538.com had an interesting article today talking about the recent populist trends that have infected both parties recently, listing key policies that they felt each side would support. I thought it was an interesting take but missed a few points on what drive's each sides populist forces.
While I agree that populism is becoming more popular on both sides of the aisle, I think it is driven mostly by emotion and anger, which is being displaced towards different groups, which is where the two sides differ and I think why they could never come to work together.
Conservative populism seems to be driven towards big government, which they feel is intrusive and elitist at best. Left-leaning populist anger seems to be aired towards what they see as big corporation and extremely wealthy individuals. I think this divide shows why the populist groups could never form a coalition. The left populists solution would be more goverment regulation, perhaps higher taxation, the essential so-called "big government" policies that populist conservatives are currently railing against.
I'd be interested to know what everyone else thinks. Does the populist movement have the potential to become a bridge between the two parties?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Joke's on Who?
Here's a little story, probably made up, but as the "healtcare summit" in Blair House on Thursday reminded us, politics is as much about "made-up stuff" as indisputable facts. Here begins the joke:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below on a lake. She shouted to him,
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 1,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
Here ends the joke, but for anyone annoyed at any subtle hints of a possible partisan bias, please check out the online New York Times "It's Debatable" blog for this weekend. This feature aims to summarize all the mainstream media's reaction to the Summit, seeking to deem who won, etc. My own comment is somwhere on the first page of comments, around number 11 or so. If you bother to read it, it will put to rest any worries about pro-Obama bias on the blogger's part.
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below on a lake. She shouted to him,
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 1,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
Here ends the joke, but for anyone annoyed at any subtle hints of a possible partisan bias, please check out the online New York Times "It's Debatable" blog for this weekend. This feature aims to summarize all the mainstream media's reaction to the Summit, seeking to deem who won, etc. My own comment is somwhere on the first page of comments, around number 11 or so. If you bother to read it, it will put to rest any worries about pro-Obama bias on the blogger's part.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Airport Recycling
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/business/energy-environment/23recycle.html?ref=science
I came across this article and found it to be some source of relief from Friedman's repeated rants on how unwilling people are to change their ways for the sake of the environment.
Although I understand there is not nearly enough being done to adjust people's consuming habits, in order for their to be any sort of modification, the level of convenience must first be expanded to make recycling and other green strategies more accessible to the public.
On campus there are recycling stations located outside dorms and there are some actually on every floor. It's sad to say, but a lot of students, including myself, will throw away a recyclable item because the trash can is closer than the recycling bin.
I've heard that there will be recycling bins available for students to use, and this is a step in the right direction. In order for humans to change their ways, their needs to be something worth modifying one's lifestyle, and the new strategy must be of some convenience.
Climate change provides the need for modification, but until there are more accessible avenues to exercise green strategies, recycling will continue to lack the attention it deserves.
However, it was refreshing to read from the Continental Airlines representative that many employees wanted to recycle, which help provide some of the initiative for the company to become more recyclable-friendly.
This is an excellent, but unfortunately rare example of recycling coming from the bottom up.
It will take similar efforts of airports, airline companies, and other forms of industry to make recycling more readily available for recycling to take precedent over the more convenient and time-tested practice of throwing stuff in the trash.
The article demonstrates that humans have it in them to change, but at the same time, it can be hard to muster the strength to change when it's so easy and almost natural to go about the standard routine, even if we're putting ourselves in harm's way.
I came across this article and found it to be some source of relief from Friedman's repeated rants on how unwilling people are to change their ways for the sake of the environment.
Although I understand there is not nearly enough being done to adjust people's consuming habits, in order for their to be any sort of modification, the level of convenience must first be expanded to make recycling and other green strategies more accessible to the public.
On campus there are recycling stations located outside dorms and there are some actually on every floor. It's sad to say, but a lot of students, including myself, will throw away a recyclable item because the trash can is closer than the recycling bin.
I've heard that there will be recycling bins available for students to use, and this is a step in the right direction. In order for humans to change their ways, their needs to be something worth modifying one's lifestyle, and the new strategy must be of some convenience.
Climate change provides the need for modification, but until there are more accessible avenues to exercise green strategies, recycling will continue to lack the attention it deserves.
However, it was refreshing to read from the Continental Airlines representative that many employees wanted to recycle, which help provide some of the initiative for the company to become more recyclable-friendly.
This is an excellent, but unfortunately rare example of recycling coming from the bottom up.
It will take similar efforts of airports, airline companies, and other forms of industry to make recycling more readily available for recycling to take precedent over the more convenient and time-tested practice of throwing stuff in the trash.
