While growing up in the 80's, one of my favorite movies was Red Dawn. When HBO had it on high rotation, you could often find me in the dark of my grandparent’s basement comfortably sprawled, blanketed, and bepillowed on a seventies’ styled Brown on Beige checkered shag of a couch, eyes intently glued to a 13 inch color TV that Pap had rigged with cable. As the basement was adjacent to the garage, smells of oil, gasoline and grease permeated the atmosphere. I did not care (in fact, I came to love those smells). I had one thought and one thought only on my mind: WOLVERINES!
For those of you who have not had the great fortune to have experienced John Milius' opus, here is a brief synopsis (taken from IMDB):
"Red Dawn" envisions a mid-1980's America under siege from invading Russian and Cuban armies. Told at a boiling point of nuclear deterrence between the world's super powers, the threat focuses on a group of high school students who take refuge in the Rockies. First coping with survival and eventually fighting back guerrilla style, the students take the war to the invading armies in the hope that they can help turn the tide. As winter progresses; however, the group is worn down, physically, emotionally and mentally by war's attrition. As only a few remain, they must decide how to reach America's safe zones and see if tomorrow will bring another Red Dawn.
Without spoiling the ending I will say that as a kid, I missed the Cold War / Anti-Soviet propaganda pervasive throughout the film. Back then, I watched movies solely for entertainment value. Now however, I see Red Dawn as an opportunity for mental exercise. The question:
How would you react were the United States actually invaded and then occupied?
From the safety of home, it is easy to say you would react the same way the kids in Red Dawn did. But, experience has shown me that what we say and what we actually do are not always the same. And what if the occupying army was offering shelter, provisions, medical care and so on? Would that make it harder to resist? What if the ideology (if not the practice) of the occupying army matched your own?
While Steven Lynn’s “Den of Error” lacks the panache of a soviet-style communist invasion, the comparison (and subsequent mental exercise) is nonetheless useful. In a word, Lynn’s ultimate goal is to ‘liberate’ the student from “grammar-based pedagogy that generations of students have endured.” Says Lynn, “We’ll know that pedagogy has caught up with expert knowledge when the general public stops thinking that English teacher are grammar fussies, spotting errors wherever we go, clucking self-righteously.” Or, to translate, Lynn is seemingly proffering a giant ‘Cluck You’ to the status quo outmoded approach to writing pedagogy.
What I like about Lynn is his eagerness to embrace an all-of-the-above approach to writing pedagogy. As if to suggest that the best way to 'liberate' students from the regime of pedagogies past requires use of all weapons in the arsenal. But perhaps even more important than this is Lynn's attention to cultural issues in the classroom such as gender,race, and class. And instead of commenting on that portion through more writing, I thought I would get more mileage out of these two YouTube clips I put together back in November for a different class with Julie where I make comments analogous to those in this reading.
And Alice Glarden Brand wrote "The Why of Cognition: Emotion and the Writing Process". A lot has changed since then. Both Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan have passed. Ellen Page had a baby of her own in the movie Juno. And does anyone under the age of 30 even know who Tom Selleck is anymore? Cognitive Science has changed too.
It has embraced emotion - one of Brand's critique of Cognitive Theory. Says Brand, "We choose. Psychologists tell us that these choices are not random, but the cognitivists come up short when they try to explain why we choose what we choose, and how." This has changed. Cognitive Science now understands the role emotions play in choice (only the fist 11 minutes of the clip are necessary):
Another point of contention I have with Brand's essay is the notion that "The act of writing demands that concepts... be forced into linear patterns of writing". This may hold true of academic writing. But there are other modes of writing - poetry, creative, etc - which do not necessarily fit linear patterns (think Gertrude Stein). Are we to ignore poetry and creative writing? We are not to think of these forms as real writing?
These minor differences aside, Brand was clearly ahead of her time. Before Cognitive Science had a chance to catch up with her, Brand understood the importance of emotion in thinking and writing saying "being both human and impartial is a contradiction." Cognitive Science now agrees.
The implication of such sentiment is staggering. The idea that logic is not a significant agent of human thought or the writing process goes against all that we have been taught for decades if not millenia in the field of writing pedagogy. Process writing - putting together an outline, then producing a rough draft, followed by revision/editiing is, according to this new paradigm, simply makes no sense. It is, in Brand's words, "mechanistic" when humans are not computers. "The model assumes a motivation that does not exist." The question, then, is what would this new approach to writing pedagogy look like in the classroom? And even if we had an answer, how do we convince millions of people that, as Sir Ken Robinson already knows, the current model needs changed?
We've had Witches, Sorcerers, and Vampires. Why not add Gangsters to the mix?
