St. Austin

For my rhetoric class this week, I read some of On Christian Doctrine by St. Augustine of Hippo, also known as St. Austin for some reason. Augustine was one of the greatest thinkers in Western history. It's telling that I've read his works for two different classes, neither of which had anything to do with religion. So, his influence is fairly universal.

As far as his rhetorical theory goes, Augustine expanded on one of my favorite arguments (which I've discussed before): that everything is an argument. Augustine divides rhetoric (or, technically, "eloquence") into three styles: subdued, moderate, and grand. He gives each style a particular purpose: "to make one's word understood [for subdued], enjoyed [for moderate], and persuasive [for grand]" (374-75). But those purposes can fluctuate and intermingle.

Anyhow, he also says that persuasion is the "function of eloquence," which we presumably always strive for in speaking. He says:

For since the function of all eloquence, no matter in which of these three styles, is to speak in a way adapted to persuasion, and the end, that is, what you aim at, is to persuade by speaking, so, in whatever of the three styles indeed an orator speaks in a manner adapted to persuasion, unless he does persuade, he does not attain the end of eloquence. For instance, in the subdued style he persuades his audience that what he says is true; he persuades them in the grand style, to do what they now know they ought to do, but are not doing; he persuades them in the moderate style that he is expressing himself in beautiful and elegant language. (374)

I think it's pretty normal and blasé to argue, for example, that a car commercial is trying to persuade you to do something (grand style) or that a documentary is trying to persuade you that it is being truthful (subdued style), but I think the third component is a little less common of a thought. How often do we think about something like "I'm on a Boat" or The Office as trying to persuade us that it is funny? But that is essentially what they are trying to do. If we're not convinced, we won't continue to watch or whatever.

I don't think Augustine had T-Pain and Andy Samberg in mind when he wrote that, but I think the argument is pretty transferrable. He's basically talking about art or culture as argument. Lots of art has a different argument as well (i.e. A Doll's House as an argument for women's empowerment), but I think all art and cultural texts argue, at least, that they are expressed in the most appropriate way possible, be that the most beautiful or the funniest or whatever. So, anyhow, everything's an argument.

It seems that King of the Hill may have ended (rather unceremoniously) last week. There wasn't a new episode last night, and I don't think there is next week either. I can't find any concrete evidence about the show's future, though, so I don't know for sure. I thought we'd at least get some warning.

Speaking of last night, American Dad continues to distance itself from Family Guy in persuading me that it is expressing itself beautifully and elegantly. Last night's American Dad was seriously funny, especially Reggie. (That links to a clip from another episode that isn't as funny as he was last night.) But Family Guy continues to disappoint. Maybe The Cleveland Show will end up being even funnier, but I doubt it.

QotD:

Favorite show on Animation Donimation?

My take: I may have asked this question before, but things change. Anyway, I have to pick The Simpsons. I don't necessarily think it's the best show right now, but it is my favorite. (I actually changed the wording of the question so I could answer this way.) I guess without King of the Hill, American Dad might be the best show on right now. I guess even further that this question is pretty limited seeing as how Fox is only airing new episodes for three shows on Sunday nights. But you can answer this question in whatever time frame you prefer.

If I lost by 23 points, I’d probably end my season too.

I made it through the NCAA tournament's four-day lull, but then last night's games weren't particularly exciting. The Memphis/Mizzou game sounded like fun since Missouri never really slowed down and, subsequently, put up 102 on a good Memphis defense. But I couldn't watch that game, even when it was an 8-point game with about a minute and a half left, because I live near Durham. So, I had to watch this debauchery.

Villanova's looking really good right now, which is good because I have them in my Final Four but bad because they might be playing UNC in that Final Four game.

The Game Developers Conference is happening now, so I've been reading up on that a little bit. There has been some interesting game news, including a teaser trailer for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which is somehow the sequel to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. How two comes after four is beyond me. At any rate, I've been more interested in the reports about panels on games journalism.

Speaking of, I finally convinced myself to stop playing GTA: Chinatown Wars long enough to write a review of it. I feel like I left a lot of stuff out. But, I wanted to play it again, so the review is fairly quick.

I have a lot of grading to do in the next week or so. That'll be fun.

QotD (submitted by Justin, a classmate):

Are we too obsessed with the environment, considering California might ban dark cars because they're harder to heat and cool?

