Duke, Dean, and De-emphasizing Civic Education…

You want a down side to concepts of solidarity? How about the Duke Lacrosse team. No one has come forward, many of the players apparently have had citations where they have beaten the rap before for disorderly conduct, and the University’s announcement that they were suspending the season sounded as much as if it were for the good of the team as it was for the legal process. As much as my Maryland alumni status often compels me to say inanely hostile things about Duke at sporting events, I feel bad for the residents of Durham, both “town and gown”. From this point, there are no winners. The DA seems very certain that very serious crimes were committed. Even if the whole thing happened to be a lie (unlikely), I have lived through that in my own home town growing up, and that can be just as ugly a situation for the residents as anything else.

• John Dean is for the Feingold resolution censuring the President on NSA wiretapping. Dean’s arguments makes some sense to me. What makes less sense are the objections given by Republican Senators. “Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the comparison to Watergate is ‘apples and oranges’ because Nixon’s actions were more about saving himself and his presidency than national security.” This is the standard for censure, whether or not you break the law for your own political gain? Next, “‘Quit trying to score political points,’ Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, shot across the aisle at committee Democrats.” If you believe that politicians don’t or should not try to score political points, well… I don’t even know how to finish that. How could you reasonably expect something else? Why would you want to? The whole value in having the loyal opposition party is that they serve as a watchdog on ruling interests because they are motivated to win back positions of authoirty in the next elections. All this rhetoric that casts democrats as disloyal opposition gets way too Carl Shmitt for me. There might be good arguments against censure out there,b ut the one’s our leaders offer us are not the ones… and that’s at least slightly worrisome.
• The Center for Education Policy released a panel study that shows that schools are doubling up on math and reading more and more at the expense of art, literature and social studies due to the No Child Left Behind Act. There are some encouraging results in urban areas as a result of NCLB, but why focus so heavily on math and reading unless we have a very thin conception of democratic citizenship?

"Washington Politics"

People are often derisive, dismissive, and frustrated with politics “inside the beltway”. On the other hand, for all of the corruption, arrogance, bad decisions, deception, and negotiation that happens in the District, the more distateful elements of “how things work” in Washington have a way of leveling things out. For a long time I have wondered whether or not the executive was becoming uncontrollably dominant in our system with grim prospects for turning back or if we were in fact seeing a historical blip relating to September 11. WaPo has a good article that suggests that the latter suspiscion may be more correct.
If the sheer weight of “politics as usual” has forced the White House to come back to earth, then I would suggest that “politics as usual” is a much better check on the executive than, say, outrageous backdoor attempts to impeach the President by combing through obscure rules. For one thing, impeachments are traumatic and horribly divisive events. Impeachments are the political equivalent of using a nuclear weapon, and they should be used only when the republic itself seems endangered by abuses of executive power. Overly weakening the presidency is likely a lot worse than having it be overly powerful. Second, there was a lot of dismay, and rightly so, over the proposed “nuclear option” where Republicans would abuse the rules to destroy fillibusters in the Senate. If it’s wrong when Republicans comb obscurities in the Congressional rules to achieve narrow ideological objectives, it’s also wrong when democrats do it too. Also, it is unfair to ask the state government of Vermont to carry the burden on spending time away from their own affairs of state to carry out this political strategy for what is clearly a national political interest, and not a local one.
Midterm elections, public opinion, a Congress that strikes back by hurting other Presidential projects (UAE port deals?) in retalition for being left out of the decision making process on things like wiretapping. These seem to be more effective and level-headed measures by which the executive branch can be pulled back a little bit without destroying the authority of the office that needs to still be there at the end of the day. I write a lot about perceived threats and dangers to the republic in this space quite a bit. This story strikes me as one that shows cause for some optimism.

Fukuyama-Rama

A flurry of Fukuyama activity today! First of all, Krauthammer seems to go after him for something that is totally personal and aside from the personal gripe, seems utterly pointless. So, following my read of this, I found out that Fukuyama was doing WaPo chat! Sadly, I had to hurriedly form a question before I raced out the door, so it’s not quite what I wanted to ask, but it got me some airtime anyway.

Nashville, Tenn.: Professor Fukuyama,

Everyone always gravitates towards the “End of History” part of your famous essay, but I was wondering if you would comment on the “Last Man” part. It seems to me that people who deride your claim about an “End of History” never bothered to actually read what you meant by the end of history. Mr. Krauthammer’s article about your new book reads a little “last manish” to me. Do you feel that the neocons that you have separated yourself from represent more of the worst parts of modernity that you are consistently critical of than you had originally suspected?

Francis Fukuyama: Charles Krauthammer is way to feisty to be a last man. I still have respect for many neocons: they take ideals and principles seriously, even if I think that they have misapplied many of them in practice.

