who violate the very laws they have sworn to uphold.  Rhetorically, we ask:  How many warrants are obtained each year based on fabricated informants and conjured up “evidence”?  How many such cases did not have someone stand up for the truth? We know that the truth is under attack and that the truth is worth fighting for.We drill deep into the dirty underworld and the ins and outs of confidential informants (CI's).Do you want to become a CI? Do you want to learn more about CI's, now? Good!  Tune in and be empowered!We'd like to thank our friends at Feedspot, as recently we were honored by being ranked #6 in their most recent poll out of the 40 Best Criminal Justice Podcasts.  Visit their blog at www.Feedspot.com or simply follow this link:  Best 40 Criminal Justice Podcasts You Follow in 2022 (feedspot.com) And for all your news and current affairs check out our friends at Newsly by visiting https://newsly.me.  Use the promo code L1GHTEMUP to launch your 10% savings.  We bring the classroom to you! We are here for you and because of you! Executive Producer, Phil Rizzo 

Michigan U.S. Rep., Rashida Tlaib, sparked criticism of anti-Semitism with her latest comments about Israel. Tlaib--on video--says "you cannot claim to hold Progressive values, yet back Israel's apartheid government". KVI's John Carlson notes that Seattle U.S. Rep, Pramila Jayapal is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Rhetorically, Carlson asks if Jayapal will rebuke or condemn Tlaib's assertion. KVI has contacted Jayapal's office today, Sept. 22nd, seeking a statement about Rep. Tlaib's comment and there has been no response from Jayapal's campaign.

The Theology of Marxism, Session 2 Many of the Christian leaders of seminaries, denominations and para-church ministries, who in the past propagated CRT and intersectionality, are still holding seats of power and influence: denying their own past actions to poison the minds of those under their influence. How are these men and women still in positions of influence? How can they pivot on their past words and actions without acknowledging their past errors? James Lindsay and Michael O'Fallon discussed these issues during their first of four panels at the Sovereign Nations Conference in Phoenix, AZ. Their suggestion? Rhetorically bomb their bailey and steal their bailey and leave the dishonest merchants of poisonous ideology without a safe haven. http://sovereignnations.com Support Sovereign Nations: paypal.me/sovnations patreon.com/sovnations Follow Sovereign Nations: sovereignnations.com/subscribe facebook.com/SovereignNations twitter.com/SovNations youtube.com/SovereignNations rumble.com/c/sovnations instagram.com/sovnations/ minds.com/sovnations?referrer=sovnations parler.com/profile/sovnations © 2022 Sovereign Nations. All rights reserved.

Dr. Daniel P. Richards is an associate professor and associate chair of English at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. He also serves as Chair of ACM SIGDOC. His research focuses on environmental rhetoric, risk communication, the public understanding of science, and the politics of higher education. His most recent project—a project funded through the Department of Defense—applies UX and rhetorical approaches to political negotiation between military readiness and renewable energy development. His work has appeared in Technical Communication Quarterly, the Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Contemporary Pragmatism, and several other journals and edited collections. His most recent edited collection, On Teacher Neutrality (2020), is available through Utah State UP. In this episode of Room 42 we discuss the recent trend in risk communication to rely on realism and simulation as a way to communicate a variety of risks. In terms of sea level rise, there has been a trend towards visualizing the effects of water inundation in mainly coastal communities as a way to facilitate understanding and generate action and awareness. Rhetorically, this makes sense. But do we know enough about whether or not realistic visualizations are more effective than less realistic ones? or just data? Are the downsides to using realism, or simulation and, if so, what are they? We discuss how to test these assumptions by applying user experience research to sea level rise visualization tools. For transcript, links, and show notes: https://tccamp.org/episodes/simulation-or-realism-to-facilitate-understanding-and-generate-action/

A 4.5 minute intra-week videopod to highlight the notable rhetorical shift from various politicians and “climate only” types that are increasingly calling for more US shale and today, incredibly, more Canadian oil. We need more good barrels and fewer bad barrels.⚖️ DisclaimerI certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue.Regards,Arjun

In this episode of the As Told By Reese podcast, we welcome a change of pace. Instead of advice, we're diving shallow into rhetoric and philosophy. And we ask that pesky question about the forest and the tree. Then our host discusses the most depressing sentence he's heard in quite some time. We also talk about the powerful draw of shiny pointy things.