The article demonstrates that humans have it in them to change, but at the same time, it can be hard to muster the strength to change when it's so easy and almost natural to go about the standard routine, even if we're putting ourselves in harm's way.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Partisan tilts among Millenials
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1497/democrats-edge-among-millennials-slips
This link will put you in touch with the recent Pew Center poll on the state of partisan identification by generation. Millenials, born after 1980, have come back to the field a little during 2009, but they still are the most heavily Democratic cohort among the five generations currently comprising the American electorate: the Greatest Generation, The Silent Generation, The Boomers, GenX, and Millenials. That they favor the Democrats over Republicans even after slipping since the Obama election is both good and bad news for 2010. The good news is that this is a generation that is predisposed to view government in positive terms; the bad news, of course, is that the youngest cohort in the electorate is notorious for not turning out in midterm elections.
This link will put you in touch with the recent Pew Center poll on the state of partisan identification by generation. Millenials, born after 1980, have come back to the field a little during 2009, but they still are the most heavily Democratic cohort among the five generations currently comprising the American electorate: the Greatest Generation, The Silent Generation, The Boomers, GenX, and Millenials. That they favor the Democrats over Republicans even after slipping since the Obama election is both good and bad news for 2010. The good news is that this is a generation that is predisposed to view government in positive terms; the bad news, of course, is that the youngest cohort in the electorate is notorious for not turning out in midterm elections.
Top Ten Political Books & Movies?
The link is to Chris Cilliza's column in the Washington Post, "The Fix." Among his top nonfiction books are a couple that gained mention by Ricci. The Million Dollar Question is, Which one(s)?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/fix-notes/the-best-political-movies.html?wprss=thefix
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/fix-notes/the-best-political-movies.html?wprss=thefix
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Another fine idea . . .
Folks: The much heralded departure of Evan Bayh from the Senate at the end of his second term this year has promptede a deluge of commentary, much of it from Mr. Bayh himself, on just how broken our government is. Since this is a theme that Friedman focuses on at the outset of his book and is daily fare in the news coverage of our politics, I'm thinking that this poses a real opportunity to use part of Monday's class set aside for learning how to do Q by using Obamadogs as a place for all of us to chime in with statements of opinion on the nature of our governing crisis. If this turns up enough response, I could take the statements and compile them into a Q sample we could do and analyze as class Monday following the Friedman discussion. So here's my start:
Our politics are positively braindead: Our Congress fiddles while our country's future burns before our very eyes.
Obama should give up on the bipartisanship thing: Republicans have no interest in cooperating with Democrats. Sadly, they'll probably reap a short-term benefit from this.
Democrats are a poor excuse for a majority party. They had the largest majority in the House and Senate in recent history, and they blew it.
Obama was out of his mind, promising a change in our politics. American politics does not change unless a huge catastrophe prompts it.
Somebody needs to put a muzzle on the former Vice President. Dick Cheney seems hell bent on politicizing the War on Terror. Any Democrat who'd dare say in public that the president is aiding the terrorists would be targeted by everyone as unpatriotic and nuts.
This is a smart country, yet we have seemingly gotten ourself into a world of hurt by a long list of absolutely dumb decisions.
Whatever happened to politicians who put the country ahead of the personal re-election? The political leaders we're left with are an insult to the American people.
The Democrats seem unexplicably preoccupied with blaming George Bush for everything.
Why do members of the Democratic party have to be so condescending to those who don't share their policy preferences?
How can the "Party of No" get a free pass by the political press without having to defend their irresponsible refusal to lift a finger to clean up the mess that they are primarily responsible for?
Forming a Bipartisan Commission to investigate the debt crisis is a cowardly confession that those elected to make hard decisions can't do their job. It's another smokescreen for a failed system with failed representatives who will not own up to their failure.
Obama is not up to the job of fixing the governing crisis. Its doubtful that any president facing the challenges he is would be.
We are quickly becoming a second-rate power, and yet we have the arrogance to think we can still afford to serve as the world's policeman. We don't have the resources to be squandering American troops and borrowed money in a wild goose chase in Afghanistan.
It's obvious that there's a double standard at work. If middle-class wage earners had been responsible for bring the country to its knees econonically, it wouldn't have been bailed out and allowed to use taxpayer's money to pay millions in bonuses for those who's incompetence led to th problems initially.
The future is going to test our mettle as surely as did the Depression and world War II. But our national commitment to reclaiming our status seems a lot less genuine and energetic this time.
The country is experiencing nothing less than a spiritual crisis.
This will serve as a start. Please feel free to join in. Thanks,DT
Our politics are positively braindead: Our Congress fiddles while our country's future burns before our very eyes.
Obama should give up on the bipartisanship thing: Republicans have no interest in cooperating with Democrats. Sadly, they'll probably reap a short-term benefit from this.
Democrats are a poor excuse for a majority party. They had the largest majority in the House and Senate in recent history, and they blew it.
Obama was out of his mind, promising a change in our politics. American politics does not change unless a huge catastrophe prompts it.
