The Insecure Egotist

2003-01-06T23:02:00.000-05:00

Why We Dislike the Avant-Garde
In preparing research on the artistic response to the Great Depression (it's for a conference I'm presenting at), I've run across intersting ideas that I think have some currency for today's world. Let me flesh this out.

It seems to me that many of the staple American authors taught at both the high school and college level wrote much in the twenties. Names like Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Stein, Pound, cummings, Eliot, and even Cather, Sinclair Lewis, Dreiser, Dos Passos....the list goes on. Conversely, the list from the thirties is shorter: John Steinbeck, a few playwrights such as Kazan, Wilder...that's all I can come up with for now. Why exactly is this? Less serious writing in the thirties? Bountiful masterpieces in the twenties by the truckload?

Perhaps. Presumably, literature is taught for its presumed relevance to the present. For me the relevance of literature emanating from these two decades has been illuminated by a fascinating book: Malcolm Cowley's Exile's Return.

Exile's Return traces the "Lost Generation" of writers as they grew up just after the turn of the century through childhood, the Great War, college, and into their early careers as exiles in separate Bohemian communities in the US and Europe. As a member of this generation himself, Cowley relates his own life story to trace this generation's intellectual development. Most of the writers that became expatriates during the twenties were raised in rural communities. According to Cowley, their college educations taught them to disparage their own national and local culture, instead preferring artistic work that transcended "localities, nations, or classes." As a result, they essentially became rootless characters, more spectators of wordly events.

The literature that resulted in the next decade thus turned inward, reflecting upon psychological issues. If the writer wrote about the larger world, it usually described the protagonist's ultimate isolation from its impersonality. Authors became preoccupied with precision of language. Today, authors such as Stein, Eliot, Hemingway, and Faulkner, not to mention international authors such as Joyce, Valery, or Proust have well earned reputations on the difficulty of their works. (Having read the Sound and the Fury in college, I do not recommened it for a light Saturday read. That said, it is a wonderful novel).

What these "rootless" expatriates were searching for all along was a home. They were exiled not just literally, but figuratively: from traditions and cultures of their birthplace, "from society itself, from any society to which they could honestly contribute and from which they could draw the strength that lies in shared convictions."

Written in the early thirties, Cowley's autobiographical sketch of a generation sought to reintegrate those writers with America. The Great Depression became the catalyst for such a reintegration. Faced with such calamitous events that challenged core American values, the previously exiled authors could help America transcend it's problems by actively transforming society itself. This sentiment lay at the heart of the American intellectual classes's flirtation with Socialism, though in many different forms, many of them as far from doctrinaire as could be.

Yet if we go by novels that are considered American classics today, by any standards, relatively few emerge from the collectivist 1930's in comparison to the introspective twenties. Why is this? My theory is that on one level, the writing of the twenties is more universal, directed towards and written about behaviors, emotions, and feelings that transcend a particular time period. The writing is mostly apolitical. Literature, or for that matter just about anything from the arts during the 1930's, is anything but apolitical. As such, it can be seen as anachronistic, even irrelevant, in today's world. .

Yet there is another interpretation as well. In as much as literature from the twenties was introspective, psychological, and drawing on themes of alienation, it dealt little with problems facing ordinary Americans, as intellectuals from the thirties would have seen it. It was largely disconnected from the "herd." As a result, much of it is still hard to master, understand, or approach today. I would say that it is worth the effort, but it is clearly not for everyone. Much of it is "art for art's sake."

I am clearly overgeneralizing here. Yet I raise another question. When combined with other works such as "Catcher in the Rye," "The Stranger," or "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," also to be found on many high school and college syllabi, the alienation theme - the inherent dichotomy between amorphous, vulgar society versus the enlightened, becomes more apparent. I believe this appeals to avant-garde sensibilities.

So I was reminded of the brouhaha over the various designs for the World Trade Center in NYC. Like many, I found not one suitable as a replacement. In this respect I agree with Steven Malanga in his City Journal article that each of them represent arrogant impositions of individual artistic expressions on an unwilling metropolis. Their clear lack of regard betrays the offensive nature of peeping toms and sexual miscreants, for that is essentially what these architects are imposing upon that city. Like some literature from the twenties, it is this sentiment that makes art inaccessible, unnecessarily in my opinion.

2002-12-02T21:50:00.000-05:00

Letter to Geitner Simmons
Geitner,

I am sorry it's taken me this long to get back to you. The semester is winding down and between papers and the Thanksgiving break, I haven't been doing much.

However, I did see the first redneck post on your website tonight (you promise more), and I thought I'd add on. In my research on Snuffy Jenkins, a Carolina banjo player and "hillbilly" musician, I've found that the term "Hillbilly" created ambivalent reactions. Some hated it, but others thought that it was just fine, a perfect moniker/nickname for themselves. These people embraced the rural aspects of their native southern culture in direct opposition to perceived threats from the Northern cities. Encroaching national phenonomenon threatened their regional distinctiveness. As a result, some took what was otherwise a threat and embraced it as the embodiment of what was laudable and superior in their culture to the dominant trends. Although we are seventy-to-eighty years removed from this specific phenomenon, I imagine certain amounts of this same argument still resonate across the South, or any regionally distinctive population for that matter, and also for those who use the term 'redneck' in a nonbelligerent manner.

In another historical parallel, a popular figure in early twentieth century entertainment was the Toby, a red-headed, freckle faced traveling show character that hated sin, loved mother, home, and heaven, and was natively bright, if uneducated. He was so loved by rural audiences that a whole sub-genre of Toby theatre grew out of the traveling show medium. To these rural audiences, he represented their culture in caricature in response to the same encroaching threats to their regional culture. And by regional culture I do not simply mean the Confederate flag or racism, but a particular brand of religiousness, a folk heritage, and an economic way of life that the industrial revolution was swiftly changing (after a relatively stable, and long, period of time when the south was predominantly agricultural).

ttyl,
Chris Scott

2002-11-13T21:55:00.000-05:00

History Channel Admits To Profiting From Nazi Documentaries
NEW YORK—The History Channel confessed Monday that it used Nazi footage to fatten its coffers. "The time has come to bring our network's shameful legacy to light," History Channel president Warren Brabender said. "Over the past 10 years, more than $300 million in ad revenue has been generated through the airing of Nazi documentaries." The channel will likely be required to pay reparations to Americans who viewed the atrocities." - from The Onion.

2002-11-09T09:09:00.000-05:00

Discriminatory hiring policies at UPenn
Follow this link to go to Prof. Erin O'Conner's blog, specifically to a post where she actually puts up some official text to Penn's "Gender Equity Report." It's an excellent post that will get you thinking.

2002-11-08T15:11:00.000-05:00

Taking Sides?
By virtual of subscribing to H-Public, a listserv that distributes notes of interest to scholars in the field of public history, I receive the wekkly (or so) Update put out by the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. In toto, this is how they covered the Bellesiles affair.

BELLESILES RESIGNS FROM EMORY UNIVERSITY -- On October 25, 2002 Emory University announced that Michael Bellesiles author of the controversial, Bancroft Prize winning book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture resigned from his position as professor of history after 14 years at the Atlanta institution. Commenting on the sometimes nasty two year dispute about his research on the infrequency of firearms in early America, the Emory professor asserted that he simply "could not continue to teach in what [he] felt is a hostile environment." Bellesiles' resignation follows on the heels of a recent investigation into the "scholarly integrity" of his controversial book. After publication in 1999, the conservative press, the National Rifle Association, and eventually several historical scholars questioned some of Bellesiles' research methodologies and hence his conclusions. In May 2002 the National Endowment for the Humanities entered the fray by taking the Newberry Library to task for its awarding Professor Bellesiles a NEH-supported fellowship "without due consideration of the serious charges raised within the scholarly community about his work." (See "NEH Withdraws Name From Fellowship" in NCC Washington Update, Vol 8, #21, May 23, 2002 and "Newberry Library Responds to NEH Criticism" in ibid, Vol 8, #22, May 31, 2002). Once what has been characterized as "the Bellesiles controversy" became a question of scholarly care and integrity in the documentation, presentation and analysis of archival sources, Emory University appointed a committee of three highly respected historians to conduct a probe. The committee worked from May 5 to July 1 evaluating and researching allegations that Bellesiles engaged in the "intentional fabrication and falsification of research data" and "other serious deviations from accepted practices" of the historical profession "in the carrying out of and reporting results from research" with regard to probate records, 18th and 19th century wills, and militia census records. The distinguished independent investigative committee composed of Princeton University's Stanley N. Katz, University of Chicago's Hanna H. Gray, and Harvard University's Laurel Thatcher Ulrich applied Emory University's misconduct guidelines and the American Historical Association's "Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct." The committee focused its investigation narrowly on five questions relating to Bellesiles' use of probate records that are reflected in three paragraphs and a table in a bulky, six hundred-page book. The committee found no "intentional fabrication or falsification of research data," found no evidence of "a deliberate attempt to mislead," but concluded that Bellesiles demonstrated "carelessness in the gathering and presentation of archival records," and that he did "engage in serious deviations from accepted practices in carrying out [and] reporting results from research." The committee speculated that "unfamiliarity with quantitative methods or plain incompetence" could explain some of the known deficiencies [in his breakdown of data. Furthermore, they concluded that Bellesiles "casual method of recording data. . . [his] extremely sloppy documentation [and] carelessness" has resulted in an "unprofessional and misleading work." In his response to the report, Bellesiles admits to being "careless," he acknowledges "errors of transcription" (and has promised to correct them in the upcoming second edition of the book), and concurs that scholars probably would not be able to replicate his research. Nevertheless, he asserts that "the probate records could be eliminated entirely and the thesis of the book would still stand." Given the ferocity of the attacks against him, he fears that "every scholar who challenges received truth" will be investigated and "before long, no challenging scholarly books are published." For the Emory report and related articles of interest on this issue, tap into the History News Network's webpage, . With the committee's report now in the public domain, conservative organizations and gun rights groups are invigorated and are now calling on Columbia University to rescind the Bancroft prize it awarded to Bellesiles in 2001 for his, in more than one way, controversial book.

