So It Occurs To Me Once Again

If the evidence was so ironclad, so bulletproof, why haven't our armies found any evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction in Iraq? Wasn't that the President's stated goal for going to war-- to forestall a threat that was at any moment forty-five minutes away from dumping nerve gas on us or our allies? Again, yes, I'm glad Hussein is gone. I'm elated that his human rights abuses can now be set to rights. But those are collateral benefits of an invasion that supposedly defused a concrete and measurable threat to the US and its citizens.

So where is this ironclad proof? Most Americans don't care--- hell, most Americans think we've found WMD's already, that it was France we invaded, and that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11/01 attacks. But I care, because it's the difference between a President doing the the tough thing for right reasons and a President cynically manipulating public opinion for gain. Like Clinton did. I will allow that, now that the dust has settled, it's possible that the administration finds that some of its intelligence is less useful than they thought. Fine. The emperor is pantsless. But if that is the case, can someone please say so? There's nothing sadder than a man trying to act dignified while not wearing any pants.*

*Trust me-- I should know

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 0

From Lileks

"We wish the French the best. But their days as the moral avatar, the champion of humanity, are long gone. That reputation -- unearned for decades -- will die in the Congo, where French troops are behaving as effectively as, well, French troops. The painful fact is that no one expects much of them anymore beyond good food, bribery and honeyed hypocrisy.

One liberated Iraqi summed up the American promise like this: "Democracy, whiskey, sexy!" One could say that beats Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.

One might suggest that it already has."

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 0

Orrin Hatch Can Have My Computer When He Pries It Out Of My Cold, Dead Hands

I'm sure you've all heard about this already, but I'm all for kicking someone when they're down. From CNN: Your News Source:

During a discussion of methods to frustrate computer users who illegally exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading. Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal anti-hacking laws. 

"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to deliberately download pirated material very slowly so other users can't. 

"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights." 

The senator, a composer who earned $18,000 last year in song-writing royalties, acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer." 

"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions.

I see... so if his dog takes a dump on my lawn, I will have the right to kick the heck out of it, to teach him a lesson in turn, right? 

[moreover] Dude... when word of this gets around to the script-kidz, Orrin Hatch's site is gonna be sooo 0wn3d. 

[moreover once over]... So what about THIS, Mr. Senator Man? 
 

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 0

Love Above The Law

This is just weird.

The Missouri Supreme Court struck down the state's "alienation of affection" law, saying that "stealing" the love of a married person is an arcane legal doctrine. The court, in a 5-2 decision Tuesday, agreed with a woman accused of marital infidelity that alienation of affection is an antiquated cause that has no place in a modern legal system. The justices struck down the law and overturned a lower court's $75,000 judgment against her. The woman, Sivi Noellsch, was sued by Katherine Helsel for allegedly having an affair with Helsel's husband, David, who eventually filed for divorce. Helsel cited alienation of affection as the reason for her lawsuit. . . . .Alienation of affection is grounded in the outdated idea that married people have property interests in each other and its present-day interpretation does nothing to preserve marriages, Judge Richard Teitelman wrote for the majority. . . . "Most lawyers would have predicted this," Ken Jones, editor of Missouri Lawyers Weekly, said of the decision. "It really brings Missouri into the 21st century."

Nooo... It actually brings Missouri into the nineteenth century, when the laws of coverture were eroded by a rising class of property-owning women, but close enough. It's nice to see 500-year-old English common law can still exert a pull. The article also notes that a similar bill banning "alienation of affection" in North Carolina is not likely to pass into law. Heh. 

In other news, the love you take is still equal to the love you make. George Harrison: economist!

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 0

Attempted synthesis

If I feel better tomorrow, I will attempt to fuuuuse together Mike's and my two threads into one beautiful Gordian knot of logical syllogism. In brief, it's the damn hippies who got us in this postmodern crisis of academia, and Generation Y are the first wave of students who may never have been exposed to any other pedagogical method.

I would like to go further into this, but I am tired. I didn't sleep much last night, and when I did sleep, I dreamt that I had been abducted and was being given a tour of the mansion-cum-abbatoir where I would soon be killed and eaten. I was just being shown the hook from which I would be hung to be tortured, die and age before being made into a variety of supposedly delicious dishes, when I woke to my alarm. So I'm really damn tired.

As a result, the best I can do in the way of synthesis is this link via Eric Muller, On the Couch With Beavis and Butthead. Besides being hilarious, it sums up perfectly why a little theory in the wrong hands can be a dangerous thing. Let's excerpt, shall we!