Bartholomae, pictured left, took quite a bit of heat last night. I was among those eager to criticize - attempting to draw a crude metaphor between Bartholomae, Writing departments all across the country, and the Corleone family of Godfather fame. I want to apologize to Bartholomae. Not because I have had a change of heart, but who wants to be compared to Fredo Corleone? I imagine a scenario where Bartholomae was sitting in on our class, or was sent a videogram of our discussion and I sent him an apology via a music gram. It was Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal", but instead of singing "Annie, are you okay?" The lyrics were changed to "Davy, are you okay?"
Aside from our haranguing of Bartholomae, there was something else that bothered me about last night's discussion. A point I was trying to make was not getting across. There is something I want to put to rest. Not like Luca Brasi swims with the fishes kind of rest. Just something I didn't manage to make clear last night that I wanted to give it a second shot - and the puns just keep on coming!
A Sicilian message
I am not anti-intellectual. And I do think we very much need subject matter experts (in all fields, in all disciplines). Some of my comments - specifically those directed at academics - were said in a heat of passion whose fire was started by Rose. I am sure that most academics publish articles and books, not because they have to in order to achieve tenure or promotion, but because they have a deep desire to contribute to the body of knowledge (that doesn't mean that there aren't those who publish for less noble purposes). But aren't we missing a big picture irony? We will decry language pointed at privilege as arrogant and as exclusive not inclusive. However, we do so safely within the walls of the Academy where the only ones likely to hear some of the good things we have to say will be other academics. If the goal is to change the frame and make a difference in education, then these messages should also be accessible to those outside the Ivory Towers. By excluding the general population, we are applying a Regean-esque trickle down economics of knowledge. And while we are waiting for change to take root good kids are being left behind. And the problem is more serious than we thought.
In his essay, Rose goes to great lengths to explain why the current frame for Writing is in place. He does this by tracing the history of the word remedial. This frame, whose roots are burried deep within the fertile grounds of scientific knowledge, has a staying power that will take a hurculean effort to uproot, and Cognitive Science explains why:
I mentioned elsewhere that all frames and metaphor are tied to emotion. I gave the example of the white and black knights. What I failed to mention was some of the more sciency explanations as to how a frame takes root in the mind. When we make an emotional connection to an image (like light and darkness) a neural pathway is created between receptors in the brain. The more this image is reaffirmed the stronger this pathway becomes - one could almost say it becomes hardwired. Beliefs are established on these hardwired frames. We typically believe our beliefs to be moral, and therefore correct. So, if I made an emotional connection to the value of science, and this image has been reaffirmed in our collective psyche for the past nine decades - as Rose was suggesting - then, you can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the situation. The trickle down approach is not likely to succeed. Mass media needs to be bombarded with a different frame for people to consider. Until that happens, Ken Robinson's dream of shifting the paradigm is not likely to be realized anytime soon.
I imagine a small portion of the history of European imperialism thusly,
Europe: We need to open up a trade route to China. They have spices that dazzle the tongue. They also have a beverage that I quite possibly believe to be nectar from the gods. They call it Tea. It would be a goodly and Christian thing to establish a trade route with the Far East as these savages are not cultured enough to eat with fork and knife, instead preferring a primitive method of food consumption involving two twigs, or sticks.
I can recall mastering the use of chopsticks with the same alacrity that I can recall a reading I stumbled upon on the myth of redemptive violence.
Back in January of 2005, when I came home from a 15 month deployment to Iraq, I wasn't really home. I was in Langley, Virginia. And, the exact date was Sunday January 23, 2005. The day the Steelers lost the AFC Championship to their hated AFC nemesis, the New England Patriots (It is much easier to lose the Super Bowl in a stadium far away to a storied franchise whose legendary coach's name has been immortalized on footballs ultimate trophy than it is to lose at home to the NEPs for the Lamar Trophy). Before the mighty Steelers fell, the Army ordered Chinese. For everyone. You see, the reason we were in Langley and not home has everything to do with the weather. The reason the Army ordered Chinese for all returning troops was also because of weather. We should have been home a few days prior, but a blizzard hit the east coast. The storm was so bad we actually had a 36 hour layover in Frankfurt, Germany. I had a beer at McDonalds. By the time Sunday the 23rd rolled around, Virginia was the closest to home we could get safely. Langley (and the Army) were not prepared for an extra few hundred troops, and Army regs state that troops must be provided meals. Enter the Dragon - I don't really remember the name of the local restaurant that successfully rose to such a Herculean task. What I do remember is that they did not bring forks. They brought chopsticks. Very few soldiers knew how to use chopsticks. I was not one of them. I was simultaneously amused and disgusted at those who decided to eat with their fingers. Some soldiers attempted to skewer the food with the chopsticks as if one stick were the equivalent to a one pronged fork. For me, I felt the best course of action was to try and master the art of chopstickery myself. And, after a few failed attempts, some reflection and observation, I mastered the use of chopsticks right there in a hanger of Langley, Virginia. Of all my accomplishments, it is secretly one of those that I am most proud of. Years later, I would find myself in an upper-level undergrad Anthropology course reading scholarly books and articles on Jedi (yes, these do exist). And there, in the annals of scholarly Star Wars lore, I would stumble upon the myth of redemptive violence.
