tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63907501458893689032024-02-06T18:06:04.743-08:00Prehensel's Purple Proseprehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-88310452141729298732011-08-26T14:14:00.000-07:002011-08-26T14:21:20.677-07:00This is (Really) Why No One Likes an AtheistOver at The Superficial, he's got a little post titled "<a href="http://www.thesuperficial.com/ricky-gervais-jesus-new-humanist-cover-08-2011">This is Why No One Likes an Atheist</a>" that features a picture of Ricky Gervais posing as Christ.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn02.cdn.thesuperficial.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/0825-ricky-gervais-humanist-00-480x612.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://cdn02.cdn.thesuperficial.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/0825-ricky-gervais-humanist-00-480x612.jpg" width="250" /></a></div><br />
I actually don't like atheists like this. People like Gervais are continually giving the same, trite message. It boils down to "nuh-uh." Sure, some people say it in startling ways aimed at shocking people (like that magazine cover) more than communicating with them. Sure, some people (like Richard Dawkins) say it more artfully and convincingly. But it still boils down to "nuh-uh."<br />
<br />
Make no mistake, "there's no God" is a message just as surely as "Jesus died for your sins" or "Allah is the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet" is a message. (NB: Atheists, when you put it <a href="http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2008/probably-no-god-on-the-buses/">on the side of a bus</a>, it counts as a message.) What I think would profit everyone a bit more is some cohesion on the atheists' part. I would be more willing to take you seriously if your platform wasn't based on "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Those are Dawkins' words He even set up his own foundation "to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering." But what the foundation seems really to focus on is the first on that list (overcoming religious fundamentalism) instead of what is listed <i>last</i> (overcoming human suffering). Their "Projects" pages lists lots of things like conferences, interviews with religious figures, fundraisers, DVD sales, etc. What are they doing to help alleviate human suffering? They set up a <a href="http://donate.richarddawkins.net/donations/new?cause=nbga&country_code=US">Paypal account</a> to funnel money to Oxfam for disaster relief. Wow.<br />
<br />
The thing is, people are smart. Start doing the things that the Catholic church has done: open a <a href="http://www.peacehealth.org/about-peacehealth/Pages/mission-values.aspx">hospital </a>(you could put a little blank frame above each bed instead of a crucifix) or <a href="http://www.nyfoundling.org/">orphanage </a>(you could save children from indoctrination at the hands of those religious people who run orphanages) or <a href="http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Page.aspx?pid=2225">disaster relief organization</a> (you could save people without them having to, you know, be "saved"). Do that, and maybe people will take you a little more seriously. Do that, and maybe more people will listen to your message. <br />
<br />
It actually boggles my mind that atheists <i>of all people</i> aren't more involved with this sort of thing. If what you believe in is the human, that this life is all we've got, then I would expect a little more attention to human suffering. With religious folks, there's an out: people who suffer or are poor or are sick will get their real reward in the afterlife. Religious folk tend to worry more about the state of the soul. With atheists, there is no afterlife, so human suffering, poverty, sickness is all there is unless it is remedied in the here and now. Atheists should be a bit more worried about the state of the body and mind.<br />
<br />
Now, that's not to say that I dislike all atheists (some non-believers I have known are the most moral and upstanding people I've ever met). That's also not to say there are no atheists who aren't doing this. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Activism">Linus Pauling</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ehrenreich">Barbara Ehrenreich</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purna_Swaraj">Jawaharlal Nehru</a>, <a href="http://www.livestrong.org/Get-Help">Lance Armstrong</a>, <a href="http://www.stonewall.org.uk/">Ian McKellen</a>, <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1960/08/19.htm">Che Guevara</a>, and <a href="http://iava.org/blog/have-you-seen-it-yet-watch-iavas-new-video-stronger-together-featuring-henry-rollins-0">Henry Rollins</a> are/were all atheists (you might not like what they did/are doing, but at least they're working to better people's lives in the way they see fit). It's just that the loudest ones seem to be intent on tearing down religion rather than building up a supportive structure for humans...what would seem to be the job of <i>secular humanists</i>. Create a supportive structure for people, and maybe you'll win/free more hearts and minds. Because that's the ostensible intent of most vocal atheists. But I don't see how pissing on organized religion, parodying the crucifixion, arguing with prominent religious figures on TV or in print advances your cause. It makes you seem small. It makes you seem bitter. You're dashing most of your energies against an entrenched mindset. You'd be much more successful ignoring the religious doubters and naysayers, leaving off trying to show how religion is <i>wrong.</i> Instead, show us how you're right.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>Personally, I don't think you can (if for no other reason than <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#2">Pascal's Wager</a>). But even if the effort were totally futile, look at all the good you would have done along the way.</div>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-6369743345975799052011-08-02T14:16:00.000-07:002011-08-02T14:16:32.858-07:00Things I Don't Get About Politics (Part 1 of an Eleventy-Billion Part Series)<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Republicans <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n4/cpr31n4.pdf">keep arguing that fewer regulations and regulators</a> propel business and economic recovery/growth.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><ul><li>I think this is probably true. You can make more money if you don't have to worry about regulations on trade, environment, labor, occupational safety, benefits, liability insurance, etc. This is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8634343/Nike-Adidas-Puma-using-suppliers-pouring-toxic-chemicals-into-Chinas-rivers.html">why, say, </a>Chinese factories can make Nikes and Adidas at a much higher rate than <a href="http://www.newbalance.com/usa/#/factories">US factories</a> can produce New Balance. It's not that the Chinese factories are sweat shops per se (though undoubtedly some are); it's that they don't have the same environmental, occupational, or labor standards the US does. But to me, that is a less appealing long-term solution. </li>
</ul><br />
<ul><li>There are also ramifications for the small business folks--even if they don't want to admit it. Let me use an example: the guy who works as an exterminator for the house we rent was complaining the other day about all the regulations on small businesses. He has to have this permit and that licence... I can kind of understand his frustration, but he's not looking at the big picture. Without some sort of state and municipal control (licensing, permitting, etc.) he probably wouldn't be able to stay in business at all because any moron with a can of poison could call himself an exterminator. In a free-for-all with no regulation, why would someone pick the "professional" exterminator who charges double what another exterminator charges? You can scream <i>caveat emptor</i> all you want, but how many people know a professional exterminator from some screw-up? In the end, municipal and state regulations minimize the impact of grifters and charlatans like <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,743525,00.html">William J.A. Bailey</a> or <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/davidson.html">James Davidson</a>. On a larger, federal, scale, however, regulations also protect guys like my exterminator. If there were no environmental or occupational standards in place, then he could spray the most effective poisons to kill bugs--but those same poisons would likely harm his employees and my family. What would happen? In the short term, he'd be wildly successful. In the long term he'd get hammered in court by employees and consumers harmed by his products or actions. Then you'd get one (or more) of three outcomes: 1) he'd have to abandon harmful practices to avoid getting sued (leaving him in the same situation he's in right now except the self-regulation would be done inefficiently in the courts and there would be more human suffering...and <i>way</i> more lawsuits), 2) he'd start howling for some regulatory entity to tell him what was safe and what was harmful (I mean, what small business owner has the financial resources to do his own long-term testing?) and to establish a guideline of best practices, or 3) the smaller businesses would go under because they couldn't withstand the financial burden of frequent legal actions (remember, there'd be no regulating agency to point to and say "They told us it was OK! It was state of the art! If OSHA/EPA/FDA didn't know it was bad, how could we?" so civil cases would be wide(r) open). That would leave only the larger businesses (who could more easily fight cases) and shady businesses (who would change names, corporate identities, etc. to avoid prosecution) controlling the market. That's not good for the little guy, and it's definitely not good for as a consumer. </li>
</ul><br />
<ul><li>This is not to say that all regulation is a good idea. I mean, I can't even get unpasteurized milk from a local rancher delivered to town. I have to go and get it myself because the state of Oregon thinks unpasteurized milk is a bigger threat to me than, apparently, Chinese toys made <strike>of</strike> with lead. Unpasteurized milk. You know, the stuff everyone drank from the neolithic period until, oh, <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/03/23/got_raw_milk/">about 1920</a>. Yeah, that's a priority. (NB: I'm not arguing there's <i>no </i>need for pasteurization and USDA regulation of it, but small farms with fewer than 100 head, get real. You go to them because you want to. That's almost in the "artisan" range.) Or what about this. Everyone's up in arms about vaccines: if more upper-class white people don't make their kids get vaccines, then we get what's going on right now, <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6020a7.htm">118 cases</a> of the measles! Oh. 118? That's not great, but it's not bad enough to warrant <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/01/07/132740175/paul-offit-on-the-anti-vaccine-movement">this</a>. It's certainly not as bad as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalomid#United_States">thalomid</a>, which the FDA rightfully quashed before it got going in the US. But these are, as a friend once said, champagne problems. They seem to be the price one pays to avoid having a car that <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness">bursts into flames</a> or <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/12/madoff-ponzi-hedge-pf-ii-in_rl_1212croesus_inl.html"><strike>"investing" with a scam artist</strike></a> to avoid eating Durham's Pure Leaf Lard without knowing knowing that each block has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle#Public_and_federal_response">the inactive ingredient</a>, Lithuanian Factory Worker #2. But it doesn't make them less annoying.</li>
</ul><br />
<ul><li>But reducing regulation to increase economic growth also ignores another significant down-side: more frequent and more severe recessions. In the 82 years since the 1929 market crash, there have been 14 recessions/depressions. They took up 16.5 years (roughly 1/5 of that time span) and the Gross Domestic Product dropped an average of 5.15% in every one. That sounds bad...until you look at the 82 years <i>before</i> 1929. In those years, there were 21 recessions/depressions. They took up about 35.5 years (roughly 2/5 of that time span...twice as long as the following 82 years). The numbers are harder to compare since there aren't firm GDP figures for the early ones, but wikipedia (yeah, I know) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_recessions">gives</a> the drop in "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_recessions#cite_note-Zarn-15">business activity</a>" averaging 22.39% for each one. Say what you will about FDR "socializing" his way out of the Great Depression with the New Deal, but the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (which brought us the 40-hour week and time-and-a-half), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which gave us the SEC), and the <a href="http://ia700308.us.archive.org/31/items/FullTextTheGlass-steagallActA.k.a.TheBankingActOf1933/1933_01248.pdf">Glass-Stegall Act of 1933</a> (which gave us the FDIC and which, if it hadn't been dismantled by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, would have helped prevent the current banking crisis). These were moderating influences on American business and industry. <i>Moderating</i>. It means that the point of these laws and agencies is to <i>moderate</i>, and that works both ways. They are meant to help us avoid brutal recessions/depressions, but in order to do that, they also have to slow growth. You have to sacrifice the booms in order to avoid the busts. That, I agree, is not at all sexy, but there's nothing sexy about long-term growth (but, then again, there's nothing sexy about having invested bundles in <a href="http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/technology/1003/gallery.dot_com_busts/2.html">an online grocery delivery service</a> without ever really knowing if it was viable). It's also how professional poker players make money: the play <a href="http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/basic/bankroll-management/">within their bankroll</a>.</li>
</ul>For next time, I'll hammer on the Democrats some: Why do Democrats vilify Republicans for deregulation when they are just as involved in it? (And why don't Republicans mention this?)prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-53481871519785155742011-05-18T01:28:00.000-07:002011-05-18T01:34:10.425-07:00Most Improved is, Apparently, Not Good Enough Anymore<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEike7XedSzNcUtkaJstYGJp-Pvg9gKaprlpV2D1wAoUPv3SgZnJ1aUAglO2CDRSICkPoydFTzcAZigKHFt8EjGE9C9gGZ3WD1dnpbAPPRK_QrQOhTkNTCF-914bEaqoNkD3IBDpKu4bSIY/s1600/Most_Improved_Ribbon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEike7XedSzNcUtkaJstYGJp-Pvg9gKaprlpV2D1wAoUPv3SgZnJ1aUAglO2CDRSICkPoydFTzcAZigKHFt8EjGE9C9gGZ3WD1dnpbAPPRK_QrQOhTkNTCF-914bEaqoNkD3IBDpKu4bSIY/s200/Most_Improved_Ribbon.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Christine Ruffalo, an ESL teacher in Austin, recently wrote <a href="http://www.statesman.com/opinion/rufflo-dont-fail-students-whove-taken-the-leap-1471938.html?cxtype=rss_opinion">an opinion piece</a> for the <i>Austin American-Stateman</i> in which she argues against the standardized assessment of public school students. She stresses progress over a standard pass-fail assessment of the TAKS test. While reading it, I had a few thoughts:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul><li>I <i>want</i> to agree with Ruffalo because I don't agree with large-scale standarized testing, but I just cannot bring myself to accept her argument. The argument against TAKS can (and should) be made, but this is not the way to make it. Her example of two students, Erik and Bobby is revealing. Erik comes into 8th grade with a 10th grade reading level and makes no progress during the academic year, but "passes" the TAKS, which tests him on 8th-grade skill sets. Bobby comes into 8th grade with a 4th grade reading level, but makes huge strides and ends the year reading just over a 6th grade level. But he "fails" the TAKS because he still cannot read at an 8th-grade level. I can understand why Bobby would be discouraged by this, but the fact remains that he had not met the minimum requirements to succeed in 8th grade. I do understand Ruffalo's motivation, but I do not understand the concept of destroying or disregarding developmental milestones because Bobby worked hard and finally got moving in the right direction. The real solution seems to be a non-age-based assessment program--in which Erik would be working at a 10th-grade level no matter his age and Bobby would be working at a 6th-grade level no matter his age (but that brings along with it its own set of problems). In my own teaching, I've begun to stress accomplishment: I do not care whether a student "gets" argumentative college writing in Week 2 or Week 9 <i>as long as the student gets it</i>. Two years out, it won't matter how quickly the student understood things during the term; it matters that she understood things by the time she left the classroom for the last time.</li>