During the video viewing segments of Beavis and Butthead, they are shown sitting on a couch at Butthead's house. Our viewpoint is as if we are staring out from inside the television which they are watching. However, the possible mise en abyeme effect of Beavis and Butthead watching the television viewer watching them watch television, the feedback loop of (virtual) camera and screen evoking Lacan's Mirror Stage, where the child learns to watch himself watching himself, is not exploited here. Instead, Beavis and Butthead are positioned as analysands. They sit on the couch, in the state of regression described by theorists of the cinematic apparatus (Baudry 698-699), and free associate in response to the music videos, a genre which Marsha Kindler and E. Ann Kaplan have both closely connected to the dreamwork (Kinder 12-14; Kaplan 28). . . .
The single most jaw-dropping moment for the psychoanalytically informed viewer in all the Beavis and Butthead episodes comes in the episode entitled "Steamroller." Our heroes are watching a music video by the eccentric Scandinavian singer Bjork when Beavis blurts out: "I heard Bjork has a schlong." Butthead stammers, and asks where Beavis heard this. Beavis claims it was "the guy in the bathroom." After a few more questions, it becomes clear to everyone except Beavis that "the guy in the bathroom" is Beavis' own reflection.
It is a cliche of Lacanian cultural criticism that any appearance of a mirror must evoke the mirror stage, but surely Beavis' failure to recognize himself, coupled with his reflection telling him that Bjork (a small woman) has a "schlong" (a word chosen, surely, over all other possible penis euphemisms for its incorporation of the word "long"), deserves such analysis. It fundamentally ties Beavis' incomprehension of sexual difference to anality (as described in the last section) to his failure to accept the boundedness of his body. In the mirror stage, the infant recognizes that subjectivity is limited to the surface of the body and agency to the reach of its limbs and voice. Previously, the child has no sense of a world outside, but is total ego, thinking of itself as the entire universe, understanding existence only as immediate sensation. . . .
The threat of castration, represented by Woman's lack, is essential to subject formation, and Beavis is clearly outside of this system. Not only does his reflection tell him Bjork has a "schlong," but when he and Butthead watch another video, which features a (supposedly) nude woman in a bathtub, Butthead expresses the hope that the woman will stand up, revealing her body to them. Beavis thinks that she will not, speculating that "she's embarrassed because she has a stiffie." Butthead attempts to explain that women cannot get erections, but the existence of humans without penises is unimaginable to Beavis.

Indeed! Read the entire thing!

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 0

Zig now for great justice

A federal appeals court has ruled that the USDoJ acted correctly in detaining hundreds of people in the wake of September, 2001. Story here. 

I'm going to break with long-standing J2C tradition and not work myself into a frenzy over this decision. I still think it's a bad thing, just no more nefarious than any other of the hare-brained schemes we've seen recently. On one hand, the people detained (for the purposes of this decision) were illegal aliens, who were in the country, um, illegally. That needs checking out. But that fact must be balanced by two considerations: the DoJ's abysmal record of late regarding full disclosure, honesty, and moderation; and the fact that this is the USA and we don't treat people this way (that golden rule thingy). Here's the part that has always troubled me. 

A recent audit by the inspector general at the Justice Department found "significant problems" with the detentions, including allegations of physical abuse. Civil liberties groups have noted that only one of those detained, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been charged with any terrorism-related crime. Ashcroft told lawmakers earlier this month that some of the foreigners "had strong links to the terrorists," but that in some cases evidence was insufficient or too sensitive to bring criminal charges against them in public courts.

Everyone has a right to a lawyer, and everyone has a right to face the charges brought against them. No charges? No detention! Secret courts? While I understand and appreciate the need for discretion in dealing with potential international terrorists, no circumstances should mitigate due process out of existence. And what are these "strong ties" JA speaks of? If they are so strong, why have charges not been brought? 

Just asking. 

[moreover] Part of the reason I posted this was to elicit commentary. Mission accomplished!! In the 18 hours since I first read the story, I have come 179 degrees. Indefinite detentions are for tinpot dictators. We're supposed to be a forthright, just, honest nation and people. We're Rocky Balboa.

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 0

Education

While all of you are flapping your gums about generational divides, when everybody knows that everything that's really worth learning on that subject comes from TV's "The Wonder Years," I'm going to re-address Brookheiser's remarks on the teaching and learning of history. 

I'm going to start with a discussion that has been ongoing over at Critical Mass. Though the discussion started with a piece on the decline of graduate study in the humanities, reader responses touch on Brookheiser's point. 

Let me excerpt one reader comment here in its entireity:

I have been teaching at [Prominent Private University] for the last two years, and I have been able to see the effects of this relativism on the undergraduates here. They are genuinely bewildered about what, if anything, counts as knowledge. One example that stands out for me: I taught a "Topics in Theory and Criticism" course this last quarter. The usual approach to such a course here is to pick a flavor (Marx/Marxism, Queer/Gender, New Historicism/Foucault, Cultural Studies/Raymond Williams, etc. etc. etc.), read a series of that flavor’s theoretical/critical texts, and then read a more traditionally literary text or two through the lens of the chosen flavor. It seems more than a bit template-driven. 