I wish I could recall the author's name, or even the book's title that bore this insightful treasure. I could probably try and dig up my paper and check the bib, but…
This is a brief paraphrasing of the argument:
At the end of the movie Star Wars, when the Death Star has been blown up and the Rebel Alliance secured its first major victory against the Empire, the audience probably cheered right along. Good triumphed over Evil in a very Jungian (who George Lucas studied) archetypal sense. But they (the Rebel Alliance) did so in a very violent fashion that eliminated the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Now most would probably be okay – citing justice. An abstract concept to cover the very real loss of life. We know from world history that violence is not the only way to overcome oppression and injustice. Gandhi proved as much. So did Martin Luther King Jr. But our stories, from the beginning of time (Shiva the Destroyer and the creation of the world) to Star Wars have been telling us otherwise. The only solution to force is force. The only solution to violence is violence.
Bullpucky. But what does this have to do with chopsticks and writing?
If you were to do a comparative analysis between the nature of the Fork and the nature of Chopsticks, any reasonable person would have to conclude that of the two, Chopsticks are the less violent method of food consumption. A fork stabs. A fork penetrates. Its metallic composition is cold and detached. To eat with a fork is to commit an act of violence. Conversely, to master Chopsticks is to master cooperation between two separate entities. It is an act of balance and union. To eat with Chopsticks is to commit an act of harmony. Is it this class that we discussed how we think what we think (through frames and metaphor)? So for example, I know that the white knight typically represents "good" and the black knight "bad" in an archetypal sense because growing up I was afraid of the dark and comforted by light. This is only one of literally thousands of metaphors our mind constantly frames our world through. Thus, though we realize it or no, a frame was established at a very young age when we learned how to eat. This frame is rooted in a metaphor of violence (the act of stabbing). So, now you know why I prefer chopsticks to forks, but what does this have to do with writing?
When reading the Covino reading, as well as most of our other readings, I've detected the slightest trace of violence – this need to stab at power. Their voices say, "This is what has been said, this is why what has been said is wrong, and this is why I am right". We see this in the Covino article when he seemingly decries expressivism while lauding the triangles of rhetoric:
…and are intended to suggest that rules for writing are antiexpressivist, that they pale in comparison with the varieties of language play that can develop the imagination, and that a prescriptive approach to writing is dull and unnatural…[however,] Kinneavy presents what has become an often-adapted 'communication triangle,' which stands for the relationship that he argues attends all language use, among an encoder (writer), decoder (audience), and a reality (context). In this connection, we might say that a rhetorical pedagogy consists in encouraging writing that is NOT RESTRICTED TO [emphasis added] self-expression… but instead keeps in view the skills and contingencies that attend a variety of situations and circumstances (36-37).
Covino wants to tear down the walls of one structure so that he can put in place one that he feels to be more pleasing to the eye. If he can convince a community large enough that his design is better, he will be admired until someone else comes along who has a different way of looking at things and wants to tear down Covino's structure and put in place her own edifice, and so on – ad infinitum. Covino, to his credit, recognizes this and hedges his bet by suggesting that, "The question, now as always it seems, is whether a rich conception of rhetorical pedagogy can be sustained…"
For my purposes, I find value in both expressivism and triangles. I think both contribute something positive to the discourse on writing pedagogy. I view both as separate pieces to a greater puzzle. You permitted me to recreate a brief history of Europe imperialism, allow me to create a brief glimpse into the future of writing pedagogy.
I see a world where academics, instead of vying for pedagogical superiority, work in collaboration with one another. Instead of tearing down walls and building new ones, decorate the view that is already in place. You may need to knock a wall or two down, but do so in a way that enhances the core structure. If I were to put the puzzle pieces in place I would say that students, before ever learning how to write, must first learn how to think. Freewriting or expressivist writing is a great start; it helps lead to a discovery of voice. Once that voice is discovered, then students should learn to put that voice to use - that is to say they must learn to express their beliefs and opinions in a convincing fashion and that rhetoric is a tool that can get them there. Once students have been taught how to first think and then express (in terms of audience and context recognition). Expose the students to new and different cultures and critical theories that might challenge preconceived notions. The goal is to build upon each piece - grammar, usage, and writing formulas are advanced matters, the last pieces of the puzzle - until a picture of literacy is achieved. After all, is that not the ultimate goal of writing pedagogy?