<li>It is also true that such progress as Bobby made deserves its own kind of recognition. (It's the "Most Improved" award that they used to use when I was in school.) Trying hard and making great progress, however, doesn't mean you should get a trophy based on achievement. I could train very hard and make great strides in my football skills, but it does not follow that I should get to play defensive end for the Ducks next year. There is a minimum standard to be met to make the team, and I am not (and probably would never be) there.</li>
<li>Such a philosophy demands one thing that is not now present in education: repeating a grade shouldn't have the stigma attached to it that it currently carries. Again, it shouldn't matter how many attempts a student needs to meet achievement milestones: it matters that he <i>meets them</i>. As long as students like Bobby continue to improve, they are more interesting and inspiring than Erik--and they deserve any sort of support we can offer to continue that progress. Saying that Bobby and Erik are equally important in the education system, however, is not the same thing as saying that Bobby and Erik are equally advanced. It may well be that Bobby is actually more intelligent than is Erik, but TAKS and the like are not IQ tests. They are tests of knowledge that the State of Texas has deemed crucial for 8th-graders. Failing it does not mean that the student or teacher are failures.</li>
<li>And here is where I agree with Ruffalo. If we attach funding to the success rates of TAKS tests, then we <i>are</i> doing Bobby and ourselves a disservice. Bobby's progress may not have been enough to get him to the 9th grade, but it is certainly enough to warrant sustained (if not increased) funding to that school for that student. To reiterate: Bobby's 4th-grade to 6th-grade reading skills progress should not factor into placement for the next academic year, but it should factor into funding concerns. If we are looking for results, the that sort of progress is the kind of result we should <i>encourage</i> in our students and our teacher; it does not, however, mean that Bobby gets a pat on the back and a promotion to the next grade (a promotion that would do more harm than good since it would place an under-prepared student in a more advanced context). As long as the students--the gifted, the average, the remedial--keep moving toward that final assessment goal (the exit-level TAKS) the dollars should flow. It's when the majority of students--in a particular class, school, or district--<i>don't</i> make yearly progress that a hard, analytical eye should be trained on the students and teachers.</li>
</ul>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-64848109285204809942011-01-15T16:52:00.000-08:002011-01-15T16:55:40.132-08:00A Short Defense of Sarah Palin (Or, Satan, Break out Those Snow Boots)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs454.ash1/24972_382925783587_24718773587_3655178_2736968_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs454.ash1/24972_382925783587_24718773587_3655178_2736968_n.jpg" width="245" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There's been a lot of (understandable) wringing of hands and (less understandable but predictable) pointing of fingers after the shooting in Arizona that killed six people and wounded thirteen--including Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D) who was apparently the target. There's been lots of <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0113/After-the-Arizona-shooting-the-civility-movement-sees-tipping-point">worry</a> over the rhetorical climate of US politics these days. Rightfully so. And the debate almost immediately began as to whether the vitriol (nurture) or Loughner's own psychoses (nature) caused him to act as he did. Of course, little attention was given to the notion that it was a combination of the two because that's not sexy enough for news. The debate was framed along the nurture versus nature divide because that is an unanswerable question, and unanswerable questions allow networks to keep asking them, keep bringing "experts" on shows, and keep making hay out of the same thing over and over again. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Despite what I think about the way the debate's been framed, some of the evidence for shooting-as-a-result-of-nurture is painfully weak and a little offensive to thinking people everywhere. The image at the top of this post, which is still on SarahPAC's <a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434">Facebook page</a>, targets twenty congressional districts at play in the November 2010 elections. The problem, so the conventional wisdom spun out in a mere four days goes, is that images like this are what prompted Loughner to go on his rampage. Using gun imagery (a scope's crosshairs in this case) is an implicit incitement to violence.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Or so the argument runs. But there are some things that just don't wash. Was Jared Lougner, the alleged shooter, affected by the vitriol on the airwaves and television and internet? Undoubtedly. But does it follow that someone with whom we disagree and whom we believe to be a moron is somehow at fault? Certainly not. The Momma Grizzly herself (Wait, don't they hunt bears in Alaska? Ah, yes. <a href="http://www.alaskatrophyadventures.com/hunt04.htm">They do</a>.) is not to blame for Loughner's actions. Steve Almond has written a very sharp, very thoughtful piece on the <a href="http://therumpus.net/2011/01/surely-some-revelation-is-at-hand/#author-bio">Kabuki theater</a> that is our response to these acts of violence; he also makes a very good point about the archetype of the Lone Gunman (or its cousin in this case, the Lone Nut). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As an aside: I want to be clear that I think Loughner's mental problems are the major motivator for his actions, but I also want to be clear that I think the political climate was probably what made Loughner choose the victims he did. This was an angry man, and he was eventually going to lash out at someone--maybe the instructors at the community college, the recruiters at the Army, his local postman, who knows. He was going to hurt someone, but it's become a media wet dream because he killed a judge and severely wounded a US Representative. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But back to the Lone Nut and blame. Almond's point that our culture has now militarized and moralized political conversation to the point that being wrong is not an option is a valid one. He quotes Sarah Palin's now infamous words to talk show host Dr. Laura Schelssinger:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Picture-29-480x199.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Picture-29-480x199.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">That is much more indicative of the self-righteousness that we're seeing in US politics and daily life these days. I still don't see it as inciting violence the way Gifford's Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, did during the campaign.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/jesse-kelly-giffords-m16-event.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/jesse-kelly-giffords-m16-event.jpg" width="169" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">At least in the two instances I've cited of Sarah Palin's rhetoric, she's dipping into the vernacular of her base. The people who follow her and love her are, by and large, members of a gun culture. And most people who hunt, in my experience, have a healthy respect for the potential danger of firearms. (Also, most of the people I know who own a gun are mostly sane.) I do not think we can or should fault her for speaking to her base (these people buy her books and pay her exorbitant sums of money to speak, after all.)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: -webkit-auto;">All that to say that the vitriol probably focused Loughner's anger onto public officials, so Almond's point that </div><blockquote>Men are paid millions of dollars to appear on radio and television and play act how one might murder a member of congress, or burn a person alive. They joke about hanging elected officials in effigy, or driving stakes through the heart of the President. A presidential candidate jokes about rape. Another declares that members of congress should be tarred and feathered.</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: -webkit-auto;">is a valid one. We have all gone too far. And while it may be unpalatable to jump on the Lone Nut bandwagon to explain away this ugly episode in US politics, it's just as unpalatable to blame Palin's <i>indirect</i> allusions to firearms for this man's actions. If Loughner can look at the targets on that map and make the leap to shooting an elected member of Congress for voting for a healthcare bill, then no political rhetoric that mentions resistance or conflict is safe. If we lower the bar so far as to condemn Palin's rhetoric, we've condemned almost all political rhetoric.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Now can the media return to some sanity so I can stop defending Palin and go back to loathing her? Please?</div>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-13615997486550901472011-01-05T11:15:00.000-08:002011-01-05T11:54:30.128-08:00Entitlement is Such an Ugly Word (But an Uglier Attitude)So. This proem, "<a href="https://paraphernalian.wordpress.com/">because: a manifesto</a>," has gotten a lot of attention in the last week or so. I can sympathize with the sentiment because I went through the same process--but I went through it as a first-year Master's student. I came out of the Master's program at Baylor with my eyes wide open, and I went into the PhD program at UO the same way. Not everyone gets a trophy, and some people may spend years and years getting that PhD, writing that dissertation, and taking those classes only to find out that there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. 1) There are no pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. The other areas of work the author talks about? They can be just as ugly, mean, and unfair. 2) Do not forget that you got to follow a rainbow--and not many people can say that. If I never get a job in academia (and times being what they are...), I will not complain about "wasting" my time getting my PhD. I had fun taking classes, talking about <i>Beowulf</i>, going to conferences, writing papers. If getting a PhD and writing a dissertation is a grind that one feels he must endure before getting a job in academia, he will make a very poor academic--since that, it seems to me, is mostly what academic jobs are about.<br />
<br />
No doubt things are tough, and no doubt many grad students are negative on job opportunities for the PhD. Some are coming up with Plans B-D for non-academic work. Some even souring on academia in general. But I still cannot understand the surprise and sense of betrayal I hear from people like the author of this poem (and in the <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/01/05/manifesto_on_leaving_academe">comments</a> in the reprint on <i>IHE</i>). What did these people think they were getting into?<br />
<br />
Things have changed in degree since 2004, 2005 when most of the "oldest" PhD students came into programs, but they have certainly not changed in kind. We are still (in our estimation) undervalued. The market for humanities PhDs was not flourishing even then. <br />
<br />
Where is the personal responsibility to do research for a major life decision like getting a PhD? <br />
<br />
Did these complaining recent-graduates <i>not</i> know that it would be a long, hard slog <i>after</i> the dissertation was over? (It is not law school, and universities do not troll graduating classes at job fairs for possible hires.)<br />
<br />
And if not, why not? Did any of them talk to faculty members under the age of thirty-five before getting a PhD? While getting a PhD? (Older, tenured faculty may not understand how hard it is to get a job, but the younger ones certainly do.)<br />
<br />
Did these complainers think that a PhD alone qualified them for a tenure-track job? (A related question: how many were indeed told how tough the market was but ignored the information because they thought that it surely did not apply to them since they were special snowflakes whose talents would surely be appreciated?)<br />
<br />
Did they think that the university was somehow obligated to make sure their life choices were financially viable after graduation? (If so, then why do we teach critical reasoning in composition departments? The university can run our lives for us.)<br />
<br />
Did these complainers give any thought to the practical aspects of their career before they embarked on it? (Just because we want to read and write about texts does not mean it is automatically valued; talk to the actor who waits tables during the day or the musician who has to play weddings and bar mitzvahs to make ends meet and you will receive very little sympathy.)<br />
<br />
I don't wish to downplay the power of this poem as a dirge, as a way of mourning the loss of a dream and as a way of saying goodbye to academia. It is the blame that bothers me. It is not the economy's fault, the system's fault, the university's fault, the department's fault,* the students' fault, your fault, my fault. It just is. <br />
<br />
Samuel Johnson was destitute into his thirties; Virginia Woolf was educated mostly at home; John Keats was trained as a doctor, not a poet; Zora Neale Hurston was an anthropologist by day. For the love of God, Kurt Vonnegut once managed a Saab dealership. I cannot imagine any of these people complaining because their contemporary society did not allow them to write what they wanted when they wanted (well, maybe Keats). One does not have to retain a shabby little office on a university campus to read and write about the things one loves.<br />
<br />
<br />
*Perhaps in one area, it is the departments' fault. I know that our job-preparation sequence here at UO is (and was in the past) taught by some cracker-jack young academics. What they have forgotten, however, is that while they earned their PhDs from the Texas, Stanford, or Duke, we are graduating from UO. Is Oregon a bad school? Not at all. I have enjoyed my time here. But it is <i>not</i> Duke or Stanford or Texas, which means <i>most</i> of us will not be competing for the jobs at major universities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what they prepare us for (because it is all they know). As far as I know, only one or two UO PhDs in the last few years have gotten on at major universities. Most have landed at directional schools and community colleges. So why not prepare us for that? Let us prepare ourselves for the next step to interviewing for major universities if we want to <i>after</i> we have settled in at Northwestern Iowa State College or wherever. Prepare us for what we will face instead of pretending that we will all interview at Brown, Ohio State, or Smith.prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-65980647992243165202010-08-20T13:57:00.000-07:002010-08-20T13:57:11.391-07:00Another Nobody Asserts His Views on the Cordoba HouseLots and lots of folks in the internets are sounding off on the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. <a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/">Gladstone</a> makes three very good points: it's not at Ground Zero, it's not a mosque in the strictest sense (any more than a YMCA is a church), and those who oppose it simultaneously uphold and seek to sway the government to suppress the First Amendment.<br />
<br />
It's that last point that I want to talk/rant about. Newt Gingrich, who seems hell-bent on making it impossible for himself to win the Republican nomination for 2012, <a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/no_megamosque_near_ground_zero.html">rants</a> that<br />
<blockquote>"the proposed 'Cordoba House' overlooking the World Trade Center site--where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks--is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites" </blockquote>and for some reason goes on to compare our country to Saudi Arabia. As if we don't have to hold to our core beliefs until every theocracy in the world gets it together. I, personally, don't want to live in Saudi Arabia and am not really worried about comparing how well we're doing as a nation to it. Saudi Arabia operates with a different playbook, and nothing they do or don't do should affect how we, as a nation, behave in relation to our founding principles.<br />