First of all, by overuse of the phrase "conservative organizations" in this segment makes it appear as if this is merely a heavily-partisan attempt by those ee-viilll conservative gun-nuts to undermine genuine scholarship and the history profession in general, not to mention all that is good and well with society. Second, it's taking the side of the obvious loser in this debate, furthering the "Witch-hunt" mentality. Indeed, the newsletter continually places the term "scholarly integrity" in quotes marks, implying that this isn't about Bellesiles' mistakes at all.

As a budding public historian and academic scholar, I take deep offense at the tone of this article. First off, as several scholars and bloggers such as Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh, Clayton Cramer, and the History News Network have pointed out, this is exactly, indeed only, about "scholarly integrity." When you think about it, the only thing that separates serious scholars from charlatans is the veneer of respectability and trust that basically, we're not fudging the numbers. Without this respect, thousands of individuals have thus thrown their lives, their money, and the reputations down the drain. Even if you side with the investigating committee, Bellesiles' carelessness is absolutely despicable and deserves the highest condemnation from his peers, for he has de-legitimized and damaged the historical profession for political ends.

Secondly, this piece shows the gap between professional and amateur historians remains wide. As a public historian straddling the middle, attempting to bridge the gap, this is troubling. It's bad when a respected body in the field of academic history cannot bring itself to congratulate those whose work exposed the errors in Dr. Bellesiles' book. It's even worse that they cannot do this because the ideological blinders they've put on are too heavy to remove. I'm not sure what Dr. Bellesiles was thinking, but given the enormous political weight of the topic, and the ramifications it has for the Second Amendment debate, how could he not think that his data would be checked?

Perhaps the worst sin of all is that Dr. Bellesiles has damaged what would otherwise be a respectable field to take up. It's common belief in this country that the colonists' were a gun-totin' crowd. If someone can write a book using valid data refuting this point, it would be a major watershed in second amendment and firearms scholarship, and a valuable addition to the debate at that; instead, Dr. Bellesiles has tainted whatever scholarship will follow him. The NCCPH doesn't get it: this isn't about politics, and it doesn't matter if most of Bellesiles' work is legitimate; he either falsified, forged, or otherwise fucked up his data on a very important matter when serious scholarship, especially on this political issue, demands as near 100% error-free as is humanly possible. Dr. Bellesiles' carelessness shows nothing by a deep contempt for the historical profession and scholarship as a whole.

2002-11-07T23:33:00.000-05:00

Ditto
Geitner Simmons of the blog Regions of Mind restates my thoughts with amazing exactness on the swing vote, and also what's wrong with the "liberal" position on the role of government as I (apparently, we) see it. A must read, if you really care what I think. ;o)

2002-11-07T23:26:00.000-05:00

Study: Slavery's effects lasted just 2 generations
That's the headline for this article in the Dartmouth online reporting on a study done by Dartmouth economist Bruce Sacerdote. He notes,

There's nothing positive you can say about slavery...But what the study shows is how little slavery actually has to do with today's problems. It seems rather unlikely that slavery itself caused a lot of the racism problems present in the U.S. today.

However the article also quotes Sacerdote "that emancipation itself did little to reduce economic disparities between blacks and whites. He said the results of his study indicate that other social factors must account for current social inequities between African-Americans and whites."
Indeed this is an important study. I have to agree however that it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges. On the whole free blacks weren't exactly rolling in dough, still part of the lowest caste in American society. The grandchildren of slaves could have been born anywhere between 1900-1930 [my guessing], which was the period of Jim Crow segregation.
I'm not familiar with the scholarship, but certainly there also were advances in black entrepreneurship (sp?) at this time, with segregation creating separate black neighborhoods, such as Atlanta's Auburn Avenue business district, where Martin Luther King, Jr. was born, among others. And I remember from one class that I took that the largest economic gain for African Americans happened between 1940-1960, before the era of governmental assistance. It would be interesting to see how African Americans would have done in the next forty years with a dramatically altered welfare state in this country.

2002-11-07T23:01:00.000-05:00

Misguided
OK, so Muhammed and Malvo killed lots of people in cold blood with an apparent religious motive. Still. I'm uncomfortable with this decision to try them in Viriginia first simply because they're more likely to get the death penalty there. Innocent before proven guilty? Anyone? Yeah, I believe they did it, too, but c'mon; if our bloodthirst for revenge is so high, let's just rip 'em out and string 'em up, leave a bomb in their cell, castrate them with olive forks, whatever.
In my opinion this should be a federal case, simply because they've killed so many over so large a range. I don't know the law, and I haven't really been following the story since their capture, so honestly I do not even know if what they're accused of committing falls under federal jurisdiction. But it makes sense to me.

2002-11-06T00:12:00.000-05:00

Claudia Rossett slams an Azerbaijani
Claudia Rosset writes in today's Opinion Journal about the grooming of a dictator-in-training, though in my opinion it's a little low on the facts. Mind you thatwhat the facts are, if indeed anyone does, which could very well explain why she doesn't give them while also raising the alarm bells that much more.

2002-11-05T23:08:00.000-05:00

From Jesse Walker's The Perpetual Three-Dot Column: "REJECTED MONDALE CAMPAIGN SLOGAN #23: "We know you'd rather vote for a dead man. This is the closest we could find." OUCH!

2002-11-05T23:04:00.000-05:00

Longhorns: The Other UT
John Rosenberg at Discriminations has an excellent post that references his earlier post here on the University of Texas's attempt to allow racial preferences. The money quote:

Terry Pell argues, very powerfully, that Texas's 10% plan is a thinly veiled pretext for granting racial preferences without appearing to do so. He is certainly right that the motivation behind the plan is to admit more minority students than would be admitted without it, and he may well be right in his stronger claim that it "was adopted and operated for the sole purpose of getting a certain racial mix of students." But the question is, does this purpose make the plan unconstitutional? That is, does adopting a policy that is race neutral on its face and in its implementation -- awarding admission to the top 10% each graduating class at every school in the state -- become invalid because it is "race conscious" in that purpose and effect is to admit more minorities than would otherwise be the case?
...I would like to think that I'm as committed to color-blindness and official neutrality as anyone, but I'm inclined to the view that it's neither possible nor desirable to be totally unaware of the racial impact of various policies or, more to the point, I doubt that that sort of limited "race consciousness" invalidates every policy whose impact does not fall proportionately on each race. If that were the case, no policy anywhere could pass muster. States could not pass a sales tax because such taxes hit poor people harder and more minorities are poor. Colleges couldn't give basketball scholarships to the best players because more of them are black. There could be no luxury taxes because more whites than blacks own luxuries. Etc. To adopt such a view would be to embrace the very extreme kind of "disparate impact" theory (criticized here too often to link) that critics of racial preferences have so long and so persuasively attacked. I must be missing something, for it is hard for me to believe Terry Pell wants to do that.

2002-11-05T22:41:00.000-05:00

Volokh and the UT free speech debate
Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy has been on top of the controversy surrounding the University of Tennessee's decision to suspend a fraternity when members dressed in blackface as the Jackson Five, presumbably for a Halloween prank or party (I know not which, I surmise both). Go here for the text of a letter from the provost to the students. Go here for links to letters written to the UT Daily Beacon criticizing the decision to suspend the fraternity. And go here for an article in the UT Daily Beacon who quotes the director of student judicial affairs.
As someone who values all forms of free speech, and as someone who knows that UT will lost the subsequent court battles if they attempt to make this form of speech illegal, it troubles me when institutions of any kind start making these kinds of noises.

2002-11-05T08:33:00.000-05:00

The coming Messianic Age
Did you know Elvis was Jewish? Geitner Simmons has just noticed that apparently a lot of people did in fact know that. Movies have been made, as a matter of fact.

2002-11-04T22:50:00.000-05:00

Problems with permalinks
I've managed to removed those ugly numbers that make my page look like it's not loading properly. Technically, it's still not loading properly, but I've managed to alter the code so that it's temporarily unrecognizable, and hence not visible. Whenever I go into my Blogger template, it automatically resets the code (even without any new alterations), and thus creates the problem anew. It's been doing this since the problem began. A few times, I actually got the permalinks working again, only to have that erased the next time I changed the template. Honestly, I don't even remember what I did to fix it.
To combat this, I will not be making any alterations to the site until I learn from the folks at Blogger how to fix the problem. I will keep posting, but no new links will appear beyond what I've added already.
For some reason, Blogger is not recognizing it's own code when it comes to what's necesary for permalinks. I've emailed them twice today, so hopefully I'll hear back soon. I don't know how responsive they are to complaints like this. Are their any horror stories out there I should know about? Feel free to email me at daehwot@yahoo.com. I may just post some of them. Of course, if the permalinks were working, I could install comments and make this easier for you....

2002-11-04T22:09:00.000-05:00

Proportional Representation
John Rosenberg over at Discriminations has some interesting thoughts on the desire for proportional representation. I agree with him that it's not really desirable. I'm more concerned with improving individuals' abilities so that they can get themselves into college without having to rely on extraneous factors, such as race or ethnicity. I'm for combating the cultural stereotypes that discourage academic achievement.