In an article titled "New Rule: Americans Must Realize What Makes NFL Football So Great: Socialism", comedian Bill Maher makes this observation about the Super Bowl:
New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.
It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.
Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.
That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."
Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.
So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie.
While reading Lester Faigley's Competing Theories of Process I couldn't help think about the above article forwarded to me by an old friend.
You may or may not know, but I did my undergrad in Political Science and spent quite a number of classes listening to lecutures on and reading the works of Karl Marx. Marx is perhaps one of the most misunderstood historical political thinkers of the Modern Era. This is partly derived from the fall and failure of Communist Russia (while completely ignoring the fact that China, a communist nation, is a world power). But also derived in part from jingoistic rhetoric produced by anti-socialist propagandists whose goal is - as Marx repeatedly pointed out - to keep in power those that are already in power. The notion of "pessimistic determinism" mentioned in the Faigley article is borrowed from Marx and Marxist scholars who believed that freedom was little more than illustion crafted, again, to keep status quo for those in power. Capitalism, according to Marx, is a part of that illusion. Here is something I half-paraphrased, half-direct quote from Lois Tyson's essay on Capitalism while weaving in some of my own conjecture to help explain:
When 10% of the world’s population owns 90% of the world’s wealth how is it the case that free-markets and the capitalism do more to raise the standard of living for people? The wealthy have a vested interest in protecting their assets. And they are good at protecting them - there is a widening gulf between America’s rich and poor. The success of the American dream – the acquisition of a wealthy lifestyle for a few – rests on the misery of the many. Capitalism is a false idea whose real purpose is to promote the interests of those in power. As such, capitalism is a system of oppression. To think otherwise is to suffer at the hands of an illusion crafted by those in power. Any ideology that puts self-interest above the needs – and even above the survival – of others is an oppressive one. By keeping the focus on “me” instead of on “us”, capitalism works against the well-being of society as a whole and of underprivileged people in particular.
The “American dream” is part of the oppressive illusion. The American dream, much like the lottery, opens up the possibility that anyone can win, and like gambling addicts, we cling to that possibility. In fact, the less financial security we have, the more we need something to hope for. The American dream also tells us what we want to hear: that we are all “as good as” the wealthiest among us. It’s not supposed to matter that the wealthy don’t think that we are as good as they are as long as we believe it’s true. And it is not supposed to matter that “as good as” does not mean entitled to the same health care, material comforts, or social privileges, including the privilege of hiring the best lawyers should the need arise. It would be naïve not to think that the wealthy carry an air of superiority in their minds when considering the middle or working class. Just like there are those in the middle class who in all likelihood thumb their noses at the working class for a perceived lack of formal education, and so on.
Consumerism, a by-product or a subset of Capitalism, says “I am only as good as what I buy”. This creates the illusion that I can be “as good as” the wealthy if I can purchase what they purchase or a reasonable facsimile thereof (albeit on credit) not recognizing that doing so fills the coffers of the wealthy who manufacture and sell the consumer products I buy all while reaping the 15-20 percent interest on my credit-card bills. Not buying it (pun intended)? What clothes are you wearing? If we didn’t have this “I am only as good as what I buy” mentality, then we would all be decked from head to toes in Kmart brand or Thrift Store clothes - buying clothes for simply for utility.
The conservative middle class tends to resent the poor because so much middle-class tax money goes to government programs that help the poor. However, they fail to realize that it is the wealthy in positions of power who decide who pays the most taxes and how the money will be spent (in other words it is the wealthy who make the middle class carry the lion’s share of the responsibility). To keep the math simple, let’s say my combined household income is close to $100,000 / year – keep in mind that both partners are working. If we were taxed at 30% (again just to keep the math simple) our net household income is $70,000. Conversely, a couple with a combined household income close to $1,000,000 / year under the current tax laws would be forced to make do with a mere $700,000. Now, at first glance, a surface level analysis would conclude that this clearly demonstrates that the tax system shows no favorites – that $300,000 does more to help the poor than $30,000. But this myopic argument overlooks the fact that these are not aggregate totals. In other words, if the bottom 90% contribute somewhere in the range of $30,000, and there are roughly 300 million citizens, 270 million would be contributing $30,000 (or, approx. $8.1 trillion) Conversely, approximately .1% of Americans earn a gross of $1,000,000 (or more) (source: mybudget360.com). If so, only 300,000 citizens would be contributing $300,000 (or approx. $90 billion) In short, roughly $8.01 trillion MORE of the burden is being shouldered by the middle class. Again, capitalism is a system designed to protect the wealth of the wealthy. It is an oppressive system.