I tried to do something different—though hardly groundbreaking—with my course: take an historical trip beginning with Plato and working through the various paths that begin there and have ended up here (in the various flavors). I had to adapt the course on the fly, because I was supposed to be teaching a flavors course of my own, so I created a Classical vs. Renaissance theory course into which I snuck all kinds of other stuff "off-syllabus." I thought the class was going miserably—it was sometimes quite difficult to get students to talk about the material we were covering—and I was sure that the approach I was trying was failing. On the last day of class, I got an ovation (there's something that's never happened before). I didn't understand what was going on until a few days later. 

Several students came to see me during office hours to tell me that they had never taken a course quite like this one before. What they had expected was a template-driven, "here's how we apply ****ist theory to texts" approach, because that is how all of their classes are taught in the English department here. I still have a little trouble believing this, but according to my students, this course was the first time they had been asked to analyze the intellectual and/or historical bases of the critics themselves. They had gone into an English major thinking that it was going to be something about literary knowledge, aesthetics perhaps, maybe even history and social context, but none of the ones who spoke with me had been prepared for what you describe as the framework of "deconstructing race and gender, critiquing the concept of subjectivity, and theorizing culture." 

Not a single one of these students had ever read a piece of "theory" or "criticism" earlier than the 1960s (with the exception of one who had been asked to read a short excerpt from Marx). They simply had never been asked to do anything other than "imitate without understanding" (to paraphrase your post). Some of these students will enter PhD programs next year. [PPU] is quite fond, in fact, of taking people straight from a BA into its own PhD program (I was an exception to the general trend). The just barely-post undergraduate students who come here are then immediately put through an Introduction to Graduate Study class that is essentially no different from the template-driven "flavor" courses I describe above (my own here was Marx and Marxism). 

It is painfully obvious to me now that such students are simply not prepared to do much of anything but accept what they are given (or reject it without knowing exactly why or how, or even what the myriad alternatives are). Graduate "education" in a humanities discipline like English seems to be primarily about indoctrination and self-replication. By the time these students are ABD, knowing Foucault backwards and forwards while knowing almost nothing at all about Nietzsche or Plato (not to mention Shakespeare or any number of other "canonical" figures) is not at all uncommon in my experience. Grandiose maneuvers without any background for them - that's the graduate (and undergraduate) "education" I have come to know.

Sound familiar? Sure does to me!! An English student who does not read Shakespeare, or a History student who does not read Gibbon (or, if you like, Foner, Hofstadter, Elkins & McKitrick, Levine...), is like a physics student who can't add two numbers. The humanities in general are suffering terribly from an overuse of postmodernism, and it's turning out a generation of students who are functionally illiterate in their chosen fields. Rather than learn the generalities and overarching themes, students skip straight to what Brookheiser in another context calls "units, floating in ahistorical space." After all, it's much easier to use Foucault to rip an article to shreds than it is to develop a nuanced, deep understanding of the history and traditions you are a student of. We all know what happens when college students get ahold of Big Ideas That Explain Everything. For a padawan learner such weapons are not, only for a Jedi are they. Mmm, yes. If you give a student Foucault, Hamlet is only about sex. If you give a student Marx, King Lear is a parable of Capitalism. These tools are powerful, but they are also crutches, and in the wrong hands lend themselves easily to arrogance, narrowness, and false first principles. 

I must applaud Mike, a real, working teacher of History, for successfully working actual stories into his coursework. That should happen more often. Of course, since I am advocating a "first A, then B/ first walk/then run" approach to education, I suppose I have not sufficiently interrogated the linearity of my pedagogical ideology. Or something. 

All three of us here are former students of Wilson Hoffman. Three cheers for Wil Hoffman! Huzzah!

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 0

Generational Definitions

Since there have been quite a few comments on the Generations discussion, I thought it might help to expand the discussion in another post. First, some definitions. People disagree as to the exact lines between generations, and pinning down exact years is difficult. It is also quite possible that in such a format as this, people will argue ad infinitum about when a generation begins and ends, who their children are, etc., etc. Generations, after all, are not defined only chronologically but also by the events and times through which they lived. 

So I'll offer this scale of American generations. The World War II generation constitutes people born between about 1910 and 1926; those who were old enough to serve, for men. For women, those birth dates put them about at the right age to work in a munitions plant, doing difficult industrial labor. 

Boomers are typically the children of the World War II generation. The term baby boomer, after all, refers to the population explosion that occurred during the post-war period and was at least in part the result of G.I.s returning home from service. They were born, about, between the years of 1946, and I would argue, until about 1959 or even 1960. Members of this generation were not necessarily, "hippies," a media invention that constitutes a less than apt term. People describing themselves as "hippies" were probably not actually the kind of person many think of when the think of the Sixties generation, or Sixties people, or Sixties this, that, or the other. The Baby Boomer generation was divided, to put it as simply as possible, between Freaks and Straights.