2002-11-04T12:15:00.000-05:00

Kept Promises
Go here for an interesting comparison between Senatorial memorial services. Worth the read, I my opinion.

2002-11-04T11:10:00.000-05:00

Do you see them?
Those numbers at the left of the post title, and at the bottom of the post...is that just my computer? That's why there's a new look. I've had that problem for about a week or two, but you couldn't see the number at top because it was black text on a black background. That's the reason my permalinks don't work, and I haven't been able to get rid of it. If you have *any* suggestions, any at all, email me at daehwot@yahoo.com. This is driving me up a wall.

2002-11-02T18:06:00.000-05:00

Wyeth, Two
Another few thoughts on his post. He characterizes meta-blogging as linking with light opinion commentary. This is true, but there's a good reason. When you link to lots of things, you probably do not know a great deal about most of those things. Therefore it's best to keep some language to a minimum so as not to betray your full ignorance. 'Course, that never stopped me before...

But another thought is this. Wyeth's niche blogging style works because he blogs about something that he lives and breathes (and maybe does for a living, but I don't know if that's the case - Wyeth?). For small comparison, I'm a graduate student beginning work on my masters thesis in public history, and as much as I can tell you about various aspects concerning local Columbia old-time radio personality and musician Snuffy Jenkins, there just isn't that much to say, and less that you want to know. Hence...

2002-11-02T17:59:00.000-05:00

Thanks, Wyeth/ Environmental Tangent
1) For giving mention of this blog on his, which is dedicated to South Carolina politics. Am I truly a meta-blogger? For the purpose of the discussion we've had, and for your purposes if you've come here from there, then yes, albeit imperfectly. I also bring my family life and my ambitions into play sometimes, if only to give some context. For the record I fully endorse his "niche-blogging" technique. At the very least, you know the he knows what he's talking about.

2) For giving me something to write about today! His post here talks about the presence of nuts in both political parties, which I find undoubtedly true. But he makes the statement that,

...your nuts are more influential than our nuts. I daresay that Jerry Falwell, Dan Burton and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page all have more sway over the Republican Party than an alternative political cartoonist and a professor at Buffalo State College do over the Democratic Party.

I wouldn't classify the WSJ opinions page as nutty (pure opinion, sure). However, I do feel that certain groups on the left of the political spectrum, if not purely Democratic (big D), have been equally adept at successfully pushing their political agendas. I have in mind the environmental movement in particular. I believe that most of the young people in this country (< 30)
really believe that all things are getting worse, that all corporations naturally desire nothing else than streams to dump their pollution, and that the human race is a curse on this planet.

I say this also because I just can't see why we're some are so opposed to things like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Besides the fact that it's a barely hospitable barren wasteland, my core belief is that proper regulation and careful oversight can mitigate the long-term effects of humans on a delicate environment.

Don't believe me? Then read Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. Besides being a wonderful exhortation for rational debate over hysteria, I want to paraphrase one particular incident. He discusses the effects of the long-term clean up following the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. As part of that clean-up, certain areas were left uncleaned for scientific comparison to the cleaned areas. The results were amazing. Despite the one-time shock the local ecosystem sustained in terms of destroyed habitat and massive loss of wildlife, the uncleaned areas have actually rebounded better than the pressure-washed beaches. Lomborg explains that oil naturally breaks down into organic compounds over a short period of time - it virtually cleans itself. Meanwhile, pressure-washing completely removed all organic substances from the treated areas, effectively turning them into moon rocks (my phrase). In other words, it was continued human meddling that made the situation worse than it would have been.

Now, this example obviously doesn't apply to other areas were non-organic, toxic wastes have been deposited, leaving very real long-term problems in their wake. I am not a corporate apologist. But I do not believe that anti-corporate hysteria, or a feeling of collective guilt should prevent us from generally making our lot better. Let us use oil now - when alternative energy sources become cost-effective (Lomborg estimates this to occur with fifty to sixty years), they will be embraced by this country, and I imagine by the corporations too. After all, money will be made, won't it?

So I leave you with a bit of advice from George Carlin, that perceptive social commentator, about our long-term effects: "The planet is fine. The people are fucked!"

2002-11-01T23:23:00.000-05:00

Judge orders parents to keep children away from tobacco smoke
Very nice post that raises appropriate legal concerns about the ruling at The Volokh Conspiracy. The opinion has now been withdrawn; does it still count as precedent?
I'll be a parent in five years or so (lord willin' and the creek doan' rise), neither Erin or I smoke. How does this decision affect me? As Eugene Volokh notes, what if the issue was obesity, or physical fitness, or perhaps if we were talking about the amount of television my kids watch. This is the groundwork for a creeping courtroom presence in our own homes. You may say that tobacco is a proven health concern, but there are groups lining up at the gates to prove that junk food is a health problem, that American lead excessively sedentary lives. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I believe it should be here.
*DISCLAIMER* Both my parents were smokers, though I never have been. I'm not familiar with the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke on children, let alone picking up other habits. That is an entirely separate, and equally sticky issue. I do not know the likelihood of children of smokers contracting diseases (asthma, cancer, allergies, etc..) but I've always been healthy. This of course is anecdotal, but it does affect my opinions on this matter.

2002-11-01T23:12:00.000-05:00

Why are my hands so cold?
It's not that cold outside (probably about 50-55, in Columbia, SC). So why are my hands like ice at this keyboard? I haven't been able to warm my right (mouse) hand all week! Can someone explain this stuff to me please?

2002-11-01T21:25:00.000-05:00

Googlism.com
Found via Gene Expression, Googlism.com finds out what Google thinks of you. For instance, type in your name, click on "Who," and see what comes back! One of my results is at left. Enjoy for the evening!

2002-10-31T21:03:00.000-05:00

Not Alone
John Rosenberg at Discriminations has posted on the difference between the Washington Post's and the New York Times' coverage of the Wellstone funeral/Mondale rally earlier this week. This goes along very well with what I've posted on NBC below.

2002-10-31T18:51:00.000-05:00

And they say the media isn't biased...
Tonight's Evening News on NBC did a story on negative ads. The coverage featured the sentence, "A few of the favorite boogeymen that Republicans are using this year include..." No mention of Democrats! What, do Democrats not use negative campaign ads as well?
I know of one. South Carolina's Democratic Candidate for Senator ran one attacking Rudy Giuliani for moving in with two gay men after he stumped for Republican Lindsey Graham, ending with the sentence, "Does this sound like South Carolina values to you?"

2002-10-31T12:11:00.000-05:00

The underlying problem
The History News Network has an excellent essay on the underlying problem behind the Michael Bellesiles affair, which is followed by a lengthy discussion in comment-form a la newsgroups.

2002-10-31T12:02:00.000-05:00

Warblogger Watch from the Right
Godless Capitalist at Gene Expression has an excellent post on the lack of self-control that permeates some of the warblogger pages. In particular, he takes issue with those that fail to distinguish between those Muslims who are sympathetic with terrorists and Muslims in general.

2002-10-31T11:50:00.000-05:00

Geitner Simmons of Regions of Mind is on a roll! First, he gives us this gem on the moral bankruptcy of the hard left in formulating a coherent policy on national threats. Then, he's gotten the royal treatment - a link from Instapundit, for his post on how hypocritical Europe is to berate the United States for pursuing self-interested policies, but then failing to stick with their own monetary and fiscal policies in regard to the Euro!

2002-10-30T23:22:00.000-05:00

Killer sends 22-page letter to publisher
This article (via Media Minded) talks about a 22 page letter that nursing student Robert Flores, Jr. sent before he killed three people at the University of Arizona. The context is bizarre, but let me reprint one passage:
"To the sociologist, it wasn't the Maryland sniper," he wrote. "I have been thinking about this for awhile."

"To the psychiatrist," he wrote, "it's not about unresolved childhood issues. It is not about anger because I don't feel anything right now."

Addressing Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, he said the gun control debate isn't relevant. "A waiting period or owner registration would not have stopped me. I have a concealed carry permit but I have never brought a gun to the University, (until now)."

2002-10-30T23:16:00.000-05:00

Tropical America
Media Minded reports that a game your tax dollars helped pay for not-so-subtly rewrites history to fulfill a multicultural agenda. The game is based on the life of a survivor of a massacre in El Salvador in 1981, a massacre at the hands of U.S. trained-troops, and the title comes from a well-known mural by the well-known Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros, well-known as a hardcore Stalinist. Media Minded even recounts a story where Siquerios led a party to assassinate Leon Trotsky in 1940.

2002-10-30T23:06:00.000-05:00

Free the Baby Lawyers!
A story like this makes me glad my wife has chosen education over law.

2002-10-30T22:53:00.000-05:00

Ted Rall isn't the only one!
Ipse Dixit lambasts Ted Rall for suggesting that President Bush has Senator Wellstone assassinated (as does Rand Simberg). And he calls out for all "liberals" to condemn him as well.

Well I'm neither purely liberal or conservative, but I certainly can say that Rall is an idiot. So is Dr. Michael I. Niman, "who teaches journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College," "the largest four-year college in the SUNY system"[1] who suggested the same thing in an editorial to the local alternative weekly here in Columbia, SC, the Free Times, which I assume was circulated via news wire.

Now plenty of bloggers are piling on Ted Rall, so I'll choose Dr. Niman. A quick search via Yahoo brings us mediastudy.com, which "provides resource links for conducting critical research in Media Studies and American Studies." Certain web sites listed "offer a critical analysis of the dominant media, political and cultural institutions in American society" to be used "as tools to deconstruct and better understand the American cultural landscape." Given the attitude of many bloggers towards the New York Times, for example, this sounds promising, right?