Paul poses 3 more Rhetorical questions asking 1. Can we express any boasting? 2. Is God the God of exclusivity? and 3. Do we extinguish the law by faith?

As Paul continues pointing to the abundance of man's rebellion against God, he asks a multitude of rhetorical questions that every believer should consider in Romans 3:1-20

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When Donald Trump declared he would fix the US Postal Service, he was using the word “fix” the same way veterinarians do when you bring in your dog. Trump wasted an inordinate amount of his presidential power and prestige in a failed attempt to neuter an agency that literally delivers for the people. Extraordinary postal workers move our letters and packages by truck, car, airplane, boat, motorbike, mule – and, of course, by foot – to any address across town or across the country. Both essential and effective, it's the most popular federal agency, with 91 percent of the public approving its work. Thus, an uproar of protests killed Trump's attempt to gut it. When it comes to bad public policy, however, failure is just a way of saying, Let's try the back door. Trump was defeated, but he left behind an undistinguished Postmaster General named Louis DeJoy, who had only two qualifications for the job: He was a Trump mega-donor, and he was a peer of corporate powers that've long wanted to privatize the Postal Service. In March, before the new Biden presidency had taken charge of the postal system, DeJoy popped through the back door with his own “10-year-plan” to fix the agency. Rhetorically, his plan promised to “achieve service excellence” by making mail delivery more “consistent” and “reliable.” How? By consistently cutting service and reliably gouging customers. Specifically, DeJoy proposed to close numerous mail processing facilities, eliminate jobs, reduce Post Office hours of service, and cut the standard of delivering our first-class mail from three days to five. Oh, also: Raise stamp prices. Delivering lousy service at higher prices is intended to destroy public support for the agency, opening up the mail service to takeover by private profiteers. That's the real DeJoy plan. And who gets joy from that?

What is "rhetorical problem-solving" and what does it mean to "write rhetorically"? Listen to our interview with Jennifer Fletcher, professor of English at CSU Monterey Bay and the author of Writing Rhetorically: Fostering Responsive Thinkers and Communicators. https://rhetoricalthinking.com https://www.stenhouse.com/content/writing-rhetorically

What is "rhetorical problem-solving" and what does it mean to "write rhetorically"? Listen to our interview with Jennifer Fletcher, a professor of English at CSU Monterey Bay and the author of Writing Rhetorically: Fostering Responsive Thinkers and Communicators.

When Donald Trump declared he would fix the US Postal Service, he was using the word “fix” the same way veterinarians do when you bring in your dog. Trump wasted an inordinate amount of his presidential power and prestige in a failed attempt to neuter an agency that literally delivers for the people. Extraordinary postal workers move our letters and packages by truck, car, airplane, boat, motorbike, mule – and, of course, by foot – to any address across town or across the country. Both essential and effective, it’s the most popular federal agency, with 91 percent of the public approving its work. Thus, an uproar of protests killed Trump’s attempt to gut it. When it comes to bad public policy, however, failure is just a way of saying, Let’s try the back door. Trump was defeated, but he left behind an undistinguished Postmaster General named Louis DeJoy, who had only two qualifications for the job: He was a Trump mega-donor, and he was a peer of corporate powers that’ve long wanted to privatize the Postal Service. In March, before the new Biden presidency had taken charge of the postal system, DeJoy popped through the back door with his own “10-year-plan” to fix the agency. Rhetorically, his plan promised to “achieve service excellence” by making mail delivery more “consistent” and “reliable.” How? By consistently cutting service and reliably gouging customers. Specifically, DeJoy proposed to close numerous mail processing facilities, eliminate jobs, reduce Post Office hours of service, and cut the standard of delivering our first-class mail from three days to five. Oh, also: Raise stamp prices. Delivering lousy service at higher prices is intended to destroy public support for the agency, opening up the mail service to takeover by private profiteers. That’s the real DeJoy plan. And who gets joy from that?