<br />
So that's my personal response to Gingrich's arguments. But there's a constitutional response, as well, to his <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41112.html">argument</a> that NYC has a <i>right</i> to deny the building of the Cordoba House. [NB: I think the headline for that link is misleading and a tad unethical. No doubt comparing anyone to Nazis brings with it a host of negative connotations (ask <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/06/national/main671964.shtml">Ward Churchill</a> or <a href="http://www.adl.org/presrele/HolNa_52/272912_52.asp">Marge Schott</a>), but just because you compare a situation to Nazis doesn't necessarily mean you're comparing Muslims to Nazis. Even Gingrich.] As for that right to deny the Cordoba House? Not so, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2264400/">says</a> Brian Palmer on <i>Slate</i>. I have to agree with Palmer's interpretation. The misunderstanding of the First Amendment is scary-prevalent these days. (Laura Schlessinger and Sarah Palin somehow <a href="http://gawker.com/5616441/sarah-palin-doesnt-understand-the-first-amendment">think</a> public outcry against something perceived as objectionable is a violation of free speech; just as it does not protect some hippie from getting thrown out of a Christian bookstore for wearing a pot-leaf t-shirt.)<br />
<br />
What the First Amendment <i><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_487628635">does</a></i><a href="http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm"> say</a> is that Congress shall make no law infringing on the freedom of speech and the "free exercise" of religion. If Congress can't make a law against it, that means the President (who is supposed to be the executor of laws) can't take any action against freedom of speech or religion. What that means is that a government agency (say, the FCC) can't shut Schlessinger up for saying words that the US Supreme Court hasn't <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_487628647">ruled </a><i><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/">verboten</a></i>; it also means that Obama, Bloomberg, or any other governmental agency cannot interfere with the establishment of the Cordoba House on religious grounds. It seems pretty clear to me, and I don't understand why someone like <a href="http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/21181269169">Palin would</a> in one breath say the builders of the Cordoba House <i>have the right</i> to do it and in the next <i>ask the President to step in to stop it</i>. Turns out, officially stopping it is above <i>everyone's</i> pay grade.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure which is worse: flat out ignorance of the Bill of Rights or the tightrope walking that embattled Democrats are doing. Harry Reid <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/08/16/129237919/sen-harry-reid-build-mosque-elsewhere">says</a> they can but they shouldn't (and wisely stops short of taking a trip to Palin-land and asking Obama to do something about it); Howard Dean <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/18/dean">says</a> they can but probably shouldn't since most Americans ("65 or 70 percent" by his count) are against it; and President Obama <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/14/obamas-support-ground-zero-mosque-draws/">says</a> they can build there but won't comment on whether or not they should.<br />
<br />
There are lots of statements in support or in opposition to this Islamic <i>community center</i> that will be built <i>two blocks away</i> from Ground Zero, but I haven't seen one yet that calls the dust-up what it really is: an ethical issue. It is an ethical issue since--as Boehner, Dean, Palin and others have noted--it's not about what <i>can</i> be done but what <i>should</i> be done. (I didn't hear many of the people listed in this blog post crying out about Georgia's Confederate-esque state flag...and that's Gingrich's home state...where he served in the legislature...so I guess some wrongs are worse than others.)<br />
<br />
So what should be done? I say let them build it if they want. President George W. Bush <a href="http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911islamispeace.htm">took pains</a> during his terms in office to distinguish between Islam and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims. So why are we listening to someone like Gingrich who thinks the Cordoba House is a symbol of Islamic conquest in the heart of Manhattan? Maybe a YMCA will never be built a few blocks away from the Kaaba, but that's what makes us who we are and the Saudis who they are. Isn't that why Palin is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEkzzdPB1v8&feature=related">supposedly fightin'</a> "to elect candidates who understand the Constitution, to protect our military interests so that we can keep on fightin' for our Constitution to protect our freedoms"?<br />
<br />
[Author's Note: I'm the nobody referenced in the title. Not trying to personally attack anyone listed in this post.]prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-58411857052615933162010-06-11T09:35:00.000-07:002010-06-11T11:32:15.635-07:00College Football Dream Conference Alignment<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkBFxXw3W0S5YktrgQLYgGurSnRmP7tjXClaHgryrctcQ4lpPcnuItwWbkwvPkCzAOrAvEy5AS8X3avTh7FukSkM0sECLAivJeqS3ZzpJ5CGySO-Xuf7XHXg7KznCXArY5dQNsn0jR6Ms/s1600/Aggie+Homo+Football.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 134px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkBFxXw3W0S5YktrgQLYgGurSnRmP7tjXClaHgryrctcQ4lpPcnuItwWbkwvPkCzAOrAvEy5AS8X3avTh7FukSkM0sECLAivJeqS3ZzpJ5CGySO-Xuf7XHXg7KznCXArY5dQNsn0jR6Ms/s200/Aggie+Homo+Football.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5481583927233334178" /></a>Anyone who follows college football knows that there are some serious shake-ups in the offing. In this case, it's not necessarily a good thing because television and money is trumping play-style, old alliances, and geographical concerns. So, here's my dream conference alignment that will <i>never ever</i> happen. (Automatic BCS qualifiers are marked with an asterisk, and note that there are fewer now--only 4, which leaves more chances for other conferences.)<div><br /></div><div>ACC-North</div><div><ul><li>Boston College</li><li>Georgia Tech</li><li>Maryland</li><li>Navy</li><li>North Carolina</li><li>NC State</li></ul>ACC-South</div><div><ul><li>Duke</li><li>Miami (FL)</li><li>South Carolina</li><li>South Florida</li><li>Virginia</li><li>Wake Forest</li></ul></div><div>Big East</div><div><ul><li>Army</li><li>Connecticut</li><li>East Carolina</li><li>Memphis</li><li>Pitt</li><li>Rutgers</li><li>Syracuse</li><li>West Va</li></ul></div><div>Big XII-North*</div><div><ul><li>Arkansas</li><li>Colorado</li><li>Oklahoma</li><li>Oklahoma State</li><li>Texas Christian</li><li>Texas Tech</li></ul></div><div>Big XII-South*</div><div><ul><li>Arizona</li><li>Arizona State</li><li>Houston</li><li>Mississippi State</li><li>Texas</li><li>Texas A&M</li></ul></div><div>CSA (Conference of Student Athletics)</div><div><ul><li>Baylor</li><li>Northwestern</li><li>Rice</li><li>SMU</li><li>Temple</li><li>Tulane</li><li>Vanderbilt</li></ul></div><div>C-USA-East</div><div><ul><li>Alabama-Birmingham</li><li>Central Florida</li><li>Florida Atlantic</li><li>Marshall</li><li>Middle Tennessee State</li><li>Troy</li><li>Western Kentucky</li></ul><div>C-USA-West</div></div><div><ul><li>Arkansas State</li><li>Louisiana-Lafayette</li><li>Louisiana-Monroe</li><li>La Tech</li><li>Kansas State</li><li>North Texas</li><li>UT-El Paso</li></ul></div><div>Heartland Conference (Formerly the Big 1Ten1)-Great Lakes*</div><div><ul><li>Illinois</li><li>Indiana</li><li>Michigan</li><li>Michigan State</li><li>Minnesota</li><li>Purdue</li><li>Wisconsin</li></ul></div><div>Heartland Conference-Great Plains*</div><div><ul><li>Cincinnati</li><li>Iowa</li><li>Kansas</li><li>Mizzou</li><li>Nebraska</li><li>Notre Dame</li><li>Ohio State</li></ul></div><div>MAC-East</div><div><ul><li>Akron</li><li>Bowling Green</li><li>Buffalo</li><li>Kent State</li><li>Miami (OH)</li><li>Ohio</li><li>Toledo</li></ul></div><div>MAC-West</div><div><ul><li>Ball State</li><li>Central Michigan</li><li>Eastern Michigan</li><li>Iowa State</li><li>Northern Illinois</li><li>Western Michigan</li></ul></div><div>M-WAC (Formerly MWC and WAC)</div><div><ul><li>Colorado State</li><li>Hawaii</li><li>Idaho</li><li>Nevada</li><li>New Mexico</li><li>New Mexico State</li><li>San Jose State</li><li>UNLV</li><li>Utah</li><li>Utah State</li><li>Wyoming</li></ul></div><div>MWC (Dissolved)</div><div><br /></div><div>Pac-12 (Formerly Pac-10)-Emerald*</div><div><ul><li>Boise State</li><li>BYU</li><li>Oregon</li><li>Oregon State</li><li>Washington</li><li>Wazzu</li></ul>Pac-12-Golden*</div><div><ul><li>Cal</li><li>Fresno State</li><li>San Diego State</li><li>Stanford</li><li>UCLA</li><li>USC</li></ul></div><div>SEC-East*</div><div><ul><li>Florida</li><li>Florida State</li><li>Clemson</li><li>Georgia</li><li>Kentucky</li><li>Va Tech</li></ul></div><div>SEC-West*</div><div><ul><li>Alabama</li><li>Auburn</li><li>LSU</li><li>Mississippi</li><li>Southern Miss</li><li>Tennessee</li></ul></div><div>Sun-Belt (Dissolved)</div><div><br /></div><div>WAC (Dissolved)</div>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-7753150369733494132010-06-03T08:54:00.000-07:002010-06-03T23:50:39.163-07:00Top Ten Side-One, Track-Ones<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.playtime-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/high-fidelity.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 347px; height: 234px;" src="http://www.playtime-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/high-fidelity.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""></b></p><span><span><div><span><span>Recently, NPR's <i>All Songs Considered</i> had <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2010/05/25/127108164/and-the-best-opening-track-on-an-album-is">a post</a> about the best side-one, track ones ever. So, of course, I had to make my own list:</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><b>Top Ten</b> (in order):</span></span><div><span><span>1) “Break on Through (To the Other Side),” <i>The Doors</i> by The Doors </span></span></div><div><span><span>2) “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” <i>Nevermind</i> by Nirvana </span></span></div><div><span><span>3) “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” <i>Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band</i> by The Beatles </span></span></div><div><span><span>4) “Born in the U.S.A.,” <i>Born in the U.S.A.</i> by Bruce Springsteen </span></span></div><div><span><span>5) “London Calling,” <i>London Calling</i> by The Clash </span></span></div><div><span><span>6) “Guitar Town,” <i>Guitar Town</i> by Steve Earle </span></span></div><div><span><span>7) “The Girl from Ipanema,” <i>Getz/Gilberto</i> by Stan Getz and João Gilberto </span></span></div><div><span><span>8) “A Love Supreme, Pt 1: Acknowledgment,” <i>A Love Supreme</i> by John Coltrane </span></span></div><div><span><span>9) “Second Hand News,” <i>Rumours</i> by Fleetwood Mac </span></span></div><div><span><span>10) “Nebraska,” <i>Nebraska</i> by Bruce Springsteen </span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Now, to make it even more interesting, here is my <b>Top Ten Eponymous</b> side-one, track-one (also in order):</span></span></div><div>1) “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” <i>Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band</i> by The Beatles </div><div>2) “Born in the U.S.A.,” <i>Born in the U.S.A.</i> by Bruce Springsteen </div><div>3) “London Calling,” <i>London Calling</i> by The Clash </div><div>4) “Guitar Town,” <i>Guitar Town</i> by Steve Earle </div><div>5) “Nebraska,” <i>Nebraska</i> by Bruce Springsteen </div><div>6) “What’s Goin’ On,” <i>What’s Goin On</i> by Marvin Gaye </div><div>7) “My Favorite Things,” <i>My Favorite Things</i> by John Coltrane </div><div>8) “White Light/White Heat,” <i>White Light/White Heat</i> by The Velvet Underground </div><div>9) “My Funny Valentine,” <i>My Funny Valentine</i> by Chet Baker </div><div>10) “Running on Empty,” <i>Running on Empty</i> by Jackson Browne </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Honorable Mention (in alphabetical order):</div><div><br /></div><div>“About a Girl,” <i>MTV Unplugged in New York</i> by Nirvana </div><div>“Alice’s Restaurant Massacre,” <i>Alice’s Restaurant</i> by Arlo Guthrie </div><div>“Better Get Hit in Yo’ Soul,” <i>Mingus Ah Um</i> by Charles Mingus </div><div>“Blinded by the Light,” <i>Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J.</i> by Bruce Springsteen </div><div>“Blister in the Sun,” <i>Violent Femmes</i> by Violent Femmes </div><div>“Blue Rondo a la Turk,” <i>Time Out</i> by The Dave Brubeck Quartet </div><div>“Boyz-n-the-Hood,” <i>N.W.A. and the Posse</i> by N.W.A. </div><div>“Breaking the Law,” <i>British Steel</i> by Judas Priest </div><div>“Caring is Creepy,” <i>Oh, Inverted World!</i> By The Shins </div><div>“Come Together,” <i>Abbey Road</i> by The Beatles </div><div>“Debaser,” <i>Doolittle</i> by Pixies </div><div>“Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough,” <i>Off the Wall</i> by Michael Jackson </div><div>“Enter Sandman,” <i>Metallica</i> by Metallica </div><div>“Fire of Unknown Origin,” <i>Fire of Unknown Origin</i> by Blue Öyster Cult </div><div>“Folsom Prison Blues,” <i>At Folsom Prison</i> by Johnny Cash </div><div>“Gimme Shelter,” <i>Let it Bleed</i> by The Rolling Stones </div><div>“Gloria,” <i>Horses</i> by Patti Smith </div><div>“Good Times, Bad Times,” <i>Led Zeppelin</i> by Led Zeppelin </div><div>“Hard Day’s Night,” <i>Hard Day’s Night </i>by The Beatles </div><div>“Head Like a Hole,” <i>Pretty Hate Machine</i> by Nine Inch Nails </div><div>“Highway to Hell,” <i>Highway to Hell</i> by AC/DC </div><div>“Hotel California,” <i>Hotel California</i> by The Eagles </div><div>“King of Carrot Flowers, Pt. 1,” <i>In the Aeroplane Over the Sea</i> by Neutral Milk Hotel </div><div>“Let’s Go Crazy,” <i>Purple Rain </i>by Prince and the Revolution </div><div>“Like a Rolling Stone,” <i>Highway 61 Revisted</i> by Bob Dylan </div><div>“Lion’s Mane,” <i>Creek Drank the Cradle</i> by Iron & Wine </div><div>“Loser,” <i>Mellow Gold</i> by Beck </div><div>“Magical Mystery Tour,” <i>Magical Mystery Tour</i> by The Beatles </div><div>“Mrs. Robinson,” <i>Concert in Central Park</i> by Simon & Garfunkel </div><div>“Peter Piper,” <i>Raising Hell</i>, by Run D.M.C. </div><div>“Phases and Stages (Theme)/Washing the Dishes,” <i>Phases and Stages</i> by Willie Nelson </div><div>“Pink Moon,” <i>Pink Moon</i> by Nick Drake </div><div>“Radio Free Europe,” <i>Murmur</i> by R.E.M. </div><div>“Rehab,” <i>Back to Black</i> by Amy Winehouse </div><div>“Roscoe,” <i>The Trials of Van Occupanter</i> by Midlake </div><div>“Say It (Over and Over Again),” <i>Ballads</i> by John Coltrane </div><div>"See No Evil," <i>Television</i> by Television</div><div>"Shotgun Willie," <i>Shotgun Willie</i> by Willie Nelson</div><div>“Speak to Me/Breathe,” <i>Dark Side of the Moon</i> by Pink Floyd </div><div>“So Far Away,” <i>Brothers in Arms</i> by Dire Straits </div><div>“So What,” <i>Kind of Blue</i> by Miles Davis </div><div>“Soul Man,” <i>Soul Men</i> by Sam & Dave </div><div>“Vicarious,” <i>10,000 Days</i> by Tool </div><div>“Walt Whitman’s Niece,” <i>Mermaid Avenue</i> by Billy Bragg and Wilco </div><div>“Watermelon Man,” <i>Takin’ Off </i>by Herbie Hancock </div><div>“Welcome to the Jungle,” <i>Appetite for Destruction</i> by Guns N’ Roses </div><div>“Where the Streets Have no Name,” <i>Joshua Tree</i> by U2</div><div>“White Room,” <i>Wheels of Fire</i> by Cream </div><div>“Wouldn’t it be Nice,” <i>Pet Sounds </i>by The Beach Boys</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p></div>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-70821251407279225432010-03-17T12:47:00.000-07:002010-03-17T13:56:52.295-07:00“Disease is the Love of Two Alien Kinds of Creatures”: Desire as Pathogen in David Cronenberg’s Shivers **Explicit/Adult Content**What follows is a little talk I did for the <a href="http://horrorandhorrific.blogspot.com/">UO "Horror and the Horrific" film series</a> about a month ago. Yes, that is how long it's taken me just to copy and paste something onto this blog. So sad.