So, there it is. Except that I’m not sure how being “feisty” or “principled” keeps us from being a “last man”. Being an ideologue is not exactly what Nietzsche has in mind when he’s talking about the conversion from “camel to lion to baby”, nor when Nietzsche writes his many perplexing comments about the grand style. I believe that neoconservatism is very much an ideology of modernity in lots of obvious and bad ways. So I’m still left wondering where Fukuyama’s retreat from the neocons is retreating towards. That’s actually what I was trying to get a hint from by asking him this question. I feel just as mystified as before, and maybe now I am wondering if he is just backing away from Iraq, as Krauthammer does indeed suggest, not because of ideas, but convenience. Any thoughts on this?

I also want to highlight a question that Fukuyama answers to one of the questioners that really intrigued me in terms of foreign policy organization for the future.

Atlanta, Ga.: Dr. Fukuyama,

First, let me state I think this new book will prove to be very interesting. I am using some of your research in my book on presidential rhetoric.

My question for you is that some of Bush’s critics, such as G. John Ikenberry and others, have argued that Bush has gone away from renewing and using the institutions of the liberal international order to help him make his foreign policy more successful. It seems that you even make the argument in this new book. I was wondering if you could talk about the specific international institutions, if any, the Bush administration should use to “demilitarize” its foreign policy? What kinds of programs should the administration be promoting to take the militant edge of their foreign policy?

Francis Fukuyama: I have several approaches to this in the book. One is a new contract with NATO, that would streamline NATO’s decision-making machinery to make it more efficient, while agreeing to seek NATO support for a certain class of interventions. Another idea is a 5 power organization for Northeast Asia; or use of the Community of Democracies to provide democracy assistance.

I think that this a very good question, and his answer to the question makes me desire a copy of the book to read an expanded explanation. And finally, a response that I think we can all give serious props to:

Dallas, Tex.: I have heard that you are a follower of the Ayn Rand philosophy. Is this one of the basis for neo-conservatism? Is it well known that neo-conservatism is based on her philosophy? Do the far right Christians know that she was an atheist? These people who sneer at Secular Humanism?

Francis Fukuyama: Ayn Rand’s ideas appeal to mostly male adolescents and is not a serious approach that can be dignified by the word “philosophy.” They played no role in my thinking or those of other neoconservatives

Bad news for cows and graveyards

The game, not the blog. At least, that was the first thought when I read this article in WaPo. Next was of the conversation between Oedipa Maas and Dr. Hilarious in The Crying of Lot 49. Btw, I love in the comments on the book in Amazon how one of the reviewers writes, “so porely constructed all reviewers who herald it should be lead directly to the meat grinders. A book worthy of burning.” Ignoring the spelling mistake (as I excuse them since I make so many on my own), I just think this has a wonderful tie in with my last post regarding the conservative t-shirt sales. I’m really alarmed that people say things like this. Some person I have never met has asseted that I should be murdered. Does this not faze anyone else?

• Thanks to Josh for this post in a comment, the Army is now acknowledging peak oil. The first line of the strategic report looks like it was taken almost directly from Matt Simmons. This article writes, “Overall this is surprisingly green sounding advice.” That in some ways misses the point. “Green” has nothing to do with it, this is about necessity. Although, the “green” movement has been trying to make that case for some time. Why let advocates give hard, sober economic analysis when you can just label them “tree-huggers” and move on.

• A case for behavioral economics. I am fascinated by this new turn in economic studies. On the one hand, I think expected rational behavior is still valuable as a model for comparison. On the other hand, I think that there are lots of human behaviors where the hand has already been forced for the individual before a choice is ever presented in things that “old school” economics would clearly look at a choice settings. I think this will be an interesting disicplinary dialogue to follow through the years.

• DC United ended last season with a spitting incident and start this year with a racism incident. Good form guys.

Shall I fire up the "Hutu Power" Broadcasts?

I know already what the charge is going to be. The charge is going to be that I’m humorless. And maybe so, but I do not find this in the slightest bit amusing. This shirt isn’t funny in the slightest because many people in recent history have imagined a world without their opposition parties, and have acted on it by wiping them off of the face of the earth. How offensive would it be to see this shirt in Rwanda if it read, “Imagine No Tutsis” or if you were in Lebanon and it said “Imagine No Christians”. This type of rhetoric is disugsting. We should allow it to appear in the public realm because that is the nature of an open society, but it is the responsibility of decent people to clamor about such indecent things. I always thought that “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican” t-shirts sat uncomfortably on the line of bad taste, but this shirt goes way beyond. Let me know when the cartoons start appearing depicting people of either political ideology as subhuman and the radio airwaves start broadcasting suggestions that one political party is out to oppress the “common man”. Oh wait, both political parties are already doing that.