Wrong. His various link-sections are devoted mostly to indy (read: leftist) media, and feature other subjects on Pirate Radio, Social Activism, Environment, and "Multi-National Corporation Watch." Other links include many to anti-TV sites, anti-consumerism, anti-corporatism, and other anti's the broadly characterize (and often self-lampoon) the "left."

Other Yahoo links tie him to the Rainbow Family, where, "anyone who walks in is a citizen. Whether tattooed punk or silent drifter, Christian evangelist or Buddhist vegetarian...they find their place. The gatherings give members, often social activists of some stripe, a chance to live in a community they can actually shape - if only for a week. All are welcome - and, by Rainbow custom,- - all are fed."[2] Niman has even written a book about it.

There are many other links, and I do not wish to use him to lampoon the entire left wing-of the spectrum, but if his political views on the Wellstone tragedy are in any way directly related, in a reflexive kind of way, to his other activities, this doesn't bode well for that particular branch of the political spectrum in my opinion.

[1] from http://www.buffalostate.edu/about/, the website of Buffalo State College.
[2] from Under the Rainbow, a Community of Peace
By Andrew Z. Galarneau News Staff Reporter
The Buffalo News - February 10, 1999.

UPDATE: Jesse Walker's latest column in Reason magazine says this exactly.

2002-10-30T21:53:00.000-05:00

Wyeth responds
South Carolina blogger Wyeth Ruthven has graciously responded to my post last week criticizing him for his take down of blog speak via email. He has agreed to let me post excerpts from the discussion that followed.

On Oct. 23rd, Wyeth wrote,

Often, bloggers are merely preaching to choir, linking to one another, and proclaiming that they hold these truths to be self-evident. I believe that blogspeak is merely an extension of that fact.

The key feature of a democracy is that rival ideologies TALK TO one another. In the blogosphere, rival ideologies TALK ABOUT one another. And the trend is toward less exchange of ideas and more insular talk with code words to keep out the riff-raff.

I responded that in the blog world, the formation of "cliques" was evident and even to be maligned for this very reason. I continued however,

to get back to your original post, in terms of fostering the debate, it did precisely what you rail against here - it preached to the choir, rather than further the debate...

I think you're giving to much agency to "blogspeak." I don't see it used to keep out others. I see it as communication between parties that know each other well. Perhaps by default this keeps out others. But that's actually another plus of the blog world. It's incredibly imperfect. You can never be satisfied by one blogger's take on the world, because no one should be espousing your views in toto back to you. Rather, the blog world is piecemeal, and you satisfy your thirst through web surfing, and by commenting on the pages of others....in fact the existence of comments on many web pages is also an example of democracy in action.

To this Wyeth responded,

I think some of this results from growing pains in the blogosphere. Blogging is - by Internet standards - a mass medium. People are more likely to take rhetorical license and grandstand when they know that people are watching. And they are even more likely to do so when they know that lots of people will be cheering them on at their own blogs.

I agree with you in theory that the best thing to do with blogs is lean back and "let a thousand flowers bloom." My only concern is that I see less, not more of that taking place. Too much of the blogosphere looks and sounds the same, where a topic of the day gets repeated on blog after blog, with each one trying to stop the other. I would be curious to learn if there was some way to chart the rise and fall of a certain topic in the blogosphere: OUT: "Left-wing homophobia" IN: The Bellesilles resignation.

He even provided his personal solution: "My own antidote to that is do engage in what I call "niche-blogging" or perhaps "value-added blogging" where I take topics that I have an interest or knowledge in (mostly South Carolina) and try to add something to the debate, rather than seeing if I can shout "fire" in the crowded theater faster and louder than anyone else."

It has been a wonderful exchange of ideas for me, and at the least, it proves to me the value and necessity of debate. He also mentioned the differences between the old world of blogs, where those around spoke on any- and everything, to today's world of partisan rants low on originality, full of banality. I still feel that the blog world is inherently selfish but also community-driven: Selfish in that one posts a blog as a personal importance broadcaster, community-driven in the search for those that are like-minded. The blog world is saturated too, and that makes it harder to find original voices. If I had gotten in on the orignal wave, I suspect I'd feel the same. But I still see lots different out there. At any rate, Wyeth's "niche-blog" is a helpful solution for cutting down on the self-masturbatory rhetoric that permeates the medium.

2002-10-30T19:46:00.000-05:00

Mickey Kaus on Congress
Mickey Kaus, welfare reformer extraordinaire and esrtwhile Slate political analyst opines on the possibility of a perpetual 50-50 political divide in the Chambers of Congress.
He also discusses the possibilities of numerous election results being determined by the courts a la Presidential 2000 here.

2002-10-30T19:37:00.000-05:00

"No War!"?
Jesse Walker of Reason Magazine links from his blog to Stand Down - The Left-Right Blog Opposing an Invasion of Iraq, a cornocopia of voices from all spectrums of the blog world stating the above. All except the warbloggers, that is.

2002-10-30T19:33:00.000-05:00

"People of Color"
Godless Capitalist at Gene Expression rants about this term.

2002-10-30T19:30:00.000-05:00

Libertarians (for/against) War! (choose one)
Reason magazine is posting an open forum between Brink Lindsey and John Mueller on whether or not we should go to war with Iraq, both from libertarian perspectives. This will take you to the third essay written with links to the other two.

2002-10-30T19:26:00.000-05:00

Rosenberg on Bellesiles
John Rosenberg at Discriminations has a long an excellent post that sums up the coverage of the Michael Bellesiles affair.
This is an issue that I've taken a strong interest in. It affects my future tremendously. Prof. Bellesiles' use of coverup of erroneous data in a serious scholarly work damages the only credibility that academics have. Our only savior is transparency of sources - someone should be able to replicate our findings, even if that person disagrees with those findings, or even if he can find alternate conclusions using the same data. Prof. Bellesiles has broken this code of trust, and from the sound of his statement of resignation, he doesn't even realize it.
Other bloggers, such as Glenn Reynolds, Clayton Cramer, Eugene Volokh et. al. and many other have covered this admirably over the last several months.

2002-10-30T19:16:00.000-05:00

Third Party Politics
South Knox Bubba talks about the need for a third party, and even provides some helpful name suggestions. (Link via Instapundit.)
Loyal readers of this site know that this is an important issue to me. While I do not identify myself as a conservative, I disagree with Democrats when it comes to liberal-ly - driven social policy decisions. So what am I (Not libertarian either).
Actually, I think that the parties are gradually shifting bases in this country. Certain dogmas held by each party well grow increasingly dissonant with the needs of the base until a schism emerges that is too great to cover up. Thomas Kuhn refers to this as a paradigm shift.

2002-10-30T19:07:00.000-05:00

When is discrimination legal? When it's practiced by a politically correct institution
Erin O'Conner, associate professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania, refers to this piece at the Daily Pennsylvanian about the college's blatant discriminatory hiring practices. The money quote:
It is no secret that Penn plays demographic games at hiring time. Nor is it a secret that those games come into play full force during tenure review. When I was up for tenure, for example, I was told by a Penn administrator that based on my vital statistics, my chances looked very good. He told me point blank that if I were black, he would be able to guarantee me promotion, but that as a woman, the odds were very much in my favor. Such comments are often classified as harassment, but I was not being harassed. I was being told the truth, as ugly as it was.(link via Instapundit.)

2002-10-28T00:38:00.000-05:00

I Take it Back

It seems that Godless is suggesting that we keep guns out of the hands of non-whites, at least young black males, if we want to pay more than lip service the treatise, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." His solution is an actuarially determined age limit on gun ownership - you can't own a gun until it's statistically safe to own one for a person of a certain age and race. He does acknowledge it's complete unworkability. You can access his arguments here and here (second item) as well as the post below.

Personally, although this information is interesting in that it raises strange hypotheticals, it's obviously unrealistic in its actual workings, and it doesn't go to the root of the problem - our murderous inner cities, rife with drugs, gangs, and crime. It's treating the symptoms but letting the disease fester.

2002-10-28T00:28:00.000-05:00

Godless Capitalist (what a great, offensive [to some (not me)] name) at Gene Expression posts that if gun crimes committed by non-whites in America are factored out of the equation, the U.S. would then have a crime rate similar to other First World nations. And he has proof! I'm not sure what all this means, though. Is he saying we should forbid certain subsets of the population, namely non-white males, from owning guns? That hardly seems reasonable. (but he's not saying that!)

2002-10-28T00:14:00.000-05:00

I would be remiss in not mentioning Iraq in this blog. OK so not so remiss, given I determine the dialogue, but anyway. I am undecided on Iraq, but my wife is pretty much against an invasion. So, since she reads this at work during the week, here's a link to another long, thoughtful post, this one from The Agitator.com, arguing against war from a libertarian perspective. Neither my wife nor I are affiliated with any political party or concrete ideology.

2002-10-28T00:06:00.000-05:00

Have you read Orwell's 1984? Doesn't this really creep you out then? (Link via Instapundit.) This is real, folks.

2002-10-27T23:58:00.000-05:00

Steven Den Beste has a long post on how the Blog World is an example of true democracy in action. Wyeth Ruthven, take note!

As a former high school debater (and I get the feeling that several bloggers are, too) I find his reasoning especially to my liking. Argument is a wonderful thing. Now if I can only convince my wife....

2002-10-27T09:50:00.000-05:00

Geitner Simmons at Regions of Mind has had a busy night, posting about The Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, and less recently, the memory of Napoleon in France.

In addition, he has posted on Egpytian state television's 30 part miniseries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Take it away, Geitner!