<br /><br /><object height="285" width="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XC-wkbUL814&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XC-wkbUL814&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="285" width="340"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">“Disease is the Love of Two Alien Kinds of Creatures”: Desire as Pathogen in David Cronenberg’s </span><i style="font-weight: bold;">Shivers</i><div><span><span><b> </b></span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073705/">Shivers</a></i> is one of David Cronenberg’s oddest films: it is his first commercial, feature-length film; it is little-known;</span></span><span><span> i</span></span><span><span>t is rich with allusions (William Bl</span></span><span><span>ake, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Hobbes, St Luke the physician); and, like most of his films, <i>Shivers</i> makes extensive use of binaries. What I’d like to do is examine just one set of binaries on which much </span></span><span><span>of the film’s horror is based, but one that is less obvious than a first viewing would suggest. My thesis is obvious, however: desire—instead of the parasites or infected sex maniacs—is used to ho</span></span><span><span>rrify the audience. </span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Since what we’re about to watch is something you’ve likely never seen or even heard of, I want to quickly outline the film. <b>WARNING: Here be spoilers.</b></span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span> The first scene is a montage of binaries, visualizing the confusi</span></span><span><span>on that results from their coexistence. In Starliner Towers, an ultra-mod high-rise condominium, we see a slick property manager “hunt” prospective renters; interspersed with this is t</span></span><span><span>he actual “hunt” and mutilation of a young woman by a much older man. The scene ends with the man slitting his own throat with a scalpel. From here the film proceeds along two complementary lines—a detective story in which the main characters try to figure out just what is going on, and a horror story in which the main characters try to resist infection. As the detective yarn unfolds, we learn the older man was a scientist who created a parasite that is half aphrodisiac, half venereal disease—with which he hoped to turn the world into a giant orgy. As the horror plot unfolds and the infection spreads exponentially, Dr. Roger St Luc, the condo’s medical officer, and Nurse</span></span><span><span> Forsythe (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0523344/">Lynn Lowry</a> in her post-<i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069895/">The Crazies</a></i> and pre-<i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083722/">Cat People</a> </i>role) try in vain to resist. Eventually, she’s infected and finally infects</span></span><span><span> St Luc.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>I notice that w</span></span><span><span>hen I give the bare outline of the plot, the film sounds like an on-the-cheap forerunner of <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120804/">Resident Evil</a></i> or a reimagining of </span></span><span><span>Romero’s <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063350/">Night of the Living Dead</a></i>. For most first-ti</span></span><span><span>me viewers, the aspects that make <i>Shivers</i> a horror movie are the parasites and the infected. When we get a good look at them, the parasites look like phallic turds—pretty disgusting if the special effects weren’t so laughable. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=g-NdglUBHSUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false">But they invade the boundaries of the body</a> and</span></span><span><span> colonize people—pretty scary. The infected, unlike Romero’s zombies, look mostly normal, but they are aggressive, and the film depicts them all as sexually transgressi</span></span><span><span>ve.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>But I wonder…there is a fear of pathogen in the film, but the fear isn’t elicited by the squishy, brown parasites or the infected, bare-chested janitor who ad</span></span><span><span>vances</span></span><span><span> on our hero in the basement boiler room. Instead, uncontrolled desire is the pathogen that elicits h</span></span><span><span>orror in the audience because the film suggests that there’s nothing inhuman about th</span></span><span><span>e actions it depicts. We are all already infected.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>But what about those parasites? How are they not horrific? What about the infected? The former is disgusting and the other threatening, but that hardly counts for horrific. In fact, the parasites cause permanent damage to only one character and aren’t directly responsible for a single death. The infected are sexual predators, but they’re only responsible for one death in the film; the supposedly healthy characters kill five people. So I’d like to suggest that the parasites and infected are scary but not horrifying.<br /><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>That likely needs some explanation because you’re probably wondering how “scary” and “horrifying” are different. What I mean by “scary” is the scene or action that may frighten us, but that we can leave behind. To use an example fro</span></span><span><span>m the era of <i>Shivers</i>: in Tobe Hooper’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072271/"><i>Texas Chainsaw Massacre</i></a> (1974), it’s damn scary wh</span></span><span><span>en Leatherface co</span></span><span><span>mes out of nowhere and smacks Kirk with the hammer, dragging him into the house and slamming the steel door. But the dinner scene is horrifying because Sally is trapped and we finally understand that the family is operating by a set of rules known only to them.</span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.dvdinmypants.com/reviews/O-V/images/texas2.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 285px; height: 193px;" src="http://www.dvdinmypants.com/reviews/O-V/images/texas2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span><span> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/">Norman Bates</a> in that wig also fits the bill. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070047/">Regan MacNeil</a> vomiting pea soup does not. The horrific, for my purposes, is that set of disturbing aspects of a film or text that you ca</span></span><span><span>n’t quite shake, so it seems to me that unbound desire is the really horrific aspect of <i>Shivers</i>. It’s the sexual viol</span></span><span><span>ence and transgression that really make the film disturbing. </span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>(I should stop for a moment here and note there are quite a few sexualities depicted here that we don’t necessarily consider transgressive. But this is 1975—six years after <a href="http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/06/449-stonewall.html">Stonewall</a> and only four years after the <a href="http://www.nwpc.org/ht/d/CaucusDetails/i/178/aboutus/Y/pid/954">National Women’s Political Caucus</a> was formed: the list of mainstream sexualities was still pretty narrow, so when I lab</span></span><span><span>el something “sexually transgressive” know that I am talking within the context of the film only.) </span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>In the context of the film, we see almost no sexual desire in a positive light. We’ll see only violent heterosexuality. </span></span><span><span>We’ll also see unwilling participation in group sex, ove</span></span><span><span>rt lesbianism (on which Cronenberg see</span></span> <span><span>ms to linger),</span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.filmsite.org/escenes/shivers5.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 277px; height: 175px;" src="http://www.filmsite.org/escenes/shivers5.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span><span> subtle male homoeroticism (which provokes some of the most vigorous responses from St Luc), pedophilia, S&M, and incest. A</span></span><span><span>nd I don’t even know how to categorize Barbara Steele’s character being raped by a parasite in the bathtub (parasite sodomy?). </span></span><span><span><br /><br />What’s horrific is that humans are capable of—and </span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.filmsite.org/escenes/shivers5.jpg"></a><span><span>often</span></span><span><span> p</span></span><span><span>rone</span></span><span><span> to—everything we see in the film</span></span><span><span>.</span></span><span><span> If anything, the parasites unchain</span></span><span><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span>desire in the char</span></span><span><span>acters. And this is exactly what Hobbes wanted to do. Linsky tells us: “Hobbes believed ‘Man is an</span></span><span><span> animal who thinks </span></span><div> </div><span><span>too much, an over-rational animal that’s lost touch with its body and its instincts,” and we learn that the parasite was designed to “turn the world into one beautiful, mindless orgy.” It works all too well, and seeing his experiment work, Dr. Hobbes (just like Victor Frankenstein), recoils in horror, killing his young lover (the twelve-year-old-girl all grown up) and himself to try to stop the spread of the pathogen. So the film presents the old binary of cool reason and flaming desire, and shows us what happens when the balance skews too far toward the animalistic side: it’s probably no accident that Erica Jong’s <a href="http://www.ericajong.com/flying.htm"><i>Fear of Flying</i></a>—and its po</span></span><span><span>pular</span></span><span><span>ization of the “zipless fuck”—was published two years before <i>Shivers</i> was released. The film is almost certainly responding to this notion and the ongoing sexual revolution—meditating on a limit case.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Cronenberg himself seems to confirm this. As steeped as he is in Freud (see <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078908/"><i>The Brood</i></a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094964/"><i>Dead Ringers</i></a>, especially), it should be no surprise that he thinks “civilization is repression. You don’t get civilization without repression of the unconscious, the id.” Starliner Towers and St Luc, then, are civilization with all the repressive social controls. The parasite removes those controls and leaves the infected free to pursue individual desires without regard for the welfare of the civilization as a whole—as “nasty” and “brutish” as anything Dr. Hobbes’ namesake ever imagined.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Nurse Forsythe perhaps says it best in her monologue toward the end of the film. She tells St Luc about a dream she’d had the night before: </span></span></div><blockquote><div><span><span>“in this dream I find myself making love to a strange man. Only I'm having trouble, you see, because he’s old and dying, and he sm</span></span><span><span>ells bad and I find him repulsive. But then he tells me that everything is erotic, that everything is sexual…</span></span><span><span>He tells me that even old flesh is erotic flesh, that disease is the love of two alien kinds of creatures for each other…That talking is sexual, that breathing is sexual, that even to physically exist is sexual…And I believe him, and we make love beautifully.” </span></span></div></blockquote><div><span><span>(Fun fact: in the original script, Cronenberg has Forsythe making love to Freud himself.)<br /><br />Now, she’s infected when she shares this with St Luc, but I want to point out that she had the dream the night before when she was still healthy—and this again points to the latent desire in every human, desire that is enabled by the parasite but not caused by it. St Luc, one of the most asexual characters in a Cronenberg film, responds as civilization. He represses the expression of transgressive desire by promptly punching Forsythe in the mouth and gagging her. But he does not kill her (for civilization cannot kill desire); instead he totes her around for a bit longer. The two are eventually separated, and St Luc holds out until he’s trapped in the condo’s swimming pool by a horde of infected. </span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>A swimming pool.<br /><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Cronenberg could not have picked a more evocative metaphor because in Freudian dream psychology, water is one of the main metaphors for the unconscious. What we end up with, then, is St Luc—who coolly discussed the finer points of parasites and smoked a cigarette as Forsythe seductively writhed out of her nurse’s uniform, </span></span><div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.weblogimages.com/v.p?uid=NoahB&pid=585722&sid=UWY04lstw0"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 282px; height: 211px;" src="http://www.weblogimages.com/v.p?uid=NoahB&pid=585722&sid=UWY04lstw0" alt="" border="0" /></a></div><span><span>who flees from three over-sexed women in a pool as if they were Romero’s zombies—St Luc, the patron saint of medicine and physicians, is literally and figuratively submerged in the pool of his unconscious. Hands in the air, he is baptized into desire. All his inhibitions are washed away.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>With his fall, we are ushered into the world of unchecked desire: old men desiring young women, old women desiring young men, men desiring little girls, fathers desiring daughters, men desiring men, women desiring women, and—for some reason—twin girls wearing leashes and dog collars.</span></span><span><span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.filmsite.org/escenes/shivers2.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 280px; height: 214px;" src="http://www.filmsite.org/escenes/shivers2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a></span></span><span><span> The parasite returns humanity to a more animalistic state. The real horror of <i>Shivers</i>, then, stems from human nature: the performance of desires we’ve all had but repressed is that part of Shivers that is horrific—because it nudges, if only for a moment, our own horrific unconscious into stark outline. As <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=RC6JJmB_JEcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Tom Stoppard’s Guildenstern</a> so eloquently puts it, “it’s like being ambushed by a grotesque,” but a grotesque that we carry within us always.</span></span><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style=""><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12.0pt;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p></div>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-77617937326756987642009-06-02T17:43:00.000-07:002011-01-03T19:41:36.139-08:00Centers of Wisdom vs. Centers of Knowledge<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Rocky_Mountain_Rocket.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="184" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Rocky_Mountain_Rocket.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Old people have always been considered centers of wisdom; whether or not we respect them for it, most people recognize that old folks have a helluva lot of life experience on the rest of us.<br />
<br />
But I was listening to Guy Clark's "Texas, 1947" just now and I realized that in the last 100 years or so it's much more common to view younger people as centers of knowledge. The song was written about the first time he ever saw a Streamline train out in west Texas:<br />
<blockquote>Trains are big and black and smokin', louder'n July four,<br />
but everybody's actin' like this might be somethin' more<br />
<br />
than just pickin' up the mail, or the soldiers from the war.<br />
This is somethin' that even old man Wileman never seen before. </blockquote>Not anymore, kids. Anyone under 20 has seen hundreds of things that their grandparents haven't seen--or even dreamed of.<br />
<br />