Baby boomers who actively participated in counter-cultural activities, such as drug use or political activism, were Freaks. They were, as Nixon put it, "a small vocal minority." Their numbers were extremely small. The vast majority of boomers were not these so-called hippies, again, a media invention term, but wore their hair short, abstained from drug use (until marijuana became largely acceptable in the early Seventies), heckeled, and spit on anti-war protesters. They were Straights. They, as the vast majority of baby boomers, did not burn their draft cards, but either served or received college deferments. But most Boomers did not publicly oppose or protest the war. In sum, perhaps 1 out of 100 members of the Boomer generation actually participated in 1960s counter-culture. 

The members of Gen X, mostly, fell between the Boomers and their children, about between the years of 1960/1 and 1977. The children of Boomers, particularly those who are white and middle class, as Gen Y, or Echo Boomers or whatever you want to call them, followed in the years after 1977. Thus, a person born in 1955, say a white middle-class Boomer, would be having children between about 1977 and up to 1990. Therefore, Gen Y can most certainly be the children of Boomers. Like to go further back? A person born at the start of the Boom in 1947, also white and middle-class, could, and many did, have children in the second half of the 1960s. Now this would place those children in Gen X. But think about it. A person born in 1947 could also be having children until 1982, if not later, placing those children within Gen Y. 

It's not a perfect delineation, and I never said it was. There are exceptions. There is overlap. Generations do not act as a single unit. They are not monolithic. Quite the contrary. Perhaps more posts will follow on this subject, but I'll throw these definitions open to debate for now.

Posted by Mike Mike on   |   § 0

A bit more flapping about generations

So, as my generational delineations (not perfect with overlap) have not yet been challenged in the comments field, I'll continue. 

Let's give the benefit of the doubt to those who use the term, "hippie," and what they mean by that. Let's say they are applying the term to that small segment of the Boomer generation who were Freaks, actively involved in counter-culture activities. People who were actively involved in counter-culture might have been less likely to inculcate their children with a sense of entitlement, so the notion that Freaks gave their children a sense of entitlement is incorrect. 

Without going into details about the chaotic and somewhat unorthodox (by traditional definition) circumstances in which I was brought into the world and raised, I was ultimately raised by an early Boomer very much involved in counter-culture and political activism during the late 1960s, and a pre-boomer who was of course, not. The early Boomer to which I refer made his position clear. When I came home with a story of some injustice perpetrated against me by the evil teachers, fellow students, and/or school administration, ending with the phrase, "and that's not fair," the response was, "Who the hell ever told you life was fair? Your mother? She's wrong. Get used to it." [There's some poetic license here, but the gist should come across.] 

Now I realize this is anecdotal, and a small sampling group to say the least, clearly, this was one Boomer who did not choose to inculcate the child he raised with a sense of entitlement. I think those who were involved in counter-culture actually walked away jaded, disappointed, and ultimately, pessimistic. The vast majority of Boomers who didn't have the guts to take a stand, or took one against those who did, are the ones who I think came away with more of a sense of entitlement. 

As I wrote before, Gen Y has demonstrated a sense of entitlement, and I think one reason is that in a lot of cases, their parents have inculcated them with it. But that's not the be-all-end-all. So did children's television programming, and the other things I discussed (please see previous post). Nothing is monocausal. Hell, being Americans has inculcated a lot of these kids with a sense of entitlement. As to whether or not Boomers are still raising kids, if Gen Y has been in college for a period measured in years, they're not really being raised now, are they? 

Finally, unlike Scarborough, who wavers between making me laugh and raising my blood pressure exponentially, I have no hatred for people previously involved in 1960s counter-culture. Quite the opposite. I grew up idolizing one of them, and still do to this day to a great extent. They tried to change the world. They didn't succeed, but the deck was significantly stacked against them. But I think they fought one helluva good fight, and my hat's off. Matter of opinion, of course, and that's mine. I'll smile and nodd at others. 

Power to the People. 
 

Posted by Mike Mike on   |   § 0

Rumbles from the Lumpenproletariat

I've been hearing rumblings recently about an impending worker strike at Verizon here in New England. The Boston Globe has the story. Fairly unremarkable as strikes go: copayments and worker insurance payments will rise; layoffs are expected in the same year that Verizon executives gilded their parachutes; and the workers feel they have been subject to unreasonable demands in negotiation.

Through sheer coincidence, I have been privy to some great conversations on both sides, worker and management, in the course of my daily commute. I guess I'm just lucky. Seen on the commuter train, on the back of an IBEW worker from Verizon: a Contract Negotiation 2003 Commemorative T-shirt with the union logo and local on the front, and on the back the best slogan ever: "Can You Hear Us Now??"

Union, yes indeed!

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 0