Justin's take: Yes.

My take: Can we ever be "too obsessed" with the environment? But seriously, this is bonkers. I suppose dark shirts are next?

Title (IX)

I think I want to blog about UNCW football, since I asked my first class to do that.

College sports is a topic that I discussed a lot in my undergrad days, not only with my buddies, but in actual classes. I miss undergrad.

One of the key issues with starting a UNCW football team is money, and as commercials tell us, money is important "now more than ever." For that reason, I'm pretty sure UNCW is not getting a football team any time soon. UNCW has been asked to cut their budget up to 7% for the next few years.

But it's nice to dream, so I think that UNCW should have a football team. In considering the money issue, it's important to point out that football and men's basketball are generally the only college sports that actually generate revenue, football being the more lucrative. So, the school would certainly take a hit in start-up costs, but in the long run it would be worth it. In fact, football and basketball often pay for other sports.

Title IX is another issue that the school would need to deal with in starting a football team. Competitive college football teams usually require about 85 scholarships (for men). That means that, in accordance with Title IX, UNCW would have to create 85 scholarships for women or cut 85 existing scholarships for men. This could obviously cause a lot of problems for other sports, but it could also provide a lot of opportunity for women's sports.

(By the way, I doubt UNCW would start with 85 scholarships. They'd probably rely on a lot of walk-ons.)

I've personally seen the rise of two collegiate football programs in the past decade or so: Louisburg College and USF. The Louisburg College deal sort of stumbled out of the gate with some controversy surrounding promised, but not delivered scholarships and equipment. So that doesn't bode well.

But USF, on the other hand, has experienced a meteoric rise since the program's inception in 1997. Some of you may remember their time in the spotlight during the 2007 and 2008 seasons. USF is a prime example of the best case scenario: rising to national prominence, rankings, and bowl games in less than 10 years.

I imagine a UNCW football team would fall somewhere in between those two. So, it'd be worth a shot.

If only...

QotD:

Which college sport do you care most about?

My take: Basketball. It helps that my college is good at that sport – UNC, not UNCW.

Gangsta status revoked

The seminar paper for the class I'm taking is a (comparative) rhetorical analysis, which is fun because I just asked my 101 class to write a comparative rhetorical analysis. My paper is going to be about GTA IV and Saints Row 2, but I asked my class to compare two different media so they could really focus on how the media affects the message. Their papers are due at 5 p.m. today, so I'll soon know if they were successful.

My paper is due April 20^th, so I still have some time, and I'm going to use this blog entry (primarily) to tease out some of the issues that I'll deal with.

So, my plan in this paper is to say something like, "GTA IV glorifies violence and criminal activity, but Saints Row 2 is a satire of video games that do just that." By the way, both games are gang- or crime-based, open-world, third-person action games.

My paper situation reminds me of that episode of Arrested Development in which Ann and George Michael protest at the house of the creator of Desperate Housewives, Marc Cherry, because they think it presents a negative view of American values (or some such thing). Cherry comes out of his house and yells at the protesters that his show is a satire, so they shouldn't be protesting it. In the same way, Saints Row 2 doesn't deserve protesting.

But, it has been thrown under the same proverbial bus as the GTA games. At the very end of that article (which shows its importance), THQ claims that its game "is not a gang simulation game. It's a tongue-in-cheek game." So, I suppose I'll be trying to prove that statement's validity by examining the rhetoric of the game.

I'm particularly interested in the realism of each game. It seems to me that if Saints Row 2 is a tongue-in-cheek game, then it wouldn't want to be very realistic; it would exaggerate certain aspects of its lampoon target to get its satire across more effectively. Realism in video games is still being defined, but I don't find it particularly realistic to see gangsters committing insurance fraud by intentionally hurting themselves or, my personal favorite, lowering the real estate value of certain rival neighborhoods by spraying sewage from a septic truck around said neighborhoods. In my mind, these aren't the sorts of realistic activities that video game players are supposedly trying to mimic in real life.

Speaking of mimicking games in real life, some guy in Thailand allegedly killed a taxi driver and stole his cab and claimed that he did it to see how easy it would be to steal a cab in real life, something he'd accomplished pretty easily in GTA IV. The game was subsequently banned in Thailand. So, my argument for this paper (in its current form) is that GTA IV encourages this sort of behavior, while Saints Row 2 makes fun of it.