I wonder what that does to our sense of wonderment about the world around us...prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-60274144951703782672009-05-31T14:59:00.000-07:002009-05-31T18:23:17.413-07:00The Sweet, Sweet Case Against Torture<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/Images/Products/prdLarge_112044.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 255px; height: 272px;" src="http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/Images/Products/prdLarge_112044.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Over at The Raw Story, there's <a href="http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/cookies-al-qaeda/">this little tidbit</a> about FBI interrogation:<br /><p></p><p></p><blockquote><p>Ali Soufan, a former FBI interrogator, revealed in an article being released in June that Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard opened up about the 9/11 terror attacks only after being offered -- sugar free cookies.</p> <p>Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Jandal is a diabetic, Soufan said, and wouldn't eat sugar cookies he'd been offered.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>I'm scared. If the FBI ever interrogates me, it won't take much to break me--but they'll have to spring for the Pepperidge Farm Milanos to get anything out of me. They put some crappy Hydrox cookies in front of me and they'd better break out the thumbscrews. I don't talk for just any crappy cookie.</p><p>But, of course, the most striking thing about this anecdote is that the soft sell works, too. I'm not arguing that 100% of the time torture gives false or useless information; I don't think that's true. Maybe these acts of torture <span style="font-style: italic;">did</span> save thousands of American lives, but I have two problems with this argument.<br /></p><p>1) What does it profit a nation to gain its safety and yet lose its soul? That's a revision of Matthew 8.36, and it fits us to a tee. Once you start giving up the things that make us (or that <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=P8V7J5qm5-YC">we pretend make us</a>) who we are, there's nothing left. We are, so say the cultural conservatives, a nation with not a religion, not a race, not an individual, not a shared history, but a group of ideas at our center (that's Allan Bloom, Geoffrey Hart, and the <span style="font-style: italic;">National Review </span>talking, not me). If we want immigrants to <span style="font-style: italic;">integrate</span> into our nation, if we want strict Constitutionalists on the bench (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity), then we better damn well be willing to stick to those core values when the going gets tough. Oddly enough, those two blowhards are the very ones still trying to defend activities that were--and again are--deemed torture. So they're essentially saying that our core values are only important when they're <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> being tested. Nice.<br /></p><p>2) Furthermore, it does not follow that because torture (did produce/probably produced/maybe produced) actionable intelligence other techniques that <span style="font-style: italic;">aren't</span> against the Geneva Convention might have produced the same information. It's a freshman composition-level fallacy to think that the success of torture means that it was the only solution. That's a lot of faith to place in something that has such a possible downside. Non-abusive interrogation might have helped produce a Muslim world more receptive to American overtures and ideas than the large-scale entrenchment and increased radicalization that we seem to have spawned with our treatment of prisoners.<br /></p><p>I'm not disparaging the men and women who found themselves in the position of interrogators. It is <span style="font-style: italic;">easier</span> to inflict pain and abuse on someone you loathe. I certainly would not want to be in the position of these interrogators (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05292009/profile.html">many of whom were not trained as interrogators and were just thrust into the position</a>) since they were working with prisoners that they had every right to believe were responsible for the death of thousands of Americans.<br /></p><p>It's not surprising that vengeance rather than intelligence became the goal (how else could you hang people in a room by their wrists, place a spolight or strobe shining in their faces, and blast the Red Hot Chili Peppers at them?). Rather than working them over and making them help you, the more inviting way is to punish. It's understandable--maybe not excusable, but understandable. What is not understandable or excusable is that top-level governmental officials not only let this happen, but went out of their way to <span style="font-style: italic;">make</span> it happen. The FBI apparently repeatedly asked for top-level permission to do some of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" before it would even allow them to take place. John Yoo and many others in the DoJ went out of their way to create a legal footing for these actions.</p><p>I think we--as with our economy, infrastructure, intelligence, election reform, ethics reform, etc.--took the easy way out. And just like all those other instances, it's going to cost us in the long run.<br /></p>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-47971472712518336882009-05-17T16:19:00.000-07:002009-05-17T18:23:18.698-07:00To Rage Against the Machine or to Fight for Some Time at the Wheel?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipdPQtPRuqT6TW29bdKB6FDsiaSE9e71jVuJdJT-1Syw7dlVsPCqx1EIy-kP4EYDM6jlUHVa-lVq_ZEklztls5Ete5aIP6rHmrRwmkMkASomqOGN94Y8EBXwvkTRchcpfsx0No_wa_2A0/s1600-h/478px-Publius_Ovidius_Naso_in_the_Nuremberg_chronicle_XCIIIv.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 152px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipdPQtPRuqT6TW29bdKB6FDsiaSE9e71jVuJdJT-1Syw7dlVsPCqx1EIy-kP4EYDM6jlUHVa-lVq_ZEklztls5Ete5aIP6rHmrRwmkMkASomqOGN94Y8EBXwvkTRchcpfsx0No_wa_2A0/s200/478px-Publius_Ovidius_Naso_in_the_Nuremberg_chronicle_XCIIIv.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5336963709905005954" border="0" /></a>Jane Miriam Epperson Brinley has written <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303254.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns">an interesting piece</a> for the <span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Post</span> on the College Board's decision to reduce the Latin AP exam to just Virgil. No more Catullus. No more Cicero. No more Horace. No more Ovid. As far as the College Board is concerned, Virgil <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> Latin literature.<br /><br />She's frustrated, and rightly so. Her career and passion just got kicked in the teeth, was just labeled "unnecessary." As a medievalist, I feel her pain. But her response, her analysis of why this happened is way off. She comments:<br /><blockquote>In the gap created by our national reluctance to centralize education policy, the College Board, an unelected body, has ended up as the de facto Education Ministry, and when it makes decisions we have no recourse....The College Board's curriculum-setting role goes beyond the AP course itself. Latin courses for elementary schools (a growth area), middle schools and high schools will now change, and textbooks will change along with them....So long as AP exams continue to influence high school curricula and so long as financial, and not educational, imperatives seem to drive College Board decisions, we should be asking who we really want in charge of all our disciplines. </blockquote>She's lamenting the lack of a centralized "Education Ministry"; leaving my objections to the Euro-centric nomenclature of "Ministry" aside, I'd respond that such an entity is problematic in its own right and isn't the magic bullet she seems to think it is. <a href="http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa.html">No Child Left Behind</a> mandates a state-wide standard that all students should meet. This creates at least two unfavorable outcomes: 1) a child in Portland, Oregon will be held to a different standard than a child 10 miles away in Vancouver, Washington. 2) Children in Orange County, Compton, and Berkeley, California all must meet the same standard--even though their resources, skill levels, environments, and perhaps even <span style="font-style: italic;">goals</span> for education will be quite different.<br /><br />NCLB is a top-down approach that demands teachers "teach to the test" because that is how the so-called progress of each school will be judged. It essentially creates a centralized "Education Ministry" in the form of state bureaucracies that pretend they know what children need to learn. I cannot understand how someone living in Indianapolis, Indiana knows <span style="font-style: italic;">what</span> a child in Tell City needs to learn--but even worse is the presumption of knowing <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> she needs to learn it.<br /><br />Alongside the NCLB at the elementary and secondary level we also have magazines like <span style="font-style: italic;">US News & World Report</span> shaping our universities. In 2001, Baylor University adopted what became known as the <a href="http://www.baylor.edu/vision/index.php?id=9693">2012 Vision</a> which has as its goal "moving Baylor into the upper echelons of higher education." These 12 imperatives follow closely <a href="http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2008/08/21/undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights.html">the criteria</a> by which <span style="font-style: italic;">US News & World Report</span> judges the so-called "Best Colleges." In fact, they look like Baylor just imported the criteria wholesale and added "with a Christian identity" to a few of them. So really, Baylor is spending a decade to get a national magazine to like it.<br /><br />And Baylor hasn't even tried to hide this:<br /><ul><li>Larry Lyon, the head of the Graduate School was using the magazine as his benchmark when he <a href="http://www.baylor.edu/Vision/index.php?id=9864">said</a> "The universities that are listed as top tier undergraduate universities by <span style="font-style: italic;">US News & World Report</span> have, on average, 40 percent of their students enrolled in graduate education. We average about 12 percent."</li><li>In its pitch for the Bush Presidential Library the PR folks apparently thought the magazine's judgment of the university was a selling point, <a href="http://www.baylor.edu/BushProposal/index.php?id=40475">writing:</a> "Over the years Baylor's academic programs have received national and international recognition through solid rankings in U.S.News and World Report and other respected publications." Baylor didn't get the Bush Presidential Library--even though it probably should have.<br /></li><li>And then there is the May 2007 article in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Chronicle of Higher Education</span> that <a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i38/38a01101.htm">flatly states</a>: "Baylor is clear about how it will calibrate its success...its overarching goal is to enter the top tier of institutions, as determined by <i>U.S. News & World Report'</i>s college rankings."<br /></li></ul>So a magazine is <span style="font-style: italic;">the entity</span> controlling the long-term direction of a major university (and I'm sure Baylor isn't the only one--which just makes it worse). What is wrong with that picture? I mean, I'd take the College Board over the <span style="font-style: italic;">US News & World Report</span> any day of the week and twice on Sunday. What's more, neither NCLB nor <span style="font-style: italic;">US News & World Report</span> have anything close to the sort of system of appeals that Brinley wants. And I doubt that any larger "Education Ministry" would, either.<br /><br />Even if it did, it doesn't sound like Brinley could make a compelling case for <span style="font-style: italic;">keeping</span> a more thorough Latin program. Here is her big rationale for the importance of Latin:<br /><blockquote>Latin, revered by Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders -- John Adams declaimed the speeches of Cicero, once even in a toga -- has been placed in the hands of a bunch of administrative functionaries. </blockquote>I hate to be catty toward someone who's trying to work through some of the things that medievalists are facing at the university level, but this argument is not going to cut it. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams loved Latin? OK...great. What have you done for me lately? <br /><br />That rationale doesn't even make <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span> want to save Latin, and I <span style="font-style: italic;">love</span> Latin (without strong Latin programs, medieval programs get weaker, too). I say scrap the complaints about the system itself and the financial motivations of the puppet-masters of education (the College Board may be financially driven but it's actually just following the lead of almost every university in the nation). Start telling everyone why you matter, why Latin programs shouldn't be anything past "Latin for Pre-Med" or "Latin for Pre-Law"--what one <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/english/faculty/profiles/kaulbach-ernest-n.html">Latin professor</a> I had at the University of Texas called "Words for Turds."<br /><br />If you start thinking about that, you'll find that defending reading Ovid's <span style="font-style: italic;">Metamorphoses </span>or Catullus' poems to Lesbia puts you in the same boat as the medievalist who's defending his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?_r=2">work on footnotes in Duns Scotus</a> or the cultural anthropologist who's defending her work on <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2NjMWYzNDI0ODhhZDAzNWNhMjMxMmVhOGZhYjcwOGM=">Nicaraguan Lesbian Poetry</a>. It seems that if we could just all row in the same direction, we'd have something going.<br /><br />But we can't seem to. Hell, we can't even seem to agree if we're in the same boat. I guess the real disagreement I have with Brinley is that which animates lots of discussions about what to do. From Marxism (Social Democrats and Communists) to medievalists (Bonnie Wheeler and Eileen Joy at <a href="http://www.gwmemsi.com/2009/04/gw-memsi-kalamazoo.html">Kalamazoo</a>), it seems to run along the same lines: reformists changing things from within, revolutionaries making radical breaks from without. I don't mean to pick on Brinley, and I don't have a problem with radical breaks (sometimes they're the only option). But issuing a weak-voiced call for resistance to a well-funded, fully-entrenched institution like the College Board in an Op-Ed in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Post</span> doesn't seem like the kind of call to revolution we need. It just seems to me emblematic of a lot of the response from the academic community. We keep appealing to the better angels of the lawmakers' and citizenry's natures, but we're talking to people who largely don't get that <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html">allusion</a>. Or what an allusion even is.<br /><br />Maybe we need to stop complaining and waiting for someone to step in. Maybe we need to stop looking up at our so-called betters and begging Oliver Twist-like for some more. Maybe we should either damn the torpedoes and continue, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Yxc1jCH-W40C&pgis=1">Roark-style</a>, with our chosen work--perhaps tell everyone else what they need instead of asking if they'd like to hear us now. Or even better we could collectively <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ZncRAAAACAAJ">shrug</a> and unseat the world. Personally, if we're going to do something, I'd prefer the latter. If we did it and the world went on without us, at least we would know where we stand and stop kidding ourselves about our importance. If we did it and it all started sliding downhill, at least for awhile we'd get the respect we deserved.<br /><br />Thoughts?prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-40818259762697727492009-05-16T21:19:00.000-07:002009-05-16T21:43:57.627-07:00BABEL CFP: Monstrous Binaries: Monster Theories in/at Play<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CMarcus%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="Preview" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CMarcus%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_preview.wmf"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:version>12.00</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> </xml><![endif]--><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CMarcus%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CMarcus%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:200%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; line-height: normal;" align="center"><b style="">Monstrous Binaries: Monster Theories in/at Play<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; line-height: normal; font-style: italic;" align="center">“It is conventional to call ‘monster’ any blending of dissonant elements. I call ‘monster’ every original inexhaustible beauty.”—Alfred Jarry, “Les Monstres”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">Whether or not it is beautiful, the monster is certainly inexhaustible. <span style=""> </span>The BABEL Working Group invites submissions that explore the inexhaustibility of literary monsters as they both demand and defy binary characterizations.<span style=""> </span>How might binary models explain, occlude, or displace other monstrous possibilities?<span style=""> </span>The invitation is purposefully open and might include approaches that range from postcolonial theory to Russian Formalism, from queer theory to ecocriticism (and all points in between/beyond).