The better solution would be for the middle class to make an alliance with the poor in order to attain, through the democratic process, a more equitable distribution of America’s wealth by shifting some of the tax burden back onto the wealthy. I know that it is considered taboo to utter the phrase, “distribution of wealth”. But wealth IS getting distributed one way or another. The better solution is to side with the politicians who promote policies that favor “us” over “me”.
This is what is meant by "pessimistic determinism" and the illusion of freedom. What was most revealing (even revolutionary) about Faigley's article is the notion that Language is a social practice - a social construct if you will. Says Faigley:
...any act of writing or teaching of writing must be understood within a structure of power related to modes of production (661).
I haven't even addressed the issue of alienation of labor, I have much more to say about this topic but feel as if I have outgrown the scope of a blog. Even Faigley's idea of a Synthesis is borrowed from Marx's notion of dialectical materialism (thesis + antithesis = synthesis). What I hope I've accomplished in this blog is to shed some of the taboo and the mystique that surrounds Marxism for those that approached Marx in full MOPP (mission oriented protective posture) gear so that you might reconsider Marxism as an honest intellectual approach to theory.
So, Macrorie wants things to be both True and Light. I wonder if this is what he had in mind:
Shakespeare was wrong. Farting, not death, is the great equalizer. I fart. And like it or no, whether you are President Obama, Brad Pitt, Oprah, Tom Brady, J.K Rowling, Lady Gaga, Darth Vader, Osama Bin Laden, Sarah Palin, Captain Kirk, Mr. Rogers, Big Bird, or Mother effing Theresa, you fart too. Farting is a natural, biological process. Like breathing.
Unfortunately, when it comes to farting in public, there is an air of surliness that lingers in the obdurate hearts of the masses. We turn our noses to it. It is a social more that few are ever brave enough to break, and that plain stinks! We suffer enough stress day to day, why add needlessly to our burdens? And, as it turns out, farting freely has been the key to solving a majority of the modern citizen’s problems.
Experts have shown that holding a fart in causes a physical discomfort which triggers a complex chain reaction within the body that ultimately leads to a violent psychological disturbance of our otherwise mentally/psychically balanced selves. If we allowed ourselves to jake-brake freely, war, poverty, discrimination, and hatred would all cease to exist. Marriages would last longer. Literacy would increase. The economy would rebound. And as it turns out, unabashed farting is actually good for you too. In a highly scientific study just conducted by my brain, 99% of those who fart freely live healthier, longer lives.
Have we become that enslaved to certain social mores? I say no more to abruptly excusing yourself from your date to rush off to the public bathroom! It is only when we find the courage to fart in front of our partners that love becomes real. Farting makes the world a less frightening place (just think of OBL farting in some remote cave in Pakistan). Embrace the rapture, the pure sweet relief that comes with unencumbered release. Loosen up that sphincter and let ‘em rip. Dare to be the pioneer who makes a board meeting a little more interesting, who passes gas while sitting in class, who crop dusts while teaching class, who rocks the casbah while sitting on a flight from Pittsburgh to Paris, who unleashes the thunder from down under while acting on stage, who airbrushes their boxers while defending their dissertation. Rid your trunk of the ephemeral flatulent junk. Let ‘em fly. Let ‘em rip. Become a public farting advocate - you’ll gain my vote and my respect. I’ll be doing a lot more farting in the future. And whether you admit it or no, you will be too. Tear down the walls that have been holding relief hostage. The world needs more farters in it. Your sphincter will thank you. The world will thank you, and I with it.
Bottoms Up!
[Full disclosure: This was a post I wrote for a different blog assignment for a different class of Julie's. My classmates were not very good at leaving useful feeback, so I thought I would recycle the post]
While growing up in the 80's, one of my favorite movies was Red Dawn. When HBO had it on high rotation, you could often find me in the dark of my grandparent’s basement comfortably sprawled, blanketed, and bepillowed on a seventies’ styled Brown on Beige checkered shag of a couch, eyes intently glued to a 13 inch color TV that Pap had rigged with cable. As the basement was adjacent to the garage, smells of oil, gasoline and grease permeated the atmosphere. I did not care (in fact, I came to love those smells). I had one thought and one thought only on my mind: WOLVERINES! 