No single document, with the arguable exception of Mein Kampf, has brought more misery to the Jewish people than a nasty screed known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Protocols, as most visitors to this site probably already know, were a concoction of rabid anti-Semitic conspiracy theories peddled by Russia’s czarist regime just over a century ago and circulated ever since by Jew-haters the world over. It is old news in the blogosphere by now, but Egyptian state television is about to broadcast, with great fanfare, a 30-part series based on the Protocols

....And so, with the new Egyptian TV series on the Protocols, the lies of anti-Semitism march into a new century. The ancient anti-Semite Manetho surely would be delighted. Egyptians ought to be ashamed that such ignorance is about to be displayed so rapturously in their country. That they are not should give Americans great pause about the depths of prejudice and gullibility in the Muslim-Arab world.

Indeed, it is astounding to me that such lies can still find credence in today's world. My own education and the values instilled by my parents taught me to question half-truths of this nature, to get at the full story. Perhaps it is this life experience that blinds me to the reality that anti-Semitism is still very much alive. As my wife has said, "Why is anti-Semitism so popular? What have the Jews ever done to anyone? They've faced persecution for 2,000 years!"

2002-10-27T00:11:00.000-04:00

Self-Importance Broadcaster
I'm noticing a disturbing trend in the Blog World of late. Several bloggers have formed a habit of linking to some of their previous posts they have deemed especially worthy, whether it be for the snarkiness of the comments inside, or the sheer genius of their logic displayed, or maybe even because those posts generated the most comments. Whatever the reason, this seems like unnecessary showboating to me. Then again, with a name like The Insecure Egotist, you would assume I'd appreciate the sentiment.

2002-10-26T22:35:00.000-04:00

Razib K at Gene Expression has a long, excellent book review of The Next Christendom by Phillip Jenkins, complete with historical analysis and predictions of the future! Makes me want this book.

2002-10-26T22:05:00.000-04:00

John Rosenberg takes down Jon Wiener, once and for all
Excellent example of serious writing posted into the Blog World over at Discriminations. This is one of my favorite web sites out there (not just blogs), and this particular piece is well-thought out, if not neutral. It's long, and the comments are also worth reading.

2002-10-24T20:46:00.000-04:00

OK I think I figured it out, and it appears to be my mistakes. This is what I'm saying. Wyeth Ruthven responded to me via email about last week's post. Our communication was made possible by Geitner Simmons. Gawd I hope this works.

2002-10-24T20:42:00.000-04:00

OK I apparently screwed up the HTML code on the last post to the point that it won't let me re-edit it. I was saying that fellow Columbia blogger

2002-10-24T20:38:00.000-04:00

Research
I've spent alot of time the last few days reading about genetics and race, information I picked up from the website Gene Expression. I haven't formed a concrete opinion yet, because it's a topic I know so little about. But in Godless Capitalist's post on his evening on the town, which is mostly on the topic of human biodiversity, I've commented (#21) and he's responded (#28). So I've been reading. I may blog on it later, but I have five assignments I'm working on concurrently, so who knows.

And also, fellow Columbia blogger has responded to my post last week about the use of jargon in the blog world. It was a highly informative and entertaining debate, and I'm waiting for his permission to reprint his email in part so I can tell you about it. He found out through Nebraskan

2002-10-22T23:56:00.000-04:00

Sorry to those who've come here from Geitner's page, only to watch me...not blog for the last two days. It has been busy, with a midterm and a conference proposal I've been working on, not to mention the regular schtick. I hope to blog some more tomorrow, but, uh...no guarantees.

In general, this is why I like blogging. I'm not doing this for you (sorry). I'm using this as a means of fleshing out ideas in my head, playing intellectual games. And so I'm not afraid of saying something particularly dumb because I haven't always thought it through beforehand anyway. Concurrently, I love debate (hence the comments), and would greatly appreciate the insights of others. Blogging appeals to my impulsive nature. This paragraph being a prime example of that. So anyway, more later, I hope, maybe.

2002-10-20T22:35:00.000-04:00

Erin and I are watching ABC's The Practice tonight. On it, the firm is defending a couple whose religious beliefs precluded them from taking their child to the doctor even though it might have saved its life. So we started talking about the responsibilities parents have in taking care of their children. I am ignorant of both the case history and the law on child neglect or abuse in these cases, but it is my personal opinion that to let God decide the fate of your child is pretty heinous when humans can do the job adequately. Erin told me a joke that explains this pretty fairly as an individual-rights issue:

A man is drowning in a river. A boat floats by and the sailor offers to pull him up. The drowning man responds, "No, God will save me." Then a helicopter spots him and lowers a rope, which the man refuses to grab, giving the same reason. Finally, someone on shore throws him a life preserver, but the man refuses to take it. So he drowns. While in heaven, he asks God, "Why didn't you save me?" To which God replied, "I tried to three times!"

If you want to end your own life, I am not against it. But to not help a child, who is not capable of making those decisions for himself, is morally wrong.

2002-10-20T20:58:00.000-04:00

Western Civilization is both. This email discussion posted at Regions of Mind is fascinating. For me it delineates why I am not a social conservative. "Friend #2 makes the argument that

"It's true that the East didn't experience the Enlightenment and the rest, but I would disagree that this was a bad thing. The enlightenment's goal was to focus on man rather than God and the end result in Western Europe is a Godless and decadent society."

Sorry, I disagree. Friend #2 is confusing an historical event with later repercussions that were, in turn, influenced by other events and drew off of many different themes. This sort of historical reductionism is not productive when one reduces to serve a contemporary purpose that isn't necessarily related. Furthermore, the argue this way is close to arguing that the Enlightenment was all bad. Far from it; it gave us Locke, Hume, Newton, and others, in addition to the French Revolution, Atheism, and whatever you may consider an ill.

It's important to remember that many respectable German intellectuals during the 1920's also rejected the Enlightenment because of the perceived ill-effects democracy had on Germany, when in reality the truth was much deeper than that. Similarly, Friend #2 would be wise to find the ills of today's society is a myriad of places other than "The Enlightenment." No, I'm not comparing him to Hitler.

2002-10-20T20:42:00.000-04:00

Razib K at Gene Expression has a good, long post on, basically, the teaching of evolution in schools. In it he advocates local control of schools to let them decide what to teach. Here's the relevant paragraph:

The problem might be the philosophy of the American educational system. It supposedly exists to churn out citizens with common values. Well, it isn't doing that very well at this point. As a libertarian who believes in local control, let's allow a thousand flowers to bloom. Local control can be a nasty proposition in regions filled with easily manipulated under-educated individuals. Ultimately, it might lead to the realization that not everyone's child needs to be educated much beyond elementary school levels, and perhaps the politics could be taken out of public education if it was privatized.

There is more to his post than this, so read it. But I do not agree with this idea. It seems to much of a "Kill them all and let God sort them out" argument. To his theory (and to his political beliefs), local control is a manifestation of democracy. It allows each community (as a community of voting individuals) to decide what should be taught in their schools; specifically, whether or not evolution should be taught. He assumes that the logical fallacies of Creationism and Intelligent Design would become apparent quickly. Perhaps so, but a few things.

1) Just as it's a fallacy of individualism that every man is an island to himself, it's even more logically inconsistent to argue that every community is independent enough to seal themselves off (physically or intellectually) from the rest of the world. It seems to me a violation of something for the parents of a particular community to exclude their kids from the same intellectual freedom afforded other kids across the nation. We do not tolerate differences in things beyond our control in the educational system (economics, gender). And I don't see how a love of freedom means that the constitution would support virtual secession from responsiblity to the success of future generations. Not in today's integrated environment.

2) If local schools could opt out on evolution, what's to stop them from excepting other areas? I have no relevant examples and perhaps this is a dumb point, but technology is a prerequisite to living in today's world. Even low scale jobs and the most simple home appliances demand the mastering of some sort of electronic device. Education in math and science is paramount to the continued rise in the standard of living in this country.

3) The importance of the theory of evolution isn't just what it says: it's the ability to understand theoretical frameworks in general. Maybe not all individuals are meant to learn calculus, but as standards of living, levels of income and education rise in this country, more and more people have the ability to understand. As diet can affect overall health and physical makeup, so environment affects intelligence. We should never allow certain areas to block off certain routes of academic freedom, for at it's basic route, its a surefire tyranny of the majority on the community level.

2002-10-19T23:21:00.000-04:00

ScrappleFace is a great humor site. I was going to link to one story, then two, then three. Just go there. You won't regret it!

2002-10-19T23:17:00.000-04:00

Priceless bit from Mickey Kaus:

I'm having e-mail difficulties, apparently due to the feared and loathed MSN "Looping Sicily" problem. If you've recently sent hot news tips or pictures of your beautiful girlfriend, please be patient or try sending them again.later. ... If you are Sicilian, I mean no disrespect. .... Note: I am also very interested in a pill or herb that will make my penis grow 3-4 inches. Please send information. ...

2002-10-18T22:50:00.000-04:00

I was going to post on thisinteresting story, but there are people out there that don't need to know.

2002-10-18T01:30:00.000-04:00

Fellow Columbia, SC blogger Wyeth Wire has it all wrong on the "Blogosphere" and Newspeak. At least, IMHO. He looks at the shorthand jargon used by bloggers to the right of him politically, and makes the gargantuan leap to Orwell.

Pardon my bluntness, but this is outrageous. First off, most groups, however defined, have their own jargon. In fact, if there was a cadre of individuals that spoke perfect English at all times, they too would be speaking in jargon. At least dialect. Something!