<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<br /> <!--[endif]--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">The panel will be a part of the 2009 SEMA conference, and its goal is to bring together disparate readings of monsters, letting them commingle, coexist, and (perhaps) coalesce for a few minutes. Abstracts should be for papers fifteen minutes in length. They may offer focused examinations of primary texts or more abstract, theoretical discussions, but all submissions should make explicit their theoretical genealogy.
<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<br /> <!--[endif]--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">A *partial* list of approaches might include<span style="">: <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=g-NdglUBHSUC">Kristeva</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=S8jcJ5RXOMgC">Foucault</a>, <a href="http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/girard_bibliography.html">Girard</a>, </span><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Dxmkvh9H524C">Plumwood</a><span style="">, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=46MOAAAAQAAJ">Derrida</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=SkswFyhqRIMC">Bakhtin</a>, <a href="http://chaucer.library.emory.edu/carroll/lacan_pages/lacan_text.html">Lacan</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ErCMIAAACAAJ">Cohen</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=hI74gavU7J4C">Levi-Strauss</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=B9xLrS6mpGoC">Deleuze and Guattari</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=3Md3u9UPgOEC">Propp</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Big-Ideas-Small-Books/dp/0312427182/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205530609&sr=1-3">Zizek</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=B44BAAAACAAJ">Canguilhem</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=gyWuhD3Q3IcC">Butler</a>, and/or <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=zqafz8HKpC4C">Freud</a></span>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">Deadline for Submission: 11 June 2009</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">Send Abstracts (150-250 words) to:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">Timothy Asay (<a href="mailto:tasay@uoregon.edu">tasay@uoregon.edu</a>) or</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">Marcus Hensel (<a href="mailto:mhensel1@uoregon.edu">mhensel1@uoregon.edu</a>)</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">BABEL Working Group: <a href="http://www.siue.edu/babel/Babel-Home.htm">http://www.siue.edu/babel/Babel-Home.htm</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">SEMA 2009 Conference: <a href="http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/gShQhq/sema2009">http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/gShQhq/sema2009</a> </p> prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-30246516301197142132009-04-28T23:53:00.000-07:002009-04-29T00:20:48.572-07:00Undeniable Proof of my Naivete<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.fun-with-pictures.com/image-files/lamb.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 243px; height: 243px;" src="http://www.fun-with-pictures.com/image-files/lamb.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a>Arlen Specter is still Purple, and it's a good thing, too. <br /><br />The <a href="http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/04/28/specter-switching-parties-dems-will-gain-filibuster-proof-senate/">story all over DC</a> is about Arlen Specter switching parties from the Republicans to the Democrats. Big deal. He was never really a Republican, if you define Republican as someone who does know what he thinks about something until Karl Rove tells him (substitute Nancy Pelosi for Democrats). <br /><br />The article at <span style="font-style: italic;">Raw Story</span> notes: <blockquote>“Because of the shrinking Republican vote in the state, Specter was seen as a dead man walking politically in the primary with polling showing him trailing Toomey by ten or more points. The bar for Specter to run as an independent was also extremely high due to the rules governing such a third party candidacy. That left a Democratic candidacy as Specter’s best option if he wanted to remain in the Senate beyond 2010.”<br /></blockquote>And there's my problem with reductive, binary political parties. I don't mean to sound like a deconstructionist here, but we need to break the two-party system apart. Any systems that forces someone like Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic party largely because of his views on the Iraq War and forces Specter out of the Republican party largely because of his progressive views on social issues is broken. No dissent within the ranks is tolerated--and it's not because either party somehow wants to retain a purity of thought. It's because the two-party system creates binaries: Dems think the stimulus package is good, so GOPers think it's bad; GOPers think deregulation is good, so Dems think it's bad. If you have a significant member of your party (like Lieberman and Specter) who break ranks on major issues, the opposing party will use that against you ("Even some high-ranking members of Party X think Issue Y is a bad idea.")<br /><br />I've talked about them before, but groups like the Log Cabin Republicans are long-suffering for no real reason. It's a label that has marginalized them; on almost every other issue, they are conservative, but their sexuality has marginalized them in their own party. If Obama goes through with his promise to cut wasteful or underperforming governmental programs, some social programs are going to get the axe. That is a very un-Democrat thing to do, and it will piss some people off. Again, ideology is getting in the way of pragmatism. The perfect, to borrow from Obama, has become the enemy of the good.<br /><br />I'm not sure I wanted Specter to change parties. It's not fair to him, and it's not really fair to his constituents. Why couldn't there be room in each party for some overlap?prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-1100875669742803832009-04-23T17:49:00.000-07:002009-04-23T22:23:21.613-07:00...at least I think so right now.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://nga.gov.au/International/Catalogue/Images/LRG/49353.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 276px; height: 257px;" src="http://nga.gov.au/International/Catalogue/Images/LRG/49353.jpg" alt="" that="" is="" how="" all="" medieval="" or="" should="" i="" ve="" been="" reading="" frantzen="" s="" border="0" /></a>That is how all studies--medieval or otherwise--should end. I've been reading Allen Frantzen's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=G6-ZHQAACAAJ"><i>Desire for Origins</i></a>, and in advocating an always-tentative, always-becoming notion of the past, he states: "the layers of the past cannot readily be reduced to a single plot without loss" (107). (By "plot" he's referring to the causal, linear view of history that dominates Anglo-Saxon studies in particular and medieval studies in general.)<br /><br />It seems to me that loss is one thing that seems to be animating a lot of really interesting work on the Middle Ages right now. I can remember <a href="https://webspace.utexas.edu/woodsmc/www/">Jorie Woods</a>, the person most responsible for me being a medievalist, bringing in lesbian love letters and Hrotsvit of Gandersheim and <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=17FAai72pNMC"><i>Poetria Nova</i></a>--and really blowing my mind by making me realize there was more to medieval literature than Arthuriana and <i>Beowulf</i>. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Qh3QvBRxT6kC">Liz Scala</a> wrote a great book on absent narratives. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=P5mOHUJraPoC">Carolyn Dinshaw</a> wrote a book that almost compels one to think about aspects of the Middle Ages that we've been ignoring for centuries. Of course, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?q=+inauthor:%22Jeffrey+Jerome+Cohen%22&source=gbs_authrefine_t">Jeffrey Cohen</a> did more to direct real thinking about medieval monsters than Tolkien could have dreamed of. And he's been joined by Eileen Joy, Karl Steel, and Mary Kate Hurley who are pursuing different margins--until-now-lost themes, characters, motifs, and texts--over at the <a href="http://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/">ITM</a>. But it strikes me that this is <i>all</i> about anxiety of loss: a loss of the past, a lost of MSS, a loss of knowledge, a loss of identity that is based not just on what we've inherited but also the sort of thinking and methodology we've inherited. (EDIT: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124001426103530947.html#mod=rss_Arts_and_Entertainment"><span style="font-style: italic;">WSJ</span> just published</a> something about missing texts.)<br /><br />Sometimes the paths have been blazed so well and made so inviting by people like Tolkien and Benson that we don't even realized there might be another way. Maybe the road home is the most convenient and efficient way to get there, but sometimes you just have to be like <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=DO9ee5M4gYoC&pgis=1">Cheever's Neddy</a> and decide to swim home via your neighbors' swimming pools. At first it's ridiculous (aren't firsts almost always ridiculous, though?), and then people will resent it, but that's because it's outside the norm.<br /><br />If we could get away from a plotted, linear view of medieval studies, we might be able to (re)develop or (re)construct some of those other paths that have been abandoned. We all <i>know</i> from experience that early work we do in a field or on a topic is often embarrassingly wrong. So why do we pretend when we're writing it that it's anything more than a giant, researched, well-thought-out <i>conditional statement</i>? Doesn't refusing to acknowledge the contingency in all of our work really push out other ways of seeing Anglo-Saxon England? It's not necessarily slippery-slope relativism to admit what we say could change tomorrow, next month, next decade (let's take a tip from Barthes or, if you like, Thomas Merton, who said "My ideas are always changing, always moving around one center. And I am always seeing that center from somewhere else. Hence I will always be accused of inconsistency. But I will no longer be there to hear the accusation.") Why shouldn't everyone admit it? Why shouldn't every paper, every thesis, every dissertation end with "...at least I think so right now"?<br /><br />[NB: The picture at the top of this blog entry is Eva Hesse's "Contingent," a series of hanging panels made of cheesecloth-type fabric and plastic. The piece itself, if it is even possible to see it and has not degraded to a catastrophic extent, is always contingent--on time, on environment, on gravity. All of these things will change it from year to year (the cheesecloth will stretch and change the length of the pieces). Hesse<a href="http://cs.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=49353"> said</a>:<br /><i><br />Piece is in many parts.<br />Each in itself is a complete statement,<br />together am not certain how it will be....<br />textures coarse, rough, changing.<br />see through, non see through, consistent, inconsistent.<br />enclosed tightly by glass like encasement just hanging there.<br />then more, others, will they hang there in the same way?<br />try a continuous flowing one.<br />try some random closely spaced.<br />try some distant far spaced.<br />they are tight and formal but very ethereal, sensitive, fragile.<br />see through mostly<br />not painting, not sculpture, it's there though.<br />I remember I wanted to get to non art, non connotive,<br />non anthropomorphic, non geometric, non, nothing,<br />everything, but of another kind, vision, sort.<br />from a total other reference point, is it possible?</i>]<p></p> <p></p>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-69215321051047437672009-04-15T14:55:00.000-07:002009-04-15T15:58:13.339-07:00James Dobson Defends ELF and ALF (Sort of)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://miguelajavier.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dr-james-dobson.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 299px; height: 209px;" src="http://miguelajavier.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dr-james-dobson.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>On Sean Hannity's show yesterday, James Dobson, head of the conservative <a href="http://www.focusonthefamily.com/">Focus on the Family</a>, <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/conservatives-d.html">was speaking with Hannity</a> regarding the new Dept. of Homeland Security report on "right-wing extremists." Both took exception to the notion that returning veterans could become quite dangerous <span style="font-style: italic;">if</span> they join a right-wing, militant group--especially since <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf">the report</a> mentioned Tim McVeigh as an example of what <span style="font-style: italic;">could</span> happen.<br /><br />Dobson commented: "there are no Timothy McVeighs out there right now. They're making a big deal out of something that hasn't happened and may not happen." I hope so, but this brings up the worries that many have had about so-called eco-terrorism, which shows up in the DHS <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf">report</a> on left-wing extremist threats.<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm">testimony</a> to the House Resources Committee on 12 February 2002, James Jarboe (Domestic Terrorism Section Chief) said that "despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm 'any animal, human and nonhuman.' Animal rights groups in the United States, including the ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate."<br /><br />Yet, Rep. Greg Walden, a Republican from Oregon <a href="http://www.consumerfreedom.com/oped_detail.cfm/oped/140">said</a> <span style="font-style: italic;">on 12 September 2001</span> that ELF and ALF are capable of acts "no less heinous than what we saw occur yesterday here in Washington and in New York." And Republican Sen. James "<a href="http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008">I-have-a-lot-of-weathermen-and-economists-who-don't-believe-in-climate-change-and-I-call-them-scientists</a>" Inhofe said: "FBI counter-terror experts have warned time and again that ecoterror is the most dangerous domestic terror threat our nation faces, and I applaud our Federal agents’ ongoing efforts in cracking down on groups like ALF, ELF and SHAC in the name of protecting property and saving lives." Property first, lives second. (Except ALF and ELF never hurt or killed anyone.)<br /><br />Which brings me back around to Dobson. It seems to me that all this "<a href="http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2006/12/07/news1.html">Operation Backfire</a>" and hand-wringing over the danger to human lives from eco-terrorism is "making a big deal out of something that hasn't happened and may not happen."prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-51576560495507812392009-04-09T14:43:00.000-07:002009-04-09T15:01:30.794-07:00Thanks, Capitalism<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.geocities.com/kurg100/dr_doom.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 162px; height: 259px;" src="http://www.geocities.com/kurg100/dr_doom.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Over at <span style="font-style: italic;">Wired</span>, they've updated us on the catastrophe that wasn't. The <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/conficker-dooms.html">conficker worm</a>. I have to admit that I am disappointed. I was expecting so much, but the thing is "dedicated to spam," apparently.<br /><br />Dammit.<br /><br />Capitalism has completely destroyed the profession of maniacal supervillian. Where's the panache? The insanity? The ambition? The wardrobe? Alan Moore foresaw this disaster back in 1987--having Hollis Mason lament the change in his book-within-a-book. Why didn't anyone listen to him?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Health/Images/cobra-commander-destro-zartan.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 235px; height: 175px;" src="http://www.scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Health/Images/cobra-commander-destro-zartan.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a> He knew what he was talking about! Moloch is the sign of our times!!