Kyle Stedman (@kstedman) reads the bad idea "The Five-Paragraph Essay is Rhetorically Sound" by Quentin Vieregge (@Vieregge). It's a chapter from Bad Ideas about Writing, which was edited by Cheryl E. Ball (@s2ceball) and Drew M. Loewe (@drewloewe). Don't miss the joke: the author of the chapter is disagreeing with the bad idea stated in the chapter's title. Keywords: basic writing, current-traditional rhetoric, discursive writing, five-paragraph essay (or theme), prescriptivism Quentin Vieregge is an associate professor of English at UW-Eau Claire--Barron County. He teaches writing, literature, and film classes. He has co-authored two books: Agency in the Age of Peer Production and The United States Constitution in Film: Part of Our National Culture. And he has published more generally in the fields of rhetoric & composition and popular culture studies. (2020 bio) As always, the theme music is "Parade" by nctrnm, and both the book and podcast are licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. The full book was published by the West Virginia University Libraries and Digital Publishing Institute; find it online for free at https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas. All ad revenue will be split between the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the Computers and Writing Graduate Research Network.

The college essay is, at heart, a sales letter intended to close the deal of a student’s admission to a desired school. Why, then, do writers so often ignore the power of rhetoric to inform, persuade, or motivate? Amy and Mike invited educator and podcaster Ryan Tibbens to explore the benefits of writing rhetorically in admissions essays. What are five things you will learn in this episode? What exactly is rhetoric? What are the two essential roles of an admissions essay? Why does writing for a specific reader matter? Why should “Show, don’t tell,” be the guiding philosophy? Who must be the protagonist of an admissions essay? MEET OUR GUESTS Ryan Tibbens is an award-winning high school English teacher, writing tutor, and podcast host in Northern Virginia. He believes numeracy, literacy, and rhetoric skills are essential to a person's personal and social well-being; accordingly, he strives to develop those skills in his students both at school and through Tibbens Education Services & Tutoring. In addition to hosting the ClassCast Podcast, a long-form podcast that focuses on outside-the-box thinking to improve education, he enjoys playing, reading, gardening, and hiking with his wife and two young children. Find Ryan at mrtibbens@yahoo.com. LINKS ClassCast Podcast RELATED EPISODES WHY OPTIONAL STATEMENTS AREN’T OPTIONAL TABOO ESSAY TOPICS UTILIZING A REFLECTION JOURNAL TO PREPARE FOR YOUR COLLEGE ESSAY ABOUT THIS PODCAST Tests and the Rest is THE college admissions industry podcast. Explore all of our episodes on the show page.

What sort of Bible did the Israelites have since they left Egypt? Written texts were still in the formative stages using paleo Hebrew, not the Persian script of modern Hebrew. Biblical stories remained in the Oral tradition. Moses asked the Israelites to think back on the stories of Creation, the first men and the miracles leading to the Redemption from Egypt. Rhetorically, Moses challenged them to ponder ‘has God ever done anything like this for any other people?’ Led by Aaron Eime. Notes for this study can be found at http://www.christchurchjerusalem.org/sermons/study-last-words-of-moses-deut/ ‎ Blessed by our teachings? Consider saying thank you with a small (or large) donation. www.christchurchjerusalem.org/donate/

If you’ve ever heard students ask in your English class “When am I ever going to need this again?” Jennifer Fletcher has just the answer.  Teaching Literature Rhetorically helps your students develop transferable literacy skills that allow them to succeed not just in their English language arts classes, but, more importantly, their future lives in college, career, and beyond.

Rhetorically, the City of Greater Shepparton is tackling the climate crisis, despite the fact that it is not prepared to acknowledge it, but it is simply not doing enough.It is easy to stand outside the conversation and be critical, but it is somewhat more challenging to take up your amour and join the fray, suggest some solutions.And we urgently need solutions for as David Meiklejohn from the Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action says we are dealing with a "super wicked problem".Tempered solutions from Robert McLean (pictured).

