Thanks, Capitalism

Over at Wired, they've updated us on the catastrophe that wasn't. The conficker worm. I have to admit that I am disappointed. I was expecting so much, but the thing is "dedicated to spam," apparently.

Dammit.

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? He knew what he was talking about! Moloch is the sign of our times!!

Spam?!? I mean, spam?!? 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.

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.

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.

Blindness is a Foucauldian Nightmare

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 very 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").

At any rate, Blindness 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.

The story seems to overlap with Michel Foucault's ideas of power--those he outlines in Discipline and Punish--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 Birth of the Clinic); 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.

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 how many 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.

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.

The Long View is Sometimes a Heartless One

The recent earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy destroyed not only quite a few lives but also an extensive amount of medieval architecture 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 really "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.

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. 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 really 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 Great Library in Alexandria burned? What did we lose in the Ashburnham fire 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 Tolkien, Borges, or Barthes 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?

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.

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.

This Land is Your Land, This Land is my Land...

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.

Under the guise of protecting us from terrorists, California Assemblyman Joel Anderson introduced legislation to ban images from Google Earth. Awesome.

According to the Sacramento Bee:

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.

"All I'm asking is that they reduce the level of detail," he said. "They can either smear it or back (the camera) off..."

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.

"We should not be helping bad people map their next target," Anderson said....

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?"...

"I don't want to wait until a Californian dies," Anderson said of AB 255. "I want to act now to protect them."

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.

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....

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."

For us to ignore (a threat) would be unconscionable," he said.

By the way, here's a pic of Joel Anderson's office in El Cajon (500 Fesler Street, Suite 201, El Cajon, CA 92020)--just in case his bill goes through.

Mr President, Stop Arguing with Paul Krugman

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.

Churchill Wins, Now $1 Richer

A jury has found in favor of Ward Churchill in his lawsuit for wrongful termination against the University of Colorado. Some observations:

1) It turns out that Churchill is a surprisingly snappy dresser--especially since all I'd ever seen him wear before is t-shirts.

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 avant garde 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?).

3) None of this changes the fact that Churchill violated some central tenets of academic ethics. 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, really bothers me, the thing that is unforgivable in my mind and that shows he is committing these errors with forethought and malice 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 (pdf): 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.

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:

• 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 bloated cv.)
• 12 September 2001: Churchill writes "'Some People Push Back': On the Justice of Roosting Chickens"
• 2002: Churchill becomes the Chair of the CU Department of Ethnic Studies
  
• 18 September 2003: The essay is expanded into a book called On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality
  
• 2005: Churchill wins the Herd Award for Outstanding Undergraduate Teaching in 2005, chosen by the UC student body
• 26 January 2005: The Syracuse Post-Dispatch runs a story about Churchill coming to campus and the resistance he was getting. The AP picked it up.
  
• 27 January 2005: Bob Beauprez, then a Republican Representative from Colorado, speaks out against Churchill, saying: "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."
• 28 January 2005: After Wall Street Journal articles like this one, his Eichmann comment hit the Internets with a vengeance.
• 1 February 2005: Hamilton College cancels Churchill's speaking engagement that was planned for two day later, citing security concerns; the LA Times reports that Beauprez "has contacted university officials demanding Churchill's ouster."
  
• 3 February 2005: Phil DiStefano repudiates Churchill's statements, defends his right to say it, and initiates an investigation to see if he "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."
• 24 March 2005: DiStefano announces that they'd found the First Amendment protected Churchill's essay but decides "allegations of research misconduct, related to plagiarism, misuse of other’s work and fabrication, have sufficient merit to warrant further inquiry."
• 29 March 2005: Colorado Governor Bill Owens went on The O'Reilly Factor and said this 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....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."

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. 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 "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 contends 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.)

The 3 February 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:

"First, did certain statements by Professor Churchill exceed the boundaries of protected speech?"
"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?" (emphasis mine)

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 dean of the frickin' CU Law School 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 Churchill contends 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 oeuvre (like Harold Bloom, Savloj Žižek, or David Horowitz), I bet you'll find some irregularities. Hell, even Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin 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.

5) The attorney for CU said this in his closing arguments:

"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."

I think Churchill would agree with this statement. As a Native American and 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 Allan Bloom's thesis in The Closing of the American Mind], but what troubles me is not that we should be demanding American citizens conform to its standards and dictates but instead that its standards and dictates have been inconsistently applied--especially to those who "count." It postulates an implicit ideal citizen, but that citizen is (or at least was) White and male. The saving grace of the Constitution is its constant state of flux; as soon 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?

Brothers of the World, Unite!

The University of Ulster released a study on families today that concluded "Sisters appear to encourage more open communication and cohesion in families. However, brothers seemed to have the alternative effect."

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.

But until then, I imagine Lizzy Borden's mother and father (both of whom were no longer cohesive after Lizzy got through with them...yuk yuk yuk) would beg to differ with this study's findings.