<br /><br />Spam?!? I mean, <span style="font-style: italic;">spam</span>?!? This is what you used your powers for evil to create? It's like The Green Goblin using his little flying scooter to deliver menus for Chinese restaurants. Just disgraceful. <br /><br />And it could be forgiven if you threatened to shut down servers with an avalanche of spam unless the UN declares you Eternal Emperor of Estonia or something. But no. You did it just to make bank.<br /><br />Now all I have left is the dream that conficker is a diversionary scheme to keep the tech community from noticing you collecting the raw materials for your needlessly large weather-changing-machine. We can only hope.prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-24473142489658800032009-04-07T19:19:00.000-07:002009-04-08T23:24:15.272-07:00Blindness is a Foucauldian Nightmare<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://blogs.kpbs.org/images/uploads/blindness.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 217px; height: 328px;" src="http://blogs.kpbs.org/images/uploads/blindness.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Unfortunately, I heard about this book via the movie. I haven't seen it, but that is how I became aware of its presence. I figured that I liked Borges and Marquez, so why not stereotype and see if I'd like Saramago, too. I know that Borges and Marquez are <span style="font-style: italic;">very </span>different writers--as far as content and style--but there is a strong magic realism element in both. Though Borges' work is more Anglo-Saxon in its prose, the fantastic stories are told with such a matter-of-fact tone and mixed so seamlessly into "reality" that it does remind me of magic realism (I'm thinking specifically of his short stories like "The Gospel According to St. Mark," "The Library of Babel," and "The Circular Ruins").<br /><br />At any rate, <span style="font-style: italic;">Blindness</span> sort of fits into the preconceived notion I created. It is certainly a good story and an even better idea. The plague that--one would think--would equalize the population actually stratifies it, fragments it, and animalizes it. In fact, the society (predictably) crumbles in fairly predictable ways.<br /><br />The story seems to overlap with Michel Foucault's ideas of power--those he outlines in <span style="font-style: italic;">Discipline and Punish</span>--especially in "Panopticism." The strength of Saramago's work over Foucault's is that it gives a human dimension to Foucault's ideas; it puts flesh (in both beautiful and disgusting ways) on Foucault's skeleton, so to speak. At the beginning, when the plague first breaks out and those suffering from it are quarrantined in an abandoned asylum (the symbolism there should be noted and could be another sly nod to Foucault's <span style="font-style: italic;">Birth of the Clinic</span>); at first, there is order, announcements, a plan, and regular(ish) deliveries of food. This is like the early versions of power structures that Foucault describes in the Middle Ages and Renaissance when The Plague would break out. The towns would be compartmentalized, policed, and put under the strong, heirarchal control of non-infected outsiders. The infected were forced to stay in their homes on pain of death--which is analagous to the blind being forced to stay in the asylum under pain of death.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Panopticon.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 196px; height: 201px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Panopticon.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>But as the plague spreads and the government obviously cannot contain it or control the growing anarchy, the social order breaks down and the idea of Panopticism begins to take hold. The thugs extort all the valuables from the other blind internees, but, of course, they couldn't search thoroughly--so it was really up to all the other fellow internees to make sure everyone gave everything they had (everyone's food depended on it). So, too, with the prostitution; the thugs don't seem to care <span style="font-style: italic;">how many</span> women the different wards send. They say that if there are 7 women and they only send 6, those 6 will just have to work harder, thus putting the pressure on the other woman to go along with the plan.<br /><br />All in all, it's an interesting meditation on what happens when the idea of "greater good of society" or even the idea of "society" is rendered obsolete.prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-59278689081463816102009-04-07T17:42:00.000-07:002009-04-07T18:38:03.934-07:00The Long View is Sometimes a Heartless One<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45642000/jpg/_45642192_church_ap466.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 398px; height: 255px;" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45642000/jpg/_45642192_church_ap466.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>The recent earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7986078.stm">des</a><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7986078.stm">troyed not only quite a few lives </a>but also <a href="http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2009/04/earthquake-hits-medieval-italian-city.html">an extensive amount of medieval architecture</a> that had survived a 18th-century quake. Certainly the loss of medieval material history is unfortunate, but certainly not as bad as the loss of life. The thing is, taking a <span style="font-style: italic;">really </span>"long view"of time and the Earth means not really lamenting it at all. In a lithic view of time, these churches, towers, walls are houses of cards--erected for a moment and built so tenuously that they fall down after a mere shudder.<br /><br />Perhaps this view is completely off; perhaps it's a we-all-return-from-whence-we-came sort of view whose big selling point is that it's comforting and totally unprovable. I don't know. I do know that in general, removed terms, I actually mourn the loss of those historical artifacts more than the loss of human life. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45642000/jpg/_45642151_beds_afp466.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 283px; height: 182px;" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45642000/jpg/_45642151_beds_afp466.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>But only in general, removed terms. Give me the choice between torching a Gutenberg Bible and saving the life of one of my students and I'll flick my Bic. Not that I'd feel good about it or that it wouldn't haunt me for years afterward, but I'd do it without hesitation. But when it's faceless Italians who are represented by just an unfathomable number (not many of us can <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> envision 200+ corpses or 1000 people who've been injured; that takes experience in wartime or Katrina to understand, I think), it's easier to mourn for the loss of history. I think in some ways--especially for classicists and medievalists--the loss of history hurts more because our minds soar. What did we lose when the <a href="http://www.history-magazine.com/libraries.html">Great Library in Alexandria</a> burned? What did we lose in the <a href="http://www.beowulftranslations.net/beorefs/gentleman-page451.jpg">Ashburnham fire</a> of 1731. But sometimes the loss is greater when a person dies. What did we lose when Hemingway put a gun in his mouth? What did we lose when <a href="http://www.tolkien-online.com/tolkien-biography.html">Tolkien</a>, <a href="http://www.themodernword.com/borges/borges_biography.html">Borges</a>, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes">Barthes</a> died? Was there more they had to say? For that matter, what do we lose every time some kid in Africa dies because he can't get enough to eat or drink? Do we lose a voice like Achebe? What do we lose every time some sorry bastard dominates and silences (in one way or another) the voice of his wife because she's a woman? Do we lose a Gilman?<br /><br />At any rate, this event makes me think about what people will say in 100 years. I imagine it will be something along the lines of what we say now. We complain about Early Moderns tearing up medieval MSS to make end pages for their books or reinforce spines. We complain about what the medieval inhabitants did to the Roman baths in Bath. We complain about what contemporary acid rain has done to Cleopatra's Needle and what the shipwreck did to the Elgin Marbles. I bet one day, they'll complain about the crude and damaging methods used to rescue the victims in L'Aquila. What they will forget--and what we forget now--are the pressing concerns, the (sometimes fierce) urgency of Now that dictates our actions. <br /><br />I guess the moral of the story is that sometimes the Earth throws off our intricate structures and screws up our history. And sometimes we do.prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-10999183018248483752009-04-06T17:34:00.000-07:002009-04-06T17:37:58.664-07:00This Land is Your Land, This Land is my Land...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://hahamusic.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/woodyguthrie.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 388px; height: 306px;" src="http://hahamusic.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/woodyguthrie.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />Just kidding, sorry Woody! It's not your land, because if we let you see the nation in which you live, the terrorists win. And we don't want Osama bin Laden Googling your address to find out where you live. So get your hobo ass on a train and go somewhere the terrorists don't care about, like Montana.<br /><br />Under the guise of protecting us from terrorists, California Assemblyman Joel Anderson introduced legislation to ban images from Google Earth. Awesome.<br /><br />According to the <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1748556.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Sacramento Bee</span>:</a><br /><blockquote>Anderson is pushing to ban online mapping services from publishing clear photos of key buildings used by the public--but fuzzy images would be fine.<br /><br />"All I'm asking is that they reduce the level of detail," he said. "They can either smear it or back (the camera) off..." <br /><br />The Alpine Republican points to news reports that terrorists who attacked various locations in Mumbai, India, last year used digital maps and other high-technology equipment.<br /><br />"We should not be helping bad people map their next target," Anderson said....<br /><br />Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, an Irvine Republican and former military intelligence officer, said the bill could open a Pandora's box."My concern is, what's next?" DeVore said. "Do politicians then demand that we blur out images of the homes of law enforcement personnel--or elected officials?"...<br /><br />"I don't want to wait until a Californian dies," Anderson said of AB 255. "I want to act now to protect them."<br /><br />Republican Assemblywoman Connie Conway said that Tulare County teenagers have used online maps to identify foreclosed homes with swimming pools so that they can trespass and skateboard in them.<br /><br />Even if AB 255 would not stop terrorism, it could send a valuable message, she said."Why should we make it easier?" Conway said of attacks against the United States....<br /><br />Anderson said he is willing to compromise, including carving out exceptions for emergency response and allowing detailed views of key buildings if requested by their owners.But Anderson has no plans to drop AB 255."<br /><br />For us to ignore (a threat) would be unconscionable," he said.</blockquote><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPvllB_UHwp2srNuLW0xbI-18sun8mgFAQ87KzST8P9SLfD9fZPLZv8zW4qi67li-efJ4U92G9eWhsYyL-MX_UbTK-CoVK1B7HGD3AtG90oDYzS8OohMV-1KlC5-A5u6UTZ7AOqF0Y3FE/s1600-h/anderson.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 437px; height: 263px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPvllB_UHwp2srNuLW0xbI-18sun8mgFAQ87KzST8P9SLfD9fZPLZv8zW4qi67li-efJ4U92G9eWhsYyL-MX_UbTK-CoVK1B7HGD3AtG90oDYzS8OohMV-1KlC5-A5u6UTZ7AOqF0Y3FE/s320/anderson.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5321022160910064882" border="0" /></a>By the way, here's a pic of Joel Anderson's office in El Cajon (<span id="ctl08_ctl00_lblDistrict">500 Fesler Street, Suite 201, El Cajon, CA 92020)--just in case his bill goes through.<br /></span><p></p>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-14325445524245081372009-04-05T15:56:00.000-07:002009-04-05T15:57:13.087-07:00Mr President, Stop Arguing with Paul Krugman<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.pubbuzz.com/domains/pubbuzz_com/images/user/Paul%20Krugman%20Miami%202007.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 223px; height: 149px;" src="http://www.pubbuzz.com/domains/pubbuzz_com/images/user/Paul%20Krugman%20Miami%202007.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a>You can't win an argument with a garden gnome, and I can't imagine why you keep trying. Don't screw with the little folk. They know things, things like how to get a motherf*@&ing Nobel prize as a mother f*@&ing garden gnome. Expect your milk to go bad before the expiration date, sir.prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-24900734562362433912009-04-04T13:21:00.000-07:002009-04-04T17:57:35.815-07:00Churchill Wins, Now $1 Richer<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/02/us/03churchill_650a.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 207px; height: 158px;" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/02/us/03churchill_650a.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>A jury has found <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/03churchill.html">in favor of Ward Churchill</a> in his lawsuit for wrongful termination against the University of Colorado. Some observations:<br /><br />1) It turns out that Churchill is a surprisingly snappy dresser--especially since all I'd ever seen him wear before is t-shirts.<br /><br />2) I think the jury found in favor of Churchill even though they didn't want to because they only rewarded him $1. Churchill is an abrasive jerk, but if he were wrongfully terminated he deserves more of a financial reward than that--and CU deserves more of a punitive damage responsibility than that. CU's spokesperson stated that the awarding of damages showed that "Churchill was not necessarily a figure to be revered." Congratulations, Capt. Obvious. I don't think someone who tells hard truths in such a brusque and contentious way is looking for reverence; Churchill's looking for change in the way American treats its neighbors and its citizens. People revere Churchill in spite of his best efforts: his writings, demeanor, borderline verbal abuse are directed--as far as I can tell--equally to those with whom he agrees and those with whom he disagrees/disregards. I mean, the man called people who'd recently died "little Eichmanns"; he's not looking for friends. He's looking to be a lightning rod, the <span style="font-style: italic;">avant garde</span> of a radical, progressive movement (and it works...I mean, how many other Native American activists have you heard discussed on the news in the last five years?).<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">None of this changes the fact that Churchill violated some central tenets of academic ethics.</span> He admitted wrong-doing in a statement about small-pox-infected blankets being used as biological warfare, and I respect that. It's a understandable mistake. But the thing he did that really, really, <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> bothers me, the thing that is unforgivable in my mind and that shows he is committing these errors <span style="font-style: italic;">with forethought and malice</span> is the ghost-writing sham. It seems that he ghost-wrote two essays that appeared in the same 1992 volume edited by his then-wife (<a href="http://www.wardchurchill.net/24-124pg_InvestCommit_Report.pdf">pdf</a>): Robbins' "Self-Determination and Subordination: The Past, Present and Future of American Indian Governance" and Jaimes' "Federal Indian Identification Policy: A Usurpation of Indigenous Sovereignty in North America." He then later cited these as third-party independent corroboration for one of his own theories, making it seem as if there were a preponderance of evidence for it (turns out, the only other source he cites is a primary resource which does not support the claim he makes at all). That is dishonest and corrosive to any sort of standard of academic integrity and is something that I cannot cotton to. I'll defend a lot of what the guy does and says, but not this. <br /><br />4) That being said, I'm not at all certain that it's enough of a result of a large-scale , politically-motivated witch-hunt to fire a guy. It wouldn't have even been noticed if it weren't for an investigation started in late-2004 and early-2005 when he was going to speak at Hamilton College. Here's the general timeline:<br /><ul><li>1987-1994: Churchill wins the President's Service Award (1987), the Robert L. Stearns Award (1988), the Thomas Jefferson Award for Outstanding Service and Achievement (1990), the Excellence in Social Science Writing Award from the UC College of Arts and Sciences (1992), and the CU Faculty Assembly's Teaching Excellence Award (1994). (All of which you can find on his <a href="http://www.wardchurchill.net/churchill_full_CV.pdf">bloated cv</a>.)