Somebody needs to put a muzzle on the former Vice President. Dick Cheney seems hell bent on politicizing the War on Terror. Any Democrat who'd dare say in public that the president is aiding the terrorists would be targeted by everyone as unpatriotic and nuts.
This is a smart country, yet we have seemingly gotten ourself into a world of hurt by a long list of absolutely dumb decisions.
Whatever happened to politicians who put the country ahead of the personal re-election? The political leaders we're left with are an insult to the American people.
The Democrats seem unexplicably preoccupied with blaming George Bush for everything.
Why do members of the Democratic party have to be so condescending to those who don't share their policy preferences?
How can the "Party of No" get a free pass by the political press without having to defend their irresponsible refusal to lift a finger to clean up the mess that they are primarily responsible for?
Forming a Bipartisan Commission to investigate the debt crisis is a cowardly confession that those elected to make hard decisions can't do their job. It's another smokescreen for a failed system with failed representatives who will not own up to their failure.
Obama is not up to the job of fixing the governing crisis. Its doubtful that any president facing the challenges he is would be.
We are quickly becoming a second-rate power, and yet we have the arrogance to think we can still afford to serve as the world's policeman. We don't have the resources to be squandering American troops and borrowed money in a wild goose chase in Afghanistan.
It's obvious that there's a double standard at work. If middle-class wage earners had been responsible for bring the country to its knees econonically, it wouldn't have been bailed out and allowed to use taxpayer's money to pay millions in bonuses for those who's incompetence led to th problems initially.
The future is going to test our mettle as surely as did the Depression and world War II. But our national commitment to reclaiming our status seems a lot less genuine and energetic this time.
The country is experiencing nothing less than a spiritual crisis.
This will serve as a start. Please feel free to join in. Thanks,DT
Weekly Rant
I had the fortune of having lunch with a gentleman who created scholarships in memory of his mother at a luncheon on Tuesday in the Ballrooms. He was a '57 graduate, who spent his life helping others, including as a pastor on the South side of Chicago in the 60's. The story of his mom was really inspirational, as she was extremely active in the community and it was truly honor an to receive a scholarship named in her memory.
The man was so proud to be a Wartburg alum and it was touching to see that Wartburg meant so much to him. It got me thinking about all the people I've met and the memories I've had during my short time here, and felt fortunate for the experience.
Then I resorted back to my pessimistic self as I heard one of the members of the administration thank all the donors for their generosity as it helps make college affordable for students in the face of rising college tuition.
I'm not disagreeing with what this administrative member said, as I am grateful for all the donations that alumni and friends of Wartburg provide, especially those who may be struggling financially, but still manage to give, but he forgot to mention that Wartburg itself is the cause of the high demand for these scholarships.
He went on to state that Wartburg has a goal of creating 100 more scholarships over the next 2 years and this really pissed me off. I'm upset that I have to keep paying more to go here, but I lost it when I saw first-hand Wartburg manipulating the generosity of so many in their quest to make a buck.
These donors could give their money elsewhere, but they choose to invest it into Wartburg, and while I'm sure the Wartburg Administration appreciates their acts of charity, it's for the wrong reasons.
They want to keep raising tuition, so they need as many life preserves (scholarships) as they can get to keep students here but still make bank off of the students.
I'm frustrated that the Wartburg does not do more to help students out financially, but it's really disappointing to see them take advantage of others' generosity instead of learning something from it.
I'm especially interested in the thoughts of those who were at the luncheon or attended a similar setting in the past.
The man was so proud to be a Wartburg alum and it was touching to see that Wartburg meant so much to him. It got me thinking about all the people I've met and the memories I've had during my short time here, and felt fortunate for the experience.
Then I resorted back to my pessimistic self as I heard one of the members of the administration thank all the donors for their generosity as it helps make college affordable for students in the face of rising college tuition.
I'm not disagreeing with what this administrative member said, as I am grateful for all the donations that alumni and friends of Wartburg provide, especially those who may be struggling financially, but still manage to give, but he forgot to mention that Wartburg itself is the cause of the high demand for these scholarships.
He went on to state that Wartburg has a goal of creating 100 more scholarships over the next 2 years and this really pissed me off. I'm upset that I have to keep paying more to go here, but I lost it when I saw first-hand Wartburg manipulating the generosity of so many in their quest to make a buck.
These donors could give their money elsewhere, but they choose to invest it into Wartburg, and while I'm sure the Wartburg Administration appreciates their acts of charity, it's for the wrong reasons.
They want to keep raising tuition, so they need as many life preserves (scholarships) as they can get to keep students here but still make bank off of the students.
I'm frustrated that the Wartburg does not do more to help students out financially, but it's really disappointing to see them take advantage of others' generosity instead of learning something from it.
I'm especially interested in the thoughts of those who were at the luncheon or attended a similar setting in the past.
College After 10th Grade?