Second, jargon in and of itself is not bad. It simplifies communication in certain situations. Now, if I went up to a random person and said things like, "TYPICAL RAINESIANS: I've linked to an excellent fisking of this idiotarian and his Sontag-Award Winning Defense of Islamofascist Paleo-stinian homicide bombers.", I'd deserve a big slap across the face. I mean, who outside the world o' blogs cares anyway, right?

Thirdly, the "Blogosphere" is the exact opposite of 1984. I can't believe I even have to point this out. True, in a blog-community, like-minded individuals find each other. Certain traits, such as a decent writing style, knowledge of contemporary events, and the ability to link to everyone in the world in one day gets you name-recognition fast. Pretty soon, you may even be able to see a bloc of opinion forming. So what if you disagree? Do you run screaming? Do you hear jackboots in your sleep? No. You start your own blog, and hopefully you will find others who think like you, thus restarting the process. There is a word for it...begins with a 'D'....de...dem...

Unfortunately, the blogger at Wyeth Wire has decided instead to hamper good debate (although it hasn't stopped me [that's assuming you can be considered good]) by making a nonsensical metaphorical comparison.

2002-10-17T23:53:00.000-04:00

You can now provide feedback to my posts right on the webpage if you want to, thanks to HaloScan. I'd love to hear from any and all of you! Thanks to John Rosenberg at Discriminations for providing the tip.

2002-10-17T23:18:00.000-04:00

Have you been following this? Me neither. Perhaps I should be.

2002-10-17T23:10:00.000-04:00

(link via Asparagirl). You've heard of the Fortune 500, maybe the Forbes 400. How about the Forbes Fictional Fifteen? (And, you can make suggestions!)

2002-10-17T22:55:00.000-04:00

One Hand Clapping has the goods on a study about self-esteem and actual performance. You may be surprised; the best students felt they did worse, while the worst students thought they did great! Hey, I know how its like. My freshman "Great Ideas of Mathematics" course at Oglethorpe University kicked my butt, but I studied hard and thought I did reasonably well on the final. Turns out if I had done any worse I would have gotten a D for the course. Not a good start to a college career...but that's why I majored in history!

2002-10-17T11:41:00.000-04:00

Addendum
Geitner and I have had an email chat which has prompted some more thinking on the issue of symbols. I agree with Geitner that currently the flag is too divisive a symbol to be used by state governments. Alas, I neglected the fact that it was state legislatures all over the South that used the Confederate flag to support racial segregation in the fifties and sixties. Part of the South's response to the Brown v. Board Supreme Court decisions was to place the Confederate flag on their own state flags - not exactly the picture of acceptance and universal toleration.

It will be interesting to follow this issue over a period of about twenty to thirty years. In my opinion, organizations and individuals that use the flag for reasons of racism or offensive political agendas are on the wane. Perhaps in time their influence will wane as well. However, the powerful images of the Civil Rights Era will continue to speak strong, potent messages for anyone willing to listen for years to come. As we move further away from that time, perhaps the discussion of the flag will move to less incisive quarters. That Geitner and I are having this discussion at all is both remarkable and wonderful. Then again, I'm not from the South, and he no longer lives there.

2002-10-16T21:01:00.000-04:00

Geitner Simmons has a post dealing with the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case about a national cemetery flying a Confederate flag. He then goes on to say,

On the separate, and far more important, issue of whether the battle flag should be displayed on state property in the South or anywhere else, I can give an unequivocal opinion: State governments would be wise, and fully entitled, to ban such displays.

State flags ought to be instruments for promoting unity among the residents of a state. The Confederate battle flag, in contrast, stands at the very opposite extreme: It possesses a symbolic power that is explosively divisive. After decades of appropriation by the Klan (and through its frequent display in the 1950s and ’60s as a general symbol against the civil rights movement), the flag is irredeemably tainted with deep-seated connotations of racism. It stands as a symbol of allegiance to values hostile to the racial reconciliation toward which so many in the region have striven in recent decades.

I find this characterization disappointing. Because the Confederate flag was used as a divise symbol at one time (and also currently by some groups) does that make it a divisive symbol forever?

There are groups, such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who use the flag as a proud symbol of the distinct heritage of the South. They take great pains to assure us that this does not mean a glorification of slavery or unequal rights for African Americans, and I think we can take them as their word. Because part of a region's history is bloody does not mean that one cannot be proud of that region's distinctiveness through other qualities.

What is more troubling for me is that certain groups can poison a symbol by using it towards negative ends. What if certain radical groups were successful in labeling the United States flag as a symbol of oppression, imperialism, bigotry, inequality, etc.? Then the only thing preventing this is the balance of numbers - who supports what position.

Here's another example. If we consider the religion of Islam as a symbol for an entire culture, then it's not hard to imagine the construction of a negative symbol that holds all Muslims as blood-crazed Arabs, even though the religion as a whole is much more diverse. The construction of an symbol, then, depends on the volume level of those doing the constructing.

So in the case of the Confederate flag as a symbol, who puts forth the meaning? On the one hand, the UDC, SCV, etc. promote heritage and regional distinction. But on the other hand, according the Geitner, the leftover legacy of long-impotent groups still commands the dominant view. This is furthered when we give overexposure to certain miniscule groups such as the KKK, a shell of its former self. But I think this image also holds credence in the minds of many people as the legitimate characterization. And the only reason it does not hold for me is because I've had close work experience at the Georgia Capitol Museum with the preservation and display of original Confederate flags, a ongoing project that received a lot of financial and moral assistance from the UDC.

2002-10-16T19:13:00.000-04:00

From the same Best of the Web: "The network's [CBS] Web site features an interactive guide on "guns in America," including a section on "kids and guns." Among the "facts" in this section: "For 10 to 24 year olds, firearms are the second leading cause of death--trailing only unintentional deaths (which include motor vehicles accidents and drownings)."

In order to make guns look menacing, in other words, CBS has to lump together all forms of "unintentional deaths" as if they were a single category, and it has to define "kids" so broadly as to include 24-year-olds."

2002-10-16T19:08:00.000-04:00

Here's the link to today's Best of the Web from the Wall Street Journal. The first item raises the question of military involvement in domestic matters, citing the army loaning an unmanned spy plane to help catch the DC area sniper. But here is the disturbing paragraph:

In an age of terror, however, the lines between law enforcement and national security are necessarily blurred. If enemies of America are planning and executing attacks against the nation, it makes no sense to classify them as mere "criminals" because they are doing so on American soil. No one wants the military or CIA to turn into police agencies, but neither should they be operating with one hand tied behind their back merely because Americans used to be safe within our own borders.

While I understand and do not disagree what's being said here, I don't like the implications. He seems to be laying the groundwork for bringing in military involvement where terrorism is merely suspected, and not in any way confirmable. I bristle at the sound of anything that suggests the beginnings of a police state.

Furthermore, by making the leap from theories about the DC sniper to the intricacies of national security, he's extending the current problem to one that doesn't exist. Should any Al Qaeda operative infiltrate the US and commit small-scale crimes such as this, I have a feeling we would know it, simply based upon the kind of crime a foreign terrorist with a religious agenda would commit.I have a feeling that one-at-a-timing people wouldn't satify the bloodlust of Al Qaeda.

2002-10-15T22:25:00.000-04:00

I complained last night about how the New York Times was portraying today's Iraqi election as if it were a real, democratic election, and not the farce that it is. Turns out, NYT had the most realistic coverage out there! (first item).

2002-10-14T23:44:00.000-04:00

I should be in bed now, but I can't help commenting on this incredibly tortuous article in the New York Times online. So many times this author is close to saying the right thing. But then he falters. I just can't believe that an Iraqi population that has suffered for so long under Saddam Hussein would actually still support him, despite the "popular election" coming up in which Saddam will receive over 99% of the vote.

2002-10-14T20:38:00.000-04:00

Of all people, my grandmother has related something to me that has me shocked, shocked! (sorry, mk). She attended a folk music concert with my father, and had asked a friend of hers to come along. This friend happened to be black, and basically responded that she wasn't going to be my grandmom's token black at the folk concert. This prompted my grandmother to ask why blacks do not attend folk music concerts.

I replied that folk music as a genre did not hold appeal to the African American community in general, but that individuals certainly appealed to the music for their own reasons. But this does raise an interesting question of cross-pollination: do African Americans listen to what my relatives would consider folk? Why or why not? What would constitute a "folk" music to them? In general, there seems to have always been a long history of the white community drawing on the black community for a number of musical influences, from blues to jazz to country to rock and roll to R&B to rap. This has resulted in the creation of numerous hybrid genres, most notably rock and roll, although even that recent rock-rap phenomenon also counts.

Conversely, and this isn't necessarily a contradiction, there does not seem to be the same interest in cross pollination going the other way. Actually, that strikes me as a dumb statement. But at least in regard to folk music as a form of popular entertainment, this seems to be the case. Thoughts? daehwot -at- yahoo.com

2002-10-14T19:15:00.000-04:00

First Palm Beach County, now this. When will it end?!?

2002-10-13T14:39:00.000-04:00

The Unilateralist has well-written and thoughtful things to say on the topic of nation building. Scroll down to Endgame and Endgame II.

My personal take on nation builing is that is was only a successful venture three times - West Germany, Japan, and Israel. All three came as byproducts of the Second World War. Germany and Japan were the direct result of the desire to make sure that Europe was not plunged into a post-war power vaccuum similar to what followed the end of the First World War; I am too ignorant of the nature of the birth of Israel to speak of it with any confidence that what I say is legitimate.

The salient point to remember here is that both Germany and Japan had traditions of a strong state government, even though both nations' govering structures were eviscerated by the Allies. Afghanistan does not have this.