Introduction, Rush Limbaugh, why Socialism will never succeed, the definition of the day, conclusion

Mark Citadel is an radical Orthodox Christian reactionary working to preserve the ark of tradition through this dark age that surrounds us, and through his writings draw together and elucidate a meta and geopolitical assault on Modernity.  once described by critics as a "pretty consistent ideologue". A purveyor of extreme anti-Modern thought, he blogs regularly at Citadel Foundations.  Marks states his primary goals currently are to incite Christians against the contemporary Western order, and to work with international partners to realize a general parallel Christian society, and also the realization of a radical Orthodox defense initiative in the East to protect our culture, ethnic identity, and spirituality from outside siege by USG. As well as to Rhetorically weaponize and equip the online dissident right, targeting a diverse array of focuses, in order to eventually neutralize the purveyors of Modern ideology which all of us hold in collective contempt. Glory be to God, the most high.    Related Links: http://www.socialmatter.net/author/mark-citadel/ http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.co.uk http://www.returnofkings.com/author/markcitadel https://twitter.com/mark_citadel  

The recent episodes of political violence, emanating from both sides of the ideological spectrum, shocked the nation. Rhetorically ratcheting up the tension, Donald Trump mused that there might be riots if he is denied the nomination, while a left leaning critic of Donald Trump characterized the billionaire-populist as an "existential threat" to America. In our most recent episode, "De- legitimization, Political Violence, and Lockean Revolution," we examine these events and words from the broader perspective of a Crisis of Legitimacy in American economic, social, and political processes and institutions. We conclude the episode by linking this Crisis of Legitimacy to Locke's account of Revolution. Enjoy.

Remember when you were a freshman and you took first year critical reasoning? Or in high school, when you took the AP thinking exam?   Of course not, because we don’t really teach philosophy or critical thinking. What we do teach is writing.   [intro]   Welcome to MR the podcast for beginners and insiders about the ideas, movements and people who have shaped rhetorical history. today we’ll be talking about the mid nineties text “Rhetoric of Reason,” winner of the 1997 MLA Mina Shannassy book prize.   Titles one chapter “The end of Philosophy and the Resurgence of Rhetoric” Provocative idea. but can rhetoric and writing classes take over the millenia of philosophy and logic instruction that have long been cornerstones of a liberal education?   Crosswhite conceives his own book to be “a challenge to teachers of writing… to become much more philosophical about the teaching and theory of argumentation” (8).Motivated by “a social hope that people will be able to reason together” (17) in a civil responsibly taught in FYC classes the nation over.  Because “The teaching of writing is nothing less than the teaching of reasoning” (4). Purpose of university education is to write reasoned argumentation, “about conflicts that are matters of concerns to many different kinds of people, to fellow citizens who may not share their specialized knowledge” (296).   Rhetoric is philosophy without absolutes (“including negative absolutism”) (35).  If there is an end of philosophy in the 1990s as the influence of deconstructionists like Derrida is splashing over departments of English, can writing and rhetoric fill the gap in teaching the new good reasoning?As one review put it, “Crosswhite clearly moves away from the static view of formal logic in which propositions are measured against internally consistent rules rather than the more complex and shifty criteria articulated by live audiences” (Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Reed Way Dasenbrock, Andreea Deciu, Christopher Diller & Colleen Connolly).   