I'm pleased to read that Booth admits the term media "is radically ambiguous" (31). The proliferation of negative connotations and corruptions associated with the "media" has always bothered me, since I never heard a good definition of what this media actually is, and where it is. If I don't watch tv (which is true), and if I don't get newspapers and magazines (which is not true), how does the media reach me? There are numerous billboards I see on my way to BG, of course, and the car radio is full of commercials, which I always turn off. It doesn't actually seem that difficult to live in this society and ignore much of the media. I am of course assuming a rather traditional definition of media that includes tv, the radio, newspapers, magazines and billboards. The influence of these examples reaches classrooms and public spaces, but I think the media starts from sources that are publicly available.
Also, the idea of "corruption" in the media (USA) is difficult to believe. I don't doubt corruption's existence some of the time, as there are new scandals everyday. Yet, news stations obviously have to make choices about what to show. Does this choosing reflect bias? Yes. Does it reflect the unethical nature of the people in charge? Not necessarily. The journalism classes and newspaper experience I've had all pointed in one direction---avoid bias and be objective. The instructors tried very hard to instill this value in students. I cannot believe there is intentional corruption in the media in MOST cases, at least in the USA. I simply think that choices are made every day about what to portray and what to leave out. "Bad" news is reported more often because it's interesting, let's face it. I'll leave out political reporting because politics seems to inherently corrupt people. The 20th century has witnessed a huge increase in the media and its availability to the public, yet any corruption can usually be traced to the fact that money is behind the ads. People want to make money, and corruption isn't too far behind in such cases. The key is that it's not the media (however we define it) that's corrupt, but the business ventures behind it.

Starhawk's paganism and Witchcraft provide an excellent example of how connotations allow us to draw conclusions---and perhaps not always accurate ones. Both paganism and Witchcraft conjure up sinister images for me, exactly the "woman on a broom" image that Starhawk mentions. Bending energy and shaping consciousness, as well as weaving new possibilities, is certainly a different way of looking at Witchcraft, though perhaps it's a bit vague. Why, when something is named, does it suddenly become more powerful and meaningful? In this respect, Daly and Kramarae (from last week) were right! Words can change mindsets. For example, in my faith (Catholicism) witchcraft is something awful; one simply doesn't follow it. Yet, if a Catholic mentioned he or she bent energy and shaped consciousness, perhaps that would be less threatening. After all, "love for life in all its forms is the basic ethic of Witchcraft" (Foss, Foss and Griffin 146 RFRT), which is also true for catholicism.
Starhawk's attraction to witchcraft seems only natural given her definition of patriarchy, which she says is "the belief that some people are more valuable than others (Foss, Foss and Griffin FRT 166). Witchcraft itself seems to be more feminine than masculine. Sometimes Starhawk strikes me as similar to Paula Gunn Allen, though, in that both seem to live on the edge of society and dapple in what's considered abnormal. Their credibility is thus lessened, at least in my mind. It seems as though Starhawk tries so hard to assert herself as a woman that she feels it's necessary to join a group with clearly defined (and unusual) practices, to somehow make up for the oppression she faces in society, if that's indeed the case. At the same time, if a feminist tries to change mindsets and society by appealing to the status quo, and hence patriarchal values, she is in a sense undermining her very values, so perhaps Starhawk's approach is sane after all. I question, though, how seriously men (not all men, of course, since she doesn't want to lump them together) take her given her nontraditional means of embracing feminism.

Both Kramarae and Daly put a lot of faith in the power of words. As rhetoricians, they should, but I question if they are perhaps idealistic. Kramarae advocates using vocabulary as a means of allowing it to enter common conversations, thereby changing mindsets and ultimately making society a more hospitable place for women. She mentions a theory in which women "adapt their ideas and expressions in order to speak through the communicative modes of men" (19). I'm not convinced the communicative modes of men and women differ enough to draw any conclusions. We might be able to find certain patterns, but these are likely the result of upbringing, education, and individual circumstances.
Daly, on the other hand, goes so far as to change established words through punctuation. For example, gynecology becomes gyn/ecology. Reading her work seems very foreign to me. I was constantly slowed down and distracted by her odd punctuation. In addition, her "new" words meant little to me unless the definition was explained. I therefore question how effective her prose really is. Most of my annotations on her readings said "She's insane," or "that's insane." The background and foreground might be an effective conceptual representation of society, but her ideas in general are far from concrete, and she gets caught up in the creation of words. If her goal is to create change, I doubt she can do it through language (sadly).
Her actions were quite inspiring, such as sticking with Boston College through years of discrimination and tenure refusals. The readings, however, did not provide adequate insights into the side of Boston College itself, so I felt like I was not getting the whole story. I was persuaded to fight for her side, however, so the readings were an example of effective rhetoric in that regard.