</li><li>12 September 2001: Churchill <a href="http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html">writes</a> "'Some People Push Back': On the Justice of Roosting Chickens"</li><li>2002: Churchill becomes the Chair of the CU Department of Ethnic Studies<br /></li><li>18 September 2003: The essay is <a href="http://www.akpress.com/2003/items/onthejusticeofroostingchickens">expanded into a book</a> called <span style="font-style: italic;">On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality</span><br /></li><li>2005: Churchill wins the Herd Award for Outstanding Undergraduate Teaching in 2005, chosen by the UC student body</li><li>26 January 2005: The <span style="font-style: italic;">Syracuse Post-Dispatch</span> <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_02/005595.php">runs a story</a> about Churchill coming to campus and the resistance he was getting. The AP picked it up.<br /></li><li>27 January 2005: Bob Beauprez, then a Republican Representative from Colorado, <a href="http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4136982/detail.html">speaks out against Churchill, saying:</a> "Unfortunately Mr. Churchill is a tenured professor who is apparently immune from any kind of sanctions from his employer...If he had any respect for the University of Colorado, he would immediately tender his resignation and offer an apology for his outrageous comments."</li><li>28 January 2005: After <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110687422868538878.html?mod=todays_us_weekend_journal"><span style="font-style: italic;">Wall Street Journal</span></a> articles like this one, his Eichmann comment hit the Internets with a vengeance.</li><li>1 February 2005: Hamilton College <a href="http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?ID=9020">cancels</a> Churchill's speaking engagement that was planned for two day later, citing security concerns; the <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/01/nation/na-churchill1"><span style="font-style: italic;">LA Times </span>reports</a> that Beauprez "has contacted university officials demanding Churchill's ouster."<br /></li><li><span id="intelliTXT">3 February 2005: Phil DiStefano repudiates Churchill's statements, defends his right to say it, and initiates an <a href="http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/49.html">investigation</a> to see if he </span>"overstepped his bounds as a faculty member," that is if his conduct would "provide any grounds for dismissal for cause" and if "this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against University action."</li><li><span id="intelliTXT">24 March 2005: <a href="http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/distefanostatement.html">DiStefano announces</a> that they'd found the First Amendment protected Churchill's essay but </span>decides "allegations of research misconduct, related to plagiarism, misuse of other’s work and fabrication, have sufficient merit to warrant further inquiry."</li><li>29 March 2005: Colorado Governor Bill Owens went on <span style="font-style: italic;">The O'Reilly Factor</span> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151785,00.html">and said this</a> about the investigation on Churchill's academic integrity: "I do have some budget authority over the budget. I have some bully pulpit authority. And that's why I said he should be fired from day one. Now they're involved in the process that I think will ultimately lead to him being fired, but in a way that's going to be able to stand up in court....<span id="intelliTXT">Under the rules of tenure...in order to fire Ward Churchill, they have to go through a procedure. And the procedure is what they've now started. I disagree that they can't put as part of that--part of the issue--what he actually said." </span></li></ul>It's pretty obvious from the timeline that the investigation was politically motivated (literally). Immediately after the to-do about the essay in early 2005, things began to happen. <span id="intelliTXT">There is not only a drastic change between the honors he received at CU before and during the furor and the first investigation that began on 3 February 2005, but there is also a tacit admission by DiStefano that the investigation was in response to Churchill's "repugnant" words, which was already being discussed on conservative radio and by Republican politicians who controlled the purse-strings for CU. If there's doubt, notice that on 3 February, CU says it will investigate if Churchill </span>"overstepped his bounds as a faculty member." Specifically they wanted to see if his conduct would "provide any grounds for dismissal for cause" and if "this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against University action." (Churchill <a href="http://www.wardchurchill.net/timeline.html">contends</a> the answer was obvious (DiStefano "discovered, apparently to his surprise, that all of Prof. Churchill’s writings and speeches are protected by the First Amendment"), but I think CU had the right to investigate because it wasn't that cut-and-dried.) <br /><br />The 3 February<span id="intelliTXT"> investigation found nothing, but when they announced that they'd found nothing, they subtly changed the wording of what they said they would look for. On 24 March, DiStefano announced that they'd been looking at two things:</span><blockquote>"First, did certain statements by Professor Churchill exceed the boundaries of protected speech?"<br />"<span style="font-weight: bold;">Second, is there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in other conduct that warrants further action by the University--such as research misconduct, teaching misconduct, or fraudulent misrepresentation in performing his duties?</span>" (emphasis mine) </blockquote>That second point is subtly but importantly different from the one DiStefano made on 3 February. Back then, CU was going to look to see if Churchill's essay would "provide any grounds for dismissal for cause" and if this "conduct or speech [was] protected by the First Amendment against University action." There is no discussion of teaching or research "misconduct" or "fraudulent misrepresentation"--neither of which would be covered by the First Amendment anyway. (You'd think that David Getches, the <span style="font-style: italic;">dean of the frickin' CU Law School</span> and one of the three on the investigative committee might have realized that). Luckily for Limbaugh, Owen, Hannity, Beauprez, and O'Reilly (and, technically, DiStefano since he was in a damn tight spot), the new emphasis (in which <a href="http://www.wardchurchill.net/churchill_v_cu.html">Churchill contends </a>they actively sought allegations against him, though there's no substantiation of that claim) turns up "allegations of research misconduct, related to plagiarism, misuse of other’s work and fabrication, have sufficient merit to warrant further inquiry." The truth is, if you look closely enough at an author with an enormous <span style="font-style: italic;">oeuvre</span> (like Harold Bloom, Savloj Žižek<span id="intelliTXT">, or </span>David Horowitz), I bet you'll find some irregularities. Hell, even <a href="http://www.slate.com/?id=2060618">Stephen Ambrose</a> and <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=180631">Doris Kearns Goodwin</a> have had some problems with these issues. It's obvious that CU found some troubling facts, but it's also as (if not more) troubling that the whole thing was politically motivated. They should have definitely removed him as Chair (but he stepped down from it voluntarily). This whole brouhaha--if not for the speech issue that CU tries to pretend wasn't a part of the investigation--would not have demanded any more action.<br /><br />5) The attorney for CU said this in his closing arguments: <blockquote>"There's the real university world, and there’s Ward Churchill's world...Ward Churchill's world is a place where there are no standards and no accountability."</blockquote> I think Churchill would agree with this statement. As a Native American <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>a Vietnam vet he's probably seen the standards and accountability that white, polite society has extended. We promised Native Americans things and then reneged. Vietnam veterans often suffered from the stigma of being a part of an unpopular war--even if they were drafted--and endured poor and neglectful medical treatment at the hands of the VA when implicit in being s soldier is the promise that you will be respected and taken care of. Patrick O’Rourke, CU's lawyer further said that Churchill "was using the Constitution as a smokescreen. 'You can’t take the First Amendment and use it to justify fraud.'" Unfortunately, the Constitution has been about as tangible and real as a smokescreen to a lot of Americans (Black slaves, women, Native Americans, Chinese in 19th-century American West, etc.), but mostly it has been used to justify fraud--not just the First Amendment but the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. (It's been a great moral, ethical, and functional center for most of us [here, oddly enough, I agree with <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=AMuZvBwfRYMC&pgis=1">Allan Bloom's thesis</a> in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Closing of the American Mind</span>], but what troubles me is not that we should be demanding American citizens <span style="font-style: italic;">conform to its standards and dictates</span> but instead that its <span style="font-style: italic;">standards and dictates have been inconsistently applied</span>--especially to those who "count." It postulates an implicit <span style="font-style: italic;">ideal citizen</span>, but that citizen is (or at least was) White and male. The saving grace of the Constitution is its constant state of flux; as <span style="font-style: italic;">soon</span> as it was created, it was changed, and it has been changed periodically ever since.) But for people who haven't received the full protections that the Constitution was supposed to afford them, I can see how malleable and inconstant it might seem: if it can be bent and twisted for what he sees as purposes against him, why can't it be bent and twisted for his own purposes?prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-4558980499815777922009-04-03T14:03:00.000-07:002009-04-03T14:13:38.831-07:00Brothers of the World, Unite!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/Lizzie_borden.jpg/390px-Lizzie_borden.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 160px; height: 246px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/Lizzie_borden.jpg/390px-Lizzie_borden.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>The University of Ulster released <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7977454.stm">a study</a> on families today that concluded "Sisters appear to encourage more open communication and cohesion in families. However, brothers seemed to have the alternative effect."<br /><br />I imagine my sister helped fund this study; I must remember to punch her and try to turn the rest of the family against her. <br /><br />But until then, I imagine Lizzy Borden's mother and father (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Borden#Murders">both of whom were no longer <span style="font-style: italic;">cohesive</span> after Lizzy got through with them</a>...yuk yuk yuk) would beg to differ with this study's findings.<br /><p></p>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-67131734684952322252009-03-23T12:13:00.000-07:002009-03-23T12:38:55.154-07:00PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE SIGNIFIED BEHIND THE CURTAIN<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.oregonjail4judges.org/files/QuickSiteImages/Wizard_of_oz.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 258px; height: 258px;" src="http://www.oregonjail4judges.org/files/QuickSiteImages/Wizard_of_oz.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>A half-baked musing on that old chestnut, the linguistic sign.<br /><br />In preparation for my Orals Exam, I'm going back and reading a small portion of de Saussure's <span style="font-style: italic;">Course in General Linguistics</span> (for the part about meaning being created by difference/negation). Funnily enough, there are still notes in my theory reader from four years ago when I was reading it on lunch breaks while (not)working at Brown McCarroll (NB: I do not recommend reading Jaobson's "Two Aspects of Language" and then returning to the world of asbestos litigation...talk about aphasia...). Looking back on those notes (and diagrams), I didn't get Saussure's ideas. At all.<br /><br />Sure, I understood that the signifier and signified have an arbitrary relationship, but I guess I had read too much Lacan by that point to see that the whole play of signifiers idea flows naturally out of Saussure's ideas. <blockquote>"On the one hand the concept [aka, the signified] seems to be the counterpart of the sound-image [aka, the signifier], and on the other hand the sign itself is in turn the counterpart of the other signs of language."</blockquote> Saussure here seems to be doing the legwork for what Lacan thinks he discovered--disconnecting the <span style="font-style: italic;">function</span> of the linguistic sign from the <span style="font-style: italic;">ontology</span> of it.* It seems to me that a Saussurian linguistic sign is like the Wizard of Oz. There is the concept/signified (the actual Kansan huckster, Professor Marvel) and then there is the sound-image/signifier (the All-Powerful Oz). One is a disappointment once the curtain has been pulled away; the other is a lot of hype, hot air, and tricks. The one hides and is (mis)represented by the sound-image/signifier, which interacts with others and (re)creates the concept/signified as it does so. Remember, there'd be nothing sad or disappointing about Professor Marvel if it hadn't been for the representation of The Wizard of Oz, but it's also true that The Wizard began to function independently of its concept/signifier the longer it interacted with those in the land of Oz.<br /><br />*Yeah, I know Lacan references Saussure often enough, but I haven't seen anything that gives him the sort of finder's-fee credit he probably deserves. It could be out there, but I just haven't seen it.prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6390750145889368903.post-32893776565699574652009-03-19T13:58:00.000-07:002009-03-23T12:41:01.868-07:00Your Bonus? I'll Take That (Back).<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.cs.utah.edu/%7Eshirley/yoink.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 128px;" src="http://www.cs.utah.edu/%7Eshirley/yoink.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>From <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Paul_Bill_to_tax_bonuses_unconstitutional_0319.html">Raw Story</a> today, David Edwards and Rachel Oswald bring us news that Ron Paul has called <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/%7EbdFTVJ::%7C/bss/111search.html%7C">HR 1598</a>, the bill that proposes a 90% tax on the AIG bonuses "an 'outrage' and unconstitutional."<br /><br />I understand his point, which is that this is all posturing on the part of the Congress--sort of polishing the brass on the Titanic. No doubt what the Congress is doing is the politically safe move, and in the sort of hyper-campaigning climate that we see, I don't begrudge them the safe move.<br /><br />While I don't agree with Paul's <span style="font-style: italic;">reasons</span>, I do agree with his overall <span style="font-style: italic;">claim</span> that this is a bad idea. To my mind, it sets a dangerous precedent for the government to create a tax to recoup money that--unwisely or not--it gave away.<br /><br />I don't want those jerks to keep their money, either, but I feel even less comfortable with a government that can take what it wants in some backdoor manner like inventing new taxes. I say let the execs have their money, but since we own a goodly portion of AIG, we should just can them and make sure they never work for us again.<br /><strong></strong>prehenselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04801371989123252511noreply@blogger.com0