Iraq may be a different case. Although the ruling regime there is brutal and oppressive, it has been there since the late sixties. Thus, in my opinion, the key to any successful post-war Iraqi government, if such a war does take place, may be to utilize state structures that already exist. You may be able to tell that I am extremely skeptical about the notion that democracies can be created by outside forces. Again, West Germany and Japan stand as examples against this, but in both cases, a viable middle class, and burgeoning business and industrial sectors were already in place. Again, these do not exist in Afghanistan, or in Iraq, as far as I know. Can an outside force create this in states were different population groups are constantly at a state of war with each other?

2002-10-11T23:53:00.000-04:00

Generally, this blog has produced mainly political posts, with some personal reflections thrown in to add spice. But tonight my thoughts have been elsewhere, sparked by a trip to Target, of all places.

I'm currently in school in South Carolina, my fifth consecutive year of living in the deep south after growing up in the Philadelphia area. I've learned to love the south as my new home, even though it may only be temporary, and its many nuances have given me new experiences.

But at this particular time of year, as autumn blossoms and then fades into early winter, I always become homesick. There is something about Fall in the Northeast, maybe even specifically in the Philadelphia area, that I miss the most. No, I really do not miss raking leaves six weekends in a row. Nor do I long for the days of running to and from the shower on cold days in the unheated second story of our home.

I'm sure that what I miss is tied to personal experiences. For instance, going to Snipes' nursery for the scarecrows in late October, or picking out pumpkins at Styer's orchards; I miss brisk walks on gray sky afternoons as the weather chills and the wind blows; I miss jumping in the leaf piles; I miss hoping for snow, and getting out of school early, or even hearing that classes have been cancelled! To hope for snow in South Carolina at any time is nothing short of folly.

I miss the damp look and feel of the ground when the snow is almost melted away. I miss having hot chocolate when its really cold. I love my wife, but she made hot chocolate earlier this week when we had our first "cold snap." It was above sixty degrees outside. She's from Tampa, so the mistake is an honest one.

Mostly I miss the holidays. Halloween always meant candy. First we'd trek around the neighborhood, and then we would drive over to Grandmom's and hit up her neighbors as well. Then you throw in the costume parties at school, elementary and junior high, and sometimes even at the Cub Scout Pack meetings. As I got older, Trick or Treating became an exercise in independence, when mom and dad would let us out alone and we would go to as many houses as we could before we just got tired of it.

Thanksgiving always meant a good meal, usually at a distant relatives' home in the New Jersey suburbs of NYC. However, the thrill of cranberry sauce (straight from the can!) always had to compete with the dreaded brussel sprouts. Dad always maintained we had to try a little of everything, but when it came to certain vegetables, it never was little enough. Thankfully other relatives never felt the need for brussel sprouts when we started having the dinner a little closer to home.

But Christmas most of all was memorable, and to this day it is without a doubt my favorite holiday. I dismiss all that ballyhoo about its overcommercialization. Not even the greatest amount of early September blinking lawn ornament Santas can dampen the spirit of Christmas. The chills of autumn give way to the warmth of apple cider, oven-roasted turkey and ham, and the love of giving and receiving presents. We didn't put up lights much at home, and I never liked it then as a child. It was always too cold outside! Things are different now, and I can hardly wait to put them up.

Of course, decorating the tree - my mother has become a master decorator, worthy of HGTV - has become my favorite Christmas activity. The time-intensive, piecemeal nature of placing first the lights, then putting up the ornaments appeals to my orderly side. And I've always has a soft spot for Christmas Carols. Not really traditional renditions, and not the modern Manhattan Transfer, Amy Grant or any other popstar varieties. I yearn for Bing Crosby. I swoon for small chorales of voices singing in that late forties-early fifties rendition, with slightly jazz-themed harmonies. The best era of holliday music ever. Period. Bach and Handel don't have a chance against their powerful vocal forces, at least in my heart.

I've really gotten into the smells as well. Apple Cinammon, Pumpkin Pie, Oatmeal Raisin candles now accentuate my home in autumn. But these of course cannot compare to the more natural smells of the holidays. The smell of pine as you bring in the tree; the aroma of baking cookies; the smell of the "cold" as winter approached, and a corollary, the smell of the day when you knew it was going to snow; even the burning oil in our furnace.

Now as I start a family anew, in time we will create our own traditions. Some things clash now, but hopefully in the future the traditions of our two families will come together into one seamless whole, so that our children will see this as natural, and feel the same affection for the holidays that Erin and I share. In that regard, I can hardly wait to show them!

2002-10-09T23:54:00.000-04:00

Following up on that last post, John Rosenberg and Marc Kleiman have an interesting discussion in the comments section that you should read. Kleiman has been the main blogging voice in support of the NJ Dems. His blog is here.

My take on his points? Raising the question of court precedents is an interesting one. But precedents cannot be iron bound. After all, at one time, the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions were court precedents. How courts interpret law is bound to change over time. I am unlike John Rosenberg in that I do not believe in strict constructionism. Though in this particular case, I do believe the court basically ignored a law whose language and intent are clear.

2002-10-09T23:38:00.000-04:00

I've been following the NJ Senate-replacement debate with more than a mild interest, perhaps because I have relatives there. And so far, the blog Discriminations has had good coverage and analysis (that also happens to agree with mine, but is stated more coherently). This is his latest.

2002-10-07T17:24:00.000-04:00

Forceful words in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web today. The salient post:

"In a Boston Globe op-ed, Charles Jacobs, who heads a group that fights slavery in Sudan, addresses the question of why "human rights" activists passionately attack Israel for purported abuses while ignoring far more brutal regimes in Sudan and elsewhere. The answer, he says, "is not mainly anti-Semitism":

What is this silence about? Surely it is not because we don't care about blacks. Progressives champion oppressed black peoples daily. My hypothesis is this: to predict what the human rights community (and the media) focus on, look not at the oppressed; look instead at the party seen as the oppressor. Imagine the media coverage and the rights groups' reaction if it were "whites" enslaving blacks in Sudan. Having the "right" oppressor would change everything.

Alternatively, imagine the "wrong" oppressor: Suppose that Arabs, not Jews, shot Palestinians in revolt. In 1970 ("Black September"), Jordan murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians in two days, yet we saw no divestment campaigns, and we wouldn't today. This selectivity (at least in the United States, does not come from the hatred of Jews. . . . The human rights community, composed mostly of compassionate white people, feels a special duty to protest evil done by those who are like "us."

"Not in my name" is the worthy response of moral people. . . . But when we see evil done by "others," we tend to shy away. . . . The biggest victims . . . are not the Jews who are obsessively criticized but the victims of genocide, enslavement, religious persecution, and ethnic cleansing who are murderously ignored: the Christian slaves of Sudan, the Muslim slaves of Mauritania, the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt.

Jacobs's analysis is persuasive, though incomplete (it doesn't explain, for example, why this crowd regards Augusto Pinochet as an ogre and Fidel Castro as a hero). But his moral judgment is far too gentle. What he describes is actually a form of white supremacy, what President Bush describes as "the soft bigotry of low expectations" writ large. It treats non-"whites" (non-Westerners would be a more accurate term, since America, Israel and most European countries are actually multiethnic nations) as the equivalent of animals.

This is no overstatement. Some people think animals have rights, and almost everyone would agree that it's wrong to inflict suffering on them gratuitously. But in our concern for animal welfare, we judge only human conduct. The ASPCA won't arrest your cat if it catches and tortures a mouse, and even PETA doesn't try to persuade lions and wolves to take up a vegetarian diet.

Animals, of course, are amoral because they lack the capacity for thought. But the view that it is acceptable for the law of the jungle to prevail among people, so long as a country is ruled by Arabs, Asians or Africans, is not "the worthy response of moral people." It is a monstrously immoral double standard."

2002-10-02T22:01:00.000-04:00

The New York Times reports that the New Jesey Supreme Court has ruled unanimously to allow the Democrats to place another candidate on the ballot to replace resigning Sen. Bob Torricelli. (note: the case is in Adobe Acrobat.) Eugene Volokh tells you why they are a bunch of blathering idiots.

2002-10-02T19:59:00.000-04:00

Couldn't have said it better myself.

2002-10-02T08:19:00.000-04:00

Excellent take on the New Jersey Senate controversy and, specifically, the NYT's tortured logic. Y'all should read Lileks every day, anyway.

2002-10-01T23:30:00.000-04:00

I had a whole post written on this thought provoking article on ideology and judicial appointments by Nicholas Confessore in The American Prospect, but I'm using Blog This! and some short cut key closed the box before I posted and now I can't remember it all. But here's the short version: He's right, ideology should be used; I believe it's nothing new.

Incidentally, I while I do buy his general breakdown of the parties' issues as they relate to the court in the beginning two paragraphs, I do not necessarily agree with his politics. I just think he's right about this issue. I don't subscribe to a theory that one version of jurisprudence is correct over another. There have obviously been alternating periods of ascendant jurisprudence in the history of the courts in this country, so it seems absurd to argue that one is the real McCoy and the other a rude impostor.

2002-10-01T21:56:00.000-04:00

In general I really hate politics. But the reporting in this New York Times article really takes the cake. They make it sound as if New Jersey Democrats have simply picked a replacement for resigning Sentor Bob Torricelli. Except that New Jersey state law explicitly forbids that from occurring. Only a few paragraphs in do we find this out in the New York Times article. But no matter; they opined this morning that the law should be excused in this instance.