One of the most time-consuming aspects of this project will be playing through these games again. I'm going to need a lot of textual examples, which means I'll need to go back through with a fine-toothed comb, so to speak. I especially need to get back through some or all of the story-mode missions, since it's been almost a year since I played through GTA IV's story. At the time, it was lauded as one of the better video game stories to date. I mostly remember that you have to choose between saving your cousin's or your girlfriend's life at the end of the game.

More recently, I've been playing through GTA: Chinatown Wars on DS. I'd say it falls closer to the Saints Row 2 end of the spectrum, as far as seriousness is concerned. That's probably, in part, a necessity of the platform, considering DS graphics are still very sprite-like, so it's hard to really peg realism. But Chinatown Wars also boasts a sarcastic and aware protagonist that tends to point out the silliness of the over-the-top gangster-style aspects of this game. He's always noticing how predictable and stereotypically gangster his missions are. This sort of awareness really points to the underlying clichés of the genre. Still a fun game though.

Anyhow, the NCAA tournament is still going strong. My brackets are probably technically "busted," though I'm not sure where that threshold lies, but I'm still on top of my pool with 12 out of 16 teams for the Sweet Sixteen (though I've already lost a Final Four team in Washington). I had a very strange feeling this morning when I woke up and realized that the tournament is on hiatus for about 4 days. I was really more depressed than I would have expected. I don't know how I'm going to deal with April through November. I suppose baseball, but we'll see.

I mentioned last week that I wasn't a real fan of last Sunday's episode of Family Guy. It turns out this week's episode wasn't much better. Both episodes took considerable liberties in repeating old Family Guy jokes. Family Guy has always been a heavily referential show, which I've always appreciated, but I don't think it should reference itself so much, at least not in its current manner. They're repeating jokes that were really only funny because they were shocking and unexpected. The second time around, those jokes are just frustrating and boring. I'm actually starting to like American Dad more than Family Guy.

Speaking of "Animation Domination," which I like to call "Animation Donimation:" Fox finally showed Sunday viewers a glimpse of Sit Down, Shut Up, Mitch Hurwitz's new project, last night. I don't know if I could be more excited about a show. I'm less excited, of course, that King of the Hill is coming to an end. The good(e) news is that Mike Judge animated shows shouldn't be off-air for too long.

One more note, I need to give some propers to Austin for his SECU Member of the Week status. Finally.

QotD:

Where do you hold member of the week status?

My take: Ozzie's life. I've been spending a lot more time working at home lately, and Ozzie seems to enjoy my company.

Frozen Development

So, how's your bracket look? I did pretty well for the first day, only missing the Clemson/Michigan and Texas/Minnesota games, but I didn't have either of my wrong picks moving past the next round anyhow. So, I'm still sitting pretty. Two of my Final Four teams (Villanova and Washington) gave me a bit of a scare yesterday, though.

I thought I might write about Grand Theft Auto(s) today, but I think I'll wait until Monday since I still have individual conferences today, which are detrimental to my concentration (but still fun).

Instead, let's talk about Better Off Ted, the show ABC decided to pair with Scrubs. Better Off Ted had a good premiere episode. It was funny and set up a lot of information for the show. Maybe too much information. Veridian Dynamics, the company the cast works for, already froze and unfroze Phil. I thought that this frozen guy thing was going to be a constant on the show, considering how much they plugged that aspect in promos leading up to the premiere. (Actually, I assumed they would freeze a guy named Ted (and he would stay frozen), and the cast would always refer to how much better Ted has it because he's frozen and doesn't have to put up with all the usual office TV sitcom problems. I was wrong.) We've also already seen Ted, the main guy, sleep with or at least flirt with both of the only female characters on the show. I guess after Ross and Rachel and then Elliot and J.D. shows are trying to be more upfront with their romantic entanglements. I just don't know where the show can go from here, plot-wise.

Anyhow, it was a funny pilot, and I'm going to keep DVRing and watching it. Oddly enough, my biggest concern is Portia de Rossi's character. She's very harsh and strange. I say "oddly enough" because my first interest in the show was based on my allegiance to Arrested Development alumni. This is the same reason I cared about Juno to begin with. Now, however, I have to care about Juno because it's a pretty big cultural force. I thought it was okay, but Jason Bateman was hilarious.

QotD (from last night's 30 Rock):

What does "BFF" mean to you?