In this, he is highly indebted to the work of new rhetorics like the kind you’ll find in Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s The New Rhetoric, which I promise we’ll talk about one of these days. For our purposes the key thing Crosswhite adopts is the idea of a universal audience. The term “universal” can be misleading. Crosswhite points out that “Unviersiality … depvelops along different lines; there are different and sometimes incompatiable ways of achieveing more universal standpoints. Universality is an achievement of particular people at particular times for particular purposes” (215). But another way, he says “Even if argumentation is a relatively universal practice, the occasions on which one argues, what one argues about, the requency with which one argues, the people with whom one argues, how explicitly one argues, how far one carries and argument--all these things may vary strongly from culture to culture” (218). It sounds a lot like rhetoric, doesn’t it, all this considering the audience and kairos and stases? Rhetorically specific communities, though, all will detirmine what is good reasoning and reflect that back to their interlocutors.Reasoning “is dependant on a background of deep competences, moods, abilities, assumptions, beliefs, ways of being and understanding” (254). “Argumentation is a “relatively universal practice” but how, where, why and for what of argumentation “may vary strongly from culture to culture” (218). Fundamentally, “People can argue only concerning those things about which they are willing to learn, and change their minds” (283).   Imagine an audience that is broadly conceived yet culturally dependant. An audience of good reasoners.With such an audience, good reasoning is “a matter not simply of what is true, but of the measure of the truth yielded by argumentation" (153). Audiences are crucial, because “there are those occasion on which an audience repsonds in ways we had not anticipated and in fact goes beyond our own reasoning and our own ideas. sometimes, and audience evaluates our reasoning  and in ways we could not have foreseen--but which we nevertheless recognize as legitimate” (152). Contradiction is important, becoming “powerful enablers of discovery” (263) and as such “contradictions should be cherished, nurtured developed” (264)   Other key influences come from philosophy, notably Levinas and Cavell, because the ordinary, the acknowledgement of other people are important, builds”mutual trust and respect [to] make possible rather extraordinary uses of the ordinary possibilities of communication” (31).                                                 Mutual respect does not, though, mean consensus. In fact, Crosswhite is  bullish on dissent in general "Where there is no conflict of any kind,” he says, “there is no reason" (72). “We don’t need courses in ‘critical thinking’ nearly as much as we need course in suspending critical thought in order to read deeper understandings” (201), focusing more on questions than consensus (199). This proves a problem when looking at a significant third of traditoinal rhetoric: the epideictic. As Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and co-authors observe, this “view, however, forces Crosswhite to quickly pass over how both aesthetic discourse (he cites fiction, poetry, and plays) and, less quickly, how epideictic rhetoric complicate the way that rationality and argumentation be- come embodied and therefore persuasive.” Instead, the epideictic for crosswhite “seems to lack the connectio with social conflict and looks more like a struggle with nature” (104) and the only way is to “try to show how epideictic, too, is a form of social conflict” (105)--a proposition he invokes but doesn’t develop.   But let’s get back to what he does get to, which is surprisingly pragmatic for a book that cites so much Gadamer and Heidegger. He says That students simply “need more familiaryt with more diverse and more universal audience, with audiences which demand more explicit reasoning” (273) Crosswhite gives an extended example of what this looks like in his own classes.   Here’s the useful, wheels-on-the-road stuff: “ writing courses and textbooks often lack focus and purpose; they simply try to cover too much” (189); and he recommends more workshops with student-to-student audiences because “writers need real interlocutors and audiences—a real rhetorical community” (281). Crosswhite’s writtena  pretty brainy and philosophical text here, but he’s also made an argument for bringing questions of reasoning and philosophy into the writing class as key to what we do and key to what philosophy should do. What do you think? Should we be responsible for teaching reasoning in the university? How do we fit it in when we have so much to cover? Drop us a line at mererhetoricpodcast@gmail.com and let me know. Should first year composition be retitled first-year reasoning and writing?  