Go Patriots…

Marc Fisher’s article on the relationship between the attention that the basketball team is getting and the potential for putting it on the map as an academic institution is a very interesting one. Just a couple of weeks ago, I made the same argument about MTSU. They have a large student population, a good location in a rapidly growing city, and already are starting to raise their fundraising profile in the physical sciences. To really be a competitive major public university may only be a major sporting triumph away. I certainly have the feeling that public university education in the South is on the way up in terms of enrollment figures and quality, and so I definitely think there is a chance for a school like MTSU to step into that void and occupy a space there. Does it take a sporting event? Hopefully not, but it certainly seems to help. At any rate, as a college basketball fan, I have an enormous amount of respect for Jim Calhoun’s UConn program, but today I’m cheering my brains out for George Mason.

• More Delay-related fundraising impropriety relating to Jack Abramoff. So, how are those ethics reforms coming, Congress?

• Supreme Court v. White House showdown? I would not bet on it happening. I must admit the curious part of me would like to know how far the executive would go in asserting its power, but the part of me that has to live in this country is hoping for a reasonable compromise on the many questions of the case can be considered. If you are looking for the court to strike down the holding of enemy combatants out of hand, I would not hold your breath. Prior rulings suggest this, and I think the arguments in prior ruling will be persuasive to this court on that front.

• Ah, Lying in Politics. Here we see a debate over whether something or not can be defined as “propaganda.” Who cares? What is more critical is that the stories are lies, and the lies are of a particular sort. They are lies directed not a t the enemy, but at the “home front”, in this case the Iraqi civilian population who we want support from. It is a very special, and very dark type of lie when you direct lies to your own side, so that your own leaders and yor enemy know the truth, but your own public does not.

Previously on Lost…

So, a few friends of mine have finally caught up to me on episodes of Lost and are now current. So, I thought I would say welcome to my geeked out world of being obsessed with the mysteries of the island. Now I get to share with you what the internet community has been cooking up on the problem.

Speculative theories:

Ultimate Theory -the guy who posted actually made the comic himself.
Atlantis Theory
Nine Unknown Men Theory
The Kate Factor

Interesting Spoiler/Internet Sources:

There are a couple of websites – some owned by ABC and legit, others whose sources are questionable.

Legit:
Oceanic Air Pictures Thread

There are also some memos between the GHO and the Hanso Foundation I will try and track down at some point.

"I’m a reasonable man, get off my case"

How do people who claim that they literally want the Bible to be reflected in the law reconcile this problem? 1. Everyone is a sinner. 2. When you have committed one sin, you have committed them all. From 1 & 2: We should all be incarcerated.

A little over the top, I agree. Christian influence in the law has been a very, very good thing. But one of the reasons that this is the case is because of how the relationship between the two developed in thought and practice (especially the whole Augustine/Martin Luther thing). So unless I encounter people who claim to be “Christian fundamentalist” that can give me a very detailed account of their own religions views on the separation of church and state, I refuse to accept their understanding of God and law as Christian, and I refuse to elevate their church above cult status in my own mind. Why the tough talk? It is not too much to ask of partisans to know their own side and to know when people are twisting it (especially since there’s a story about this in, oh, say, THE NEW TESTAMENT) for their own political concerns and interests. Knowledgeable Christians are in general a wonderful and philosophical people, and conversations with them are more agreeable not only because of the mutual respect they offer others, but also because they offer their interlocutors real points of consideration about the world that they ought to take very seriously.

• The Britney Spears statue thing is a joke, right?
  

• Thom Yorke turned down Tony Blair. I’ve had a couple of verbal jousts over this already. So let me defend the hero of my late high school early college years. Yorke said about his experience with Blair’s handlers: “I came out of that whole period just thinking, I don’t want to get involved directly, it’s poison. I’ll just shout my mouth off from the sidelines.” I don’t blame him, but many of my friends apparently wanted him to agree to a meeting on tv and then put a pie in Blair’s face when he wasn’t looking. Here’s why those engaging me on this are off-base. The whole television appearance is inescapably a PR stunt. No matter what Yorke does, play along, confront Blair out thin air, it will be seen as a publicity stunt and litte more no matter what. There is no real way to “get Blair” in a Tony Blair press conference. Think about how America reacts when journalists act tough questions of politicians, we start attacking the jounralists for having an agenda! Television belongs to the social realm, period. I say that anyone who wants no part of it deserves support and not derision because you don’t find them heroic enough. If Yorke’s decision isn’t “good enough for the cause” in your mind, then YOU go write and record the best album of the decade, and use YOUR popularity to go get Tony Blair. As for me, I think it’s a lost cause. I’d rather Thom Yorke save his sanity than try to move the mob in one direction or another.