My take: Charles.

Let’s conference

I'm holding individual conferences with my students today and Friday, so my next two blogs may be sort of disorganized since I'll have students interrupting me every few minutes. Though, I suppose that won't be much different than how I usually blog because I'm pretty easily distracted while blogging.

The NCAA tournament begins (in earnest) tomorrow. I'm not always super-excited about first round games because a lot of them are blowouts. For example, UNC is probably going to play Radford without their most important player, but I still doubt it will be a "game," so to speak. I suppose the closer-seeded matchups might be more exciting. I'm particularly interested in watching Arizona beat Utah Friday evening. (Don't steal my upset pick (especially if you're in my bracket pool).)

I'm surprised how insignificant the NIT has become in the past few years (since the NCAA bought it in 2005). I know it hasn't really "mattered" for a long time now, but it seems to have lost even more significance in the past few years. In fact, as far as I can tell, ESPN.com doesn't even have an NIT bracket to look at. I'm extra-surprised by this considering there are some really good teams in the "hunt" this year: Kentucky, Davidson, Penn State, Notre Dame, Saint Mary's, etc.

The US team just got past Puerto Rico last night to get into the next round of the WBC. If you haven't seen Shane Victorino's move from 2^nd to 3^rd in the 7^th, you should definitely check that out. It's on the video in the story linked above. To be honest, I haven't found myself really "pulling" for USA in either of the tournaments so far. Don't get me wrong; I love America. But I have such strong feelings and allegiances towards certain MLB players that I tend to root based on those. So, in 2006, I pulled for Albert Pujols and the DR more than anybody. And when I was watching the highlights for last night's game, I was pretty excited to see Brian Roberts' key steal in the 9^th, but I was really disappointed that Yadier Molina didn't gun him down.

The flood of students has considerably slowed my blogress. I've been blogging for around three hours and have around 400 words. And I'm trying to eat some Cheez-its and grade one more paper (at least).

I picked up GTA: Chinatown Wars yesterday, though I probably shouldn't have. I'll probably write a little more on this Friday when (a) I have more time, (b) I've played a little more, and (c) I might talk about my upcoming paper for my rhetoric class which is a comparison between GTA IV and Saints Row 2.

QotD:

Which NCAA game are you most excited about in the first or second round (depending on when you answer)?

My take: For tomorrow, I'm excited about Cal/Maryland and Clemson/Michigan. But, overall in the first round, I'm most excited about 'Zona/Utah on Friday.

Reboot

I forgot what it feels like to take some time off from blogging. It's hard to get started again. But, since Matthew has written more on my blog in the last week and a half than I have, I suppose I should get back at it.

First on the agenda: break. My break was occasionally exciting and occasionally boring. I got some work done, but certainly not enough. I also spent a good amount of time on various lakes/reservoirs. We almost died in my mom's sailboat, so that was fun. (Tim almost ran us into a dock, with a little help from massive winds.) I took some people water skiing at my dad's house. Other than that, the break was fairly tame.

I spent my first few days wearing out Halo Wars, and that's really all it took: a few days. It's a decently fun game, but there really isn't much variety in team selection. I was super-excited about it going in, so I was mildly disappointed. I also played Watchmen: The End is Nigh over break. It was more than decently fun, but also suffered from some variety issues. You can read my "full" review of that game here.

I spent my last few days doing schoolwork of one variety or another. That was kind of a bummer.

Next on the agenda: sports. The WBC is now happening. In the most unfathomable outcome ever (in the two times this event has been played), the Netherlands took Dominican Republic's spot in the second round. I'm sure the odds on that were something akin to the odds that Earth is actually filled with caramel (so you might want to start digging). I've been trying to watch as many games of the Classic as possible, but with damned responsibilities and so much good NCAA basketball this past week, it's been hard. Plus, the general forecasting ability of which games will be worth watching seems severely handicapped for this event. For example, Australia mercy ruled Mexico last Sunday, and then Mexico mercy ruled Australia on Wednesday.

I hope, for your sake, you watched at least some of that unconscionable UConn/Syracuse game in the Big East tournament. It was pretty spectacular and probably earned the Orange a three seed in the big tournament. Johnny Flynn impressed me more than I thought possible during that game. Despite his comments in this article, I thought he looked like he could play all night (which he pretty much did).