In other words, despite the rhetoric that they are trying to "give New Jersey's voters the choice they deserve," what they are prescribing is the exact opposite. As Eugene Volokh (linked above) and The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web have already pointed out today, New Jersey voters have already chosen. They elected the Torch to represent them as the Democratic candidate for this year's election, despite rumors of scandal. Now that he has bowed out, the NYT makes us think that they should get their vote back.

Let me ask you this. If you buy meat at the store that expires in three days, and you leave in the the fridge for a week before you cook it, and it goes bad, should you go to the supermarket and demand your money back?

2002-10-01T21:41:00.000-04:00

Man do I wish that this really existed!

2002-10-01T08:11:00.000-04:00

James Lileks has a Bleat this morning that is tangential to what I posted last night, on the whole political affiliation thing. He must have read my page! (What other explanation is there?)

2002-09-30T23:15:00.000-04:00

Geitner Simmons reprints a few articles relating to John Judis' and Ruy Texeira's "The Emerging Democratic Majority" that are must-reads. (Accessiblehere.) I find this discussion of shifting political loyalties via demographics fascinating. What caught me is near the end of the post, where Marshall Wittman (whose article can be found here, in toto) talks about an emerging demographic of unaffiliated voters:

"The ideopolis may be an attractive habitat for an independent neo-progressive movement. Rather than a realignment, we may see an accelerated dealignment of voters who are alienated from both parties.
The ideopolis may be an ideal breeding ground for the Bull Moose."

This ties into a post of mine last week, where I complained that Erin and I seem to have no clear political base. I think this is part of a growing trend in our generation. (I'm 23) The Civil Rights Movement has won, and most people my age take to heart the egalitarian message that discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual preference is wrong. But that doesn't make the majority of them Democrats per se. Rather those ideals are the basis not for political affiliations, but for life itself.

I wonder how many people base their party affiliations on anti-beliefs. How many Republicans aren't Democrats because of Al Sharpton, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or what Ronald Radosh coined "the Leftover Left." Similarly, how many Democrats aren't Republicans simply because of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, or Gary Bauer?

A main critique of the two-party system is that the center must pander to the "base," which raises the question of why the base is always the fringe people. But I don't think it's harmful to engage in some alternate thinking about what the parties would look like if certain issues were removed from the table. What would be the Republican Party without the religious right? What are the Democrats without....I'll refrain from this since I couldn't tell you the most ascendant fringe group, or if one could be said to dominate the party over its more centrist members.But you get the idea.

I won't embarass you (or really myself) with my own thoughts on this issue as my own understanding of many issues is only fragmentary. Also, this kind of thinking can be utopian, and given the track record of most utopian societies, I try not to think that way. But I do think it's a worthwhile exercise.

2002-09-26T22:58:00.000-04:00

Erin and I just had one of the most wonderful meals I've ever had at a restaurant. We went to The Melting Pot, a fondue restaurant with several locations nationwide. They let you cook the meal at the table! Everything is served in small portions that you dip or cook one at a time. Understandably, a meal here takes about two hours. The only thing to come from the kitchen ready to eat were the salads. Everything was delicious. Our meal cost us $56 plus tip, and we didn't order wine. It was well worth the price. If this is expensive for you however, I'd suggest waiting for a special occassion.

The funny thing is that we originally planned to go to Meritage, a tappas restaurant here in Columbia. One of my fellow graduate assistants has been and enjoyed it thoroughly. She mentioned their chocolate fondue was especially good. Remembering that, and seeing the Melting Pot's phone number right above the one for Meritage sold us on the former.

2002-09-26T04:15:00.000-04:00

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki has a nice takedown of the new Anarchists.

Hmm...hey fellow Bloggers, d'ya ever feel that when you link to something and it highlights a few words in an otherwise continous sentence that you're preteniously putting "quote marks" in the air on the things you say? "Hey, I may not know everything, but "Instapundit" said it first!

2002-09-25T16:33:00.000-04:00

I've been linked to! And since he's been linked by Instapundit, that means I'm only one step away from potential viewership of thousands! Millions! Buwahh-hahahah!!! And all this in less than two weeks since start-up time! This pseudo-place called the Blogosphere is simply amazing.

And since some of you who may view this page might actually know something about web page design (unlike me), would one of you be kind enough to show me how to do comments? Advance thanks.

Geitner is the man.

2002-09-24T23:40:00.000-04:00

We've finally given up on Puerto Rico.

2002-09-24T23:39:00.000-04:00

Well, that's it. I'm convinced.

2002-09-24T23:35:00.000-04:00

My wife and I have a philosophical problem that we find hard to resolve. We're both non-religious (I consider myself an atheist). Yet both of us have somewhat conservative views on social issues. I frequently find myself more in step with people like Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, and others when it comes identifying the causes of our social ills. The problem is that many conservatives (not necessarily these two) have strong religious views that inform their thinking on these types of issues to a large extent. As a result they come off as moralizing.
My wife and I prefer to base ours on statistics, economics, and the cultural differences between different subgroups in American culture. So we're essentially godless conservatives. We're not libertarians; centrist is too broad a term. What are we? And who agrees with us? email me at daehwot-at-yahoo.com if you have a suggestion.

2002-09-23T20:33:00.000-04:00

I posted about a week ago on Tapped's GCCE vs. GSWB posts. Now, Geitner Simmons has entered the debate with an excellent analysis. I know it's late but it's worth the read. Geitner should be an informed critic: he resides in Omaha, Nebraska.

2002-09-23T20:25:00.000-04:00

I think our security restrictions at airports may have gone little bit too far.

2002-09-22T23:41:00.000-04:00

This sure helps explain this and this.

2002-09-21T21:20:00.000-04:00

John Rosenberg has thoughtful things to say about ethnic diversity within the realm of politics. Then again, his blog is titled Discriminations.

2002-09-17T23:17:00.000-04:00

I can't tell you how annoying this is. OK, I do agree with the G.S.W.B. vs. G.C.C.E. dichotomy, but that last paragraph!

Well apparently, someone beat me to the punch. Scroll to the last indented quote in the post to see what I'm getting at.

But I think Tapped missed the point. The reason "blue" America - let's just call it urban, or even urbane - the reason they should "pay homage" to rural America is to correct for their utterly snobbish affectation towards that part of America's population, specifically the South, though by no means confined to it.

I'll give an example. My dad emailed me an announcement for Psych-a-Billy, a bluegrass band that does covers of rock songs. Even in this apparent homage to a style of music born of the rural South (my thesis topic :o) ), they can't help but be condescending to Eunice Stone and the South. Here's the text:

"The Taliban would be thrilled that the word of any stretch-pants-wearing busybody choking down pork rinds in a Georgia Diner, can shut down a substantial section of The State of Florida if she doesn't like the looks of the Medical Students at the next table."

Not the world's best example, but it was handy, although they are not taking into consideration what one American might think if they made a mistake and misheard something on September 12th. Psych-A-Billy are from Souderton, PA, a suburb of Philly, and revealing every ounce of bias towards the South that may carry.

Here's another thought: Has Jeff Foxworthy sold more CD's in the South or the Northeast? I mean per capita; I know the populations are different.

2002-09-16T23:11:00.000-04:00

Excellent article regarding media bias on The American's Prospect's website. Based on the links down the page, this may not be what you think. But it's definite food for thought.

2002-09-16T22:47:00.000-04:00

Both John Rosenberg and Geitner Simmons pursue interesting conterfactual scenarios concerning the future of integration, wondering what if the Supreme Court had ruled in the manner of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (one person, one vote) ten years earlier. I'm with Geitner in my skepticism of its likely ramifications. Personally, I think our parents' generation (well, my parents' generation, the Boomers) needed to see the horror of Civil Rights violence brought into their living rooms in order to affect a change. Somehow segregation becomes morally untenable (becomes? Jesus, Chris.) when it's major defenders have to resort to vicious displays of violence and parochialism.

In a similar vein, I think MLK's non-violence was a great thing for the Civil Rights Movement. If led by someone like Malcolm X, someone who advocated violence in the face of violence, progress would have been much slower. For an imperfect analogy, just look at the Palestinians. I wonder if they can ever be governed without suspicion now.

2002-09-16T22:02:00.000-04:00

There is good news.

2002-09-16T01:10:00.000-04:00

One more post for tonight. To any of my friends that visits, drop me a line at my email address.

2002-09-16T00:41:00.000-04:00

I've just had a pretty heated argument with my wife. We just finished watching an episode of Law and Order:Special Victims Unit, a show we watch on a fairly regular basis. I believe this was a re-run, but we hadn't seen it before. In it, a mentally handicapped woman becomes pregnant when she is tricked into being raped by her boss. Because she is ignorant of what sex is and how babies are created, she thinks she's become pregnant by kissing her boyfriend. This crime becomes a subplot to the unfolding drama of whether a mentally handicapped woman above a certain threshold is able to take care of a child.
This was the nature of the argument between my wife and I. My wife took the stance that, with proper help, a woman in such a condition was fully capable of taking care of her child. While I conceded this general point, I argued that it was the "help" I was worried about. I have in mind the boondoggle that is the Florida child and family services division. If what has bee nreported in the media is generally true about the field of social work in general in some states, government-run or otherwise, then do we want to risk the lives of future children in such hands?
Again, I'm not against the idea. And I'm not a purist when it comes to families either. I believe that some families slip through the cracks. I do not believe we can save all children from whatever pitfalls arise. If we can't eradicate child abuse, spousal abuse, and irresponsible parenting of all kinds, who am I to say that certain individuals with mild forms of disability cannot raise their children? I'm only suggesting that we should measure the risk of accidents against the benefits to individuals.