Bumper Sticker Democracy….

I am glad to see that as I commute to work everyday that I am not the only one who is bothered by “bumper sticker democracy”. This has been especially noticeable here in Middle Tennessee, but I think it is a pretty widespread American phenomenon. I have to ask, whether or not it is an ongoing debate about evolution or some sort of endorsement of a philosophical or political value, what does posting it on one’s car accomplish that we could consider positive/healthy for democracy? Before I answer, a quick aside. The link above has a car symbol for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. While I think this is a somewhat cruel mockery of religion, I cannot help but break into complete and utter hysterics upon seeing pictures of this thing. There is a flier in one of my classrooms, and every time I glance at the wall it drives me nuts that it is hanging up there because I want to laugh so hard at how funny the thing looks. Anyway, back to bumper sticker democracy.

1. Free Speech. For one thing, bumper sticker democracy does exhibit a somewhat creative use of the right of all Americans to freely express their views and opinions. This is a big plus for the bumper-sticker democrats. This is a good starting point because it allows me to say please do not interpret this as me arguing that people should be forcibly stopped from displaying their views on bumper stickers. I am merely, in the following arguments, trying to lay out a case as to why I think you might wish to conclude for yourself why this is a questionable activity.
2. Reciprocity. There is a certain amount of reciprocity in bumper-sticker democracy insofar as there seems to be open retaliation between competing bumper sticker messages. However, reciprocity is about more than just retaliation, which is why democratic conversation is supposed to be more than just game theory. There is supposed to be some sort of honest exchange taking place. I think that bumper-sticker democracy is either “honest” nor an “echange” in any meaningful way. Who looks at a sticker that says, “W: The President” and thinks, “that’s really persuasive, I’m voting for that guy!”
3. Dialogue. Dialogue can take many forms, but there has to be an assumption of fallibility for it to be open and honest. Once I have placed “Kerry Edwards” on the rear of an expensive motor vehicle that I cart all around in plain view, I am not as likely to be open to the idea that it might not be a good idea to vote for “Kerry/Edwards”. In fact, I’ll look rather stupid if I change my mind after having this thing attached to my car, and now my feelings of embarrassment have power over my public reason.
4. Socialization. My suspisicion is that the bumper sticker’s primary purpose is for 3 and 4. It makes the subject who affixes the bumper sticker potentially more loyal. It also makes the subject who reads the bumper sticker potentially intimidated to be surrounded by a sea of bumper stickers for one side of an issue and not the other. The effects of conformity on knowledge have been suggested for quite some time, and to the extent that bumper stickers do this, they are problematic. Even if rival ideas are out in force, there is a conformist push to become a partisan one way or another, where perhaps a more critical view of the issue may be in order. Today I saw a front plate at school that said “Christians aren’t perfect but they are forgiven.” I would suggest that this is a quite loaded sentence. For example, I think the Christian concept of forgiveness is quite a wonderful thing, but this plate seems to possibly comflate divine forgiveness with human forgiveness. The Christian is supposed to forgive everyone while urging people to seek God’s forgiveness. The intent of the plate is unclear. To test my hypothesis that this mode of communication has some democratic shortcomings, I asked the plate to clarify what it’s statement meant… it had no comment.

Professional Blogging…

I decided to create a more formal blog for my professional interests. I plan to use it more as a log of things I’m doing and articles I find. I still will muse philosophic here. This will not descend into inane stories about eating cereal or soemthing like that, so please, don’t leave!

• Andrew loves Chuck Klosterman. Honestly, I don’t get it. However, I loved this article on America’s reaching out to hate Bode Miller and the attack on sprts culture the Klosterman advances here. So, I guess that I get it a little more.

• More sports. Sorry. DC Baseball Stadium pictures are out! I don’t think it will look very different based on its style and materials from Cinicinnati’s Great American Ballpark. Which I have seen up close, and is a nice park to watch a game in.

• Courtesy of Nashville is Talking: This is a hilarious mock-up of what the box for the IPod would look like if Microsoft designed it. Funny thing is, it is an internal Microsoft self-parody.

• I can’t tell if this site is mocking my NSO comments or not, but I love this web page. I particularly love the running joke that Keith Urban eats only at chain resteraunts. It should also be noted that South Street is not exactly fine dining in Nashville either. Perhaps one day I’ll see them out on the porch at Sunset Grill while I mail back my Netflix movies? Or maybe Jack-in-the-Box is more likely.

• Ummm… Does this mean I can say Al Gore is a colleague of mine?