UNC played about as well as I would have expected them to in the ACC tournament with Ty Lawson. Surprise: he's important to the team. I made a comment to my friend Gregg the other day that I wouldn't be surprised to see Marcus Ginyard spend some considerable time running the offense in his fifth year on campus. In other words, Lawson will leave a pretty serious void when he's drafted by a playoff team in the NBA draft. Plus, Bobby Frasor will be gone. Frasor didn't look terrible in Lawson's absence, but I felt like he was trying to be Ty Lawson at times, a task he may not be up for.

Next on the agenda: the TV. I'm getting more and more drawn into East Bound and Down on HBO, mostly because my roommate(s) like it. I'd say it's okay, but I probably wouldn't watch it if I didn't now have coconspirators in the process. (Yes, Bryan, I just called you a coconspirator.)

We three amigos watched a semi-marathon of East B & D, as Austin calls it, yesterday because we'd gathered to watch Will Ferrell's You're Welcome America but couldn't sit through it. It was funny, but not like Ferrell's Bush on SNL funny, more like Dennis Miller on Monday Night Football funny.

Don't know if you caught last night's Family Guy. In case you've saved it on your digital video-recording device, I won't say too much. But when you start an episode off with a caveat/apology, you might need to rethink the whole of the episode.

Reaper has started its new season run, which means with Dollhouse, Chuck, and Heroes, I now have four hour-long "appointments" with hour-long shows, which isn't good for my productivity.

Finally on the agenda: I should be back to my regular blogging "habits," though I do have a lot of work on my proverbial plate right now, including an inch of student papers that I need to read through this week, mostly by Wednesday. So, Matthew, you can stop complaining about my blogging and start getting your Xbox fixed.

QotD:

Obviously, brackets are now available. I don't want to know you're whole deal there, but who do you have winning it all?

My take: UNC. Not sure what you expected here, but I pretty much have to pick UNC every year that they even have a chance, considering I went there and all. I also (sort of like) Arizona State, Washington, and Kansas for the repeat.

Two in a row is not a streak

It looks like we'll have two rhetoric blogs in a row because my class was given a specific assignment for this week, and I need to write it while the subject is fresh in my mind.

Specifically, that subject is The Century Project, which is a project about a century's worth of pictures of naked women and their stories. Frank Cordelle is the photographer behind the project, and he brought his exhibit to UNCW's campus this week. However, there was a big hullaballoo about this exhibit, and Cordelle wasn't allowed to display any pictures he'd taken of underage women, even though he'd shown them on campus in 2002 and the pictures (and their display) are in no way illegal. If you want to read more about the controversy, you can check out this article (written by my editor) that explains it fairly well.

Even more specifically, that subject is a colloquium (also known as a "meeting") that my class attended Monday night. The colloquium involved a panel consisting of Cordelle and some vested members of the Wilmington community, though it seemed they all had vested interests in allowing the full exhibit. The audience, including me, was allowed to ask questions of the panel, though Cordelle did most of the talking.

Knowing that I would be writing about the rhetoric of the colloquium, I decided I'd ask a rhetoricy question. So, I asked Cordelle (and the panel) who he considered to be the ideal audience for the project.

He answered "mainstream" America (through art galleries or public shows), which I thought was a pretty solid, yet obvious answer. Of course, he wants everybody to see his art; what artist wouldn't? I was really hoping for a different answer, but I know that I didn't get the answer I wanted because of the way I framed the question.

I couched my question in a comment about how I would have thought that a university would be the perfect audience for a project like this, but that my assumption was complicated by the controversy surrounding its return to UNCW. So, basically, I set up a university/the rest of the world dichotomy in my question that Cordelle fell very well into in his answer.

Let that be a lesson in rhetoric (or journalism (or teaching, for that matter)): always ask the questions that will lead to the answers you need.

The topic I was really hoping to tease out with Cordelle was whether he considers his project as an artwork particularly aimed at women. I was wondering this because he answered most of the questions of the night with anecdotal evidence, particularly about how his project has helped specific women. I can't say this definitively, but I think Cordelle targets, so to speak, women who have suffered some sort of trauma. He seems to think of the project as a sort of healing for those women, and according to his anecdotes, so do the women. With that in mind, I imagined that women were his target audience, his goal being to help other women (not in the project) with similar issues.