Remember when you were a freshman and you took first year critical reasoning? Or in high school, when you took the AP thinking exam?   Of course not, because we don’t really teach philosophy or critical thinking. What we do teach is writing.   [intro]   Welcome to MR the podcast for beginners and insiders about the ideas, movements and people who have shaped rhetorical history. today we’ll be talking about the mid nineties text “Rhetoric of Reason,” winner of the 1997 MLA Mina Shannassy book prize. Titles one chapter “The end of Philosophy and the Resurgence of Rhetoric” Provocative idea. but can rhetoric and writing classes take over the millenia of philosophy and logic instruction that have long been cornerstones of a liberal education?   Crosswhite conceives his own book to be “a challenge to teachers of writing… to become much more philosophical about the teaching and theory of argumentation” (8).Motivated by “a social hope that people will be able to reason together” (17) in a civil responsibly taught in FYC classes the nation over.  Because “The teaching of writing is nothing less than the teaching of reasoning” (4). Purpose of university education is to write reasoned argumentation, “about conflicts that are matters of concerns to many different kinds of people, to fellow citizens who may not share their specialized knowledge” (296). Rhetoric is philosophy without absolutes (“including negative absolutism”) (35).  If there is an end of philosophy in the 1990s as the influence of deconstructionists like Derrida is splashing over departments of English, can writing and rhetoric fill the gap in teaching the new good reasoning?As one review put it, “Crosswhite clearly moves away from the static view of formal logic in which propositions are measured against internally consistent rules rather than the more complex and shifty criteria articulated by live audiences” (Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Reed Way Dasenbrock, Andreea Deciu, Christopher Diller & Colleen Connolly).   In this, he is highly indebted to the work of new rhetorics like the kind you’ll find in Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s The New Rhetoric, which I promise we’ll talk about one of these days. For our purposes the key thing Crosswhite adopts is the idea of a universal audience. The term “universal” can be misleading. Crosswhite points out that “Unviersiality … depvelops along different lines; there are different and sometimes incompatiable ways of achieveing more universal standpoints. Universality is an achievement of particular people at particular times for particular purposes” (215). But another way, he says “Even if argumentation is a relatively universal practice, the occasions on which one argues, what one argues about, the requency with which one argues, the people with whom one argues, how explicitly one argues, how far one carries and argument--all these things may vary strongly from culture to culture” (218). It sounds a lot like rhetoric, doesn’t it, all this considering the audience and kairos and stases? Rhetorically specific communities, though, all will detirmine what is good reasoning and reflect that back to their interlocutors.Reasoning “is dependant on a background of deep competences, moods, abilities, assumptions, beliefs, ways of being and understanding” (254). “Argumentation is a “relatively universal practice” but how, where, why and for what of argumentation “may vary strongly from culture to culture” (218). Fundamentally, “People can argue only concerning those things about which they are willing to learn, and change their minds” (283).   Imagine an audience that is broadly conceived yet culturally dependant. An audience of good reasoners.With such an audience, good reasoning is “a matter not simply of what is true, but of the measure of the truth yielded by argumentation" (153). Audiences are crucial, because “there are those occasion on which an audience repsonds in ways we had not anticipated and in fact goes beyond our own reasoning and our own ideas. sometimes, and audience evaluates our reasoning  and in ways we could not have foreseen--but which we nevertheless recognize as legitimate” (152). Contradiction is important, becoming “powerful enablers of discovery” (263) and as such “contradictions should be cherished, nurtured developed” (264)   Other key influences come from philosophy, notably Levinas and Cavell, because the ordinary, the acknowledgement of other people are important, builds”mutual trust and respect [to] make possible rather extraordinary uses of the ordinary possibilities of communication” (31).                                                 Mutual respect does not, though, mean consensus. In fact, Crosswhite is  bullish on dissent in general "Where there is no conflict of any kind,” he says, “there is no reason" (72). “We don’t need courses in ‘critical thinking’ nearly as much as we need course in suspending critical thought in order to read deeper understandings” (201), focusing more on questions than consensus (199). This proves a problem when looking at a significant third of traditoinal rhetoric: the epideictic. As Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and co-authors observe, this “view, however, forces Crosswhite to quickly pass over how both aesthetic discourse (he cites fiction, poetry, and plays) and, less quickly, how epideictic rhetoric complicate the way that rationality and argumentation be- come embodied and therefore persuasive.” Instead, the epideictic for crosswhite “seems to lack the connectio with social conflict and looks more like a struggle with nature” (104) and the only way is to “try to show how epideictic, too, is a form of social conflict” (105)--a proposition he invokes but doesn’t develop.   But let’s get back to what he does get to, which is surprisingly pragmatic for a book that cites so much Gadamer and Heidegger. He says That students simply “need more familiaryt with more diverse and more universal audience, with audiences which demand more explicit reasoning” (273) Crosswhite gives an extended example of what this looks like in his own classes.   Here’s the useful, wheels-on-the-road stuff: “ writing courses and textbooks often lack focus and purpose; they simply try to cover too much” (189); and he recommends more workshops with student-to-student audiences because “writers need real interlocutors and audiences—a real rhetorical community” (281). Crosswhite’s writtena  pretty brainy and philosophical text here, but he’s also made an argument for bringing questions of reasoning and philosophy into the writing class as key to what we do and key to what philosophy should do. What do you think? Should we be responsible for teaching reasoning in the university? How do we fit it in when we have so much to cover? Drop us a line at mererhetoricpodcast@gmail.com and let me know. Should first year composition be retitled first-year reasoning and writing?

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.