Spring break is upon me, so my blogging habits may be less regular for the next 10 days or so. I'd like to write a "so far this season in basketball blog" upon the heels of the end of NCAA's regular season. So, if I find some time, I'll probably try to get that up next week. Otherwise, I may only blog if something comes up. We'll see.

QotD:

What's up for spring break?

My take: Spending some time with the parents, and then doing tons of work.

Rhetorica ad You

Time for another "rhetoric blog." Mondays will probably be the day for those for the rest of the semester because I'm in my office more, and these tend to take longer. Anyhow, this week, we read up on a lot of Roman rhetoric, though I think it was mostly written in Latin (or possibly Greek), so maybe Roman rhetoric is a misnomer. It was written by Romans, at any rate. I had fun with Rhetorica ad Herennium by some unknown author. Most early rhetoric texts are very textbooky, as I noted last week, and this one's the same way, but it had some interesting differences from what we've been reading.

Firstly, a lot of the rhetorical theory that led up to Rhetorica ad Herennium and some that followed argued that a good orator or rhetorician must be a good and moral man. This reading, however, suggests that rhetoricians can use a "Subtle Approach" to introduce their speeches "when our cause is discreditable, that is when the subject itself alienates the hearer from us" (165). To me, it sounds like he's telling orators to lie, if need be. This was the principle concern that led to the term "sophist" becoming derogatory: that they were teaching the use of rhetoric towards evil means. So, we haven't seen much of this sort of suggestion in the moralist rhetoric that we've been reading.

By the way, I don't know if the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium would agree with my interpretation; I don't think he meant to suggest lying as a viable means of argumentation with his "Subtle Approach," but I still think that the suggestion is there. I'd say you could at least use his argument as a justification for deception.

I also thought this statement was weird:

"We shall make our adversaries unpopular by setting forth their violent behaviour, their dominance, factiousness, wealth, lack of self-restraint, high birth, clients, hospitality, club allegiance, or marriage alliances, and by making clear that they rely more upon these supports than upon the truth." (165, my italics)

I think it's funny that he suggests that wealth, high birth, and hospitality (a) fit in a categorization with violent behavior, factiousness, and lack of self-restraint and (b) are points of character worth attacking. It must have really sucked to be the rich, inviting offspring of the wealthy in the first century B.C.

Obviously, that take on this quote ignores the second clause that suggests that these qualities might be used by an opponent in lieu of "the truth" and that this strategy is worth attacking. Either way, I think he points out some interesting corollaries to rhetoric that can be effective means of persuasion: threats of violence, bribery, use of celebrity, etc. These behaviors have become very much ingrained in most of the rhetoric we see today (maybe not threats of violence).

I've had a sneaking suspicion for a while now that brands like McDonald's make nonsensical commercials because they know we're going to eat there anyhow (dominance). Product placement (even within other ads) and brand cooperation has all but been accepted as natural (high birth, factiousness, clients). Schwag is like currency at many events and promotions (hospitality, wealth). And celebrity endorsements are pretty much essential in advertising nowadays (club allegiance, marriage alliances). So, I think many of the concerns expressed in that quote have come to be accepted as ancillary rhetoric in today's media economy. That doesn't necessarily mean we don't appreciate a good argument or "the truth" once in a while, but we may have a harder time actually getting to it.

So, anyhow, the WBC starts Thursday, and it seems to be much less of a story this time around (in only its second iteration). I think the most publicized news I've heard so far is that A-Rod finally has something to focus on other than steroids. Good for him.

I noticed, a few days ago, the absence of Albert Pujols on the DR roster (when the team asked Miguel Tejada to play first base). I found in this story that Pujols is missing the WBC because of "insurance issues." The story is actually about Pujols not playing for the Cardinals in an exhibition against the DR. He claims it's about respect. I have to say: I admire his stance on this, but I'd much rather see him play, considering he'll face some good competition, and I might actually be able to watch it (though it doesn't look like the game will be broadcast – too bad I don't live in Jupiter, Florida).

QotD:

Do you want your MLB team's players to play in the WBC?

My take: For the most part, I'd say yeah. Firstly, it means that they're good enough to play in the WBC (which doesn't always mean much). But more importantly, I feel like the WBC is at least as good of a warm-up for MLB players as spring training is. I would, however, feel a little more squeamish about sending my team's pitchers or catchers because I'd like to see them work together as much as possible before the season. I don't have the same concern for position players.