I thought this article from today's NYT was interesting. What does everyone think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/education/18educ.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/education/18educ.html?hp
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Vancouver 2010
Did anybody else get to watch the opening ceremonies to the Winter Olympics Friday night? I thought it was a beautiful ceremony despite a technical faux pas at the end that wasn't really huge. But I was amazed to see the comments from American viewers following a blog post on Yahoo about the "10 Best Moments" of the ceremony. I may be over-reading the comments from a few boneheads, but it often makes me embarrassed as an American to see how idiotic and venomous some in this country are at achievements outside our borders. Canada is not paradise, but it's a beautiful and civilized country; its major cities, like Vancouver, are world-class. It has a deep appreciation for the arts; it has a functioning parliamentary democracy; and it obviously has 33 million citizens who are proud to be Canadian. If you saw the ceremony, you saw the first segment devoted to an an honoring of Canadian "First Nations," the Indian (or aboriginal) tribes from all parts of the country. I'd be interested in what others think--about the ceremony, about the comments of the Americans who were given to big put-downs (in comments that contained massive spelling and grammatical errors), etc.
Friday, February 12, 2010
TGIF Funnies, for (& at the expense of) Pre-Law Folks
You have no doubt seen these before, but perhaps they’re worth another read.
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place. Be advised that some of the language below is rated "R."
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
_______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
_______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
___________________________________________ _
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
_______________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practising law.
Cheers,
D
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place. Be advised that some of the language below is rated "R."
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
_______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
_______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
___________________________________________ _
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
_______________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practising law.
Cheers,
D
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Zirra, What's up with Nigerian politics?
I'm curious as to what is going on in Nigeria. I just learned that their vacant presidency has been filled by a gentleman by the name of Goodluck Jonathan. If I heard correctly, Mr. Jonathan had been serving as Vice President. Zirra, I wonder if you would be willing to take a few minutes either in class or here to explain the context of the current political crisis, and what you think of Mr. Jonathan. That's quite a name for anyone, let alone the president of the most populous African country!
While I'm "picking on Zirra" to serve as a tutor to the rest of us who are, like me, not well informed on Nigerian political developments of late, let me solicit a similar initiative from others in the seminar. Please bring with you to class your choice of most interesting news story of the week (or two) to complement our final formal appraisal of the Ricci volume. If you've not done so, you should be ordering your copy of the Friedman volume, Hot, Flat and Crowded 2.0 for the week or two following Monday's class.
Though unable to attend Monday night's class, my un-named intelligent assets have delivered a classified report on the group's efforts. I'll be interested to see if those reports are validated by appraisals from class members themselves.
Remember, our micro-miniature experiment with democracy in this class -- in designing a seminar that measures up to our hopefully-internalized standards of excellence without the professor taking the lead in doing so -- is itself a large compenent of the "curriculum" in PS460. I'd be less than candid, were I to say that progress thus far with this format has been an unqualified success. There have been a few of you who have assumed virtually the entire load of responsibility for posting to this blog. A number of you have yet to contribute a sentence. Does this mean you would be happy with others "carrying the ball" when the group is small enough to make maximum feasible participation a realistic prospect for all who are enrolled in the class. I will be visiting with those of you who have thus far failed to participate in any visible, meaningful way in using the opportunity you've been given to claim ownership of your formal education. I've commented publicly on the horrid performance of last year's seminar -- the childish, immature cliques, the declaration by many non-participants that their virtual silence and free-loader approach to the class was somehow the fault of those who didn't like them. I'm not sure what's preventing the current group from getting on with it, but I can say that you have a right to feel good about your work and progress in this class when it's finished and you look back on it. I would hate to think that there are members who have already concluded that this format or a challenging book are too much to expect a group of advanced undergraduates to take on and make of the experience a productive and fun learning experience. But I'm unwilling to pretend that this group is unable to do better. If Abhay is not the only one that's a bit "off his game," then we need to ask what the game actually is, and what is it that might interfering with "A-game" performance to the maximum extent feasible. Enough speculating; all look forward to your own thoughts as we move forward.
Cheers,
DT
While I'm "picking on Zirra" to serve as a tutor to the rest of us who are, like me, not well informed on Nigerian political developments of late, let me solicit a similar initiative from others in the seminar. Please bring with you to class your choice of most interesting news story of the week (or two) to complement our final formal appraisal of the Ricci volume. If you've not done so, you should be ordering your copy of the Friedman volume, Hot, Flat and Crowded 2.0 for the week or two following Monday's class.
Though unable to attend Monday night's class, my un-named intelligent assets have delivered a classified report on the group's efforts. I'll be interested to see if those reports are validated by appraisals from class members themselves.
Remember, our micro-miniature experiment with democracy in this class -- in designing a seminar that measures up to our hopefully-internalized standards of excellence without the professor taking the lead in doing so -- is itself a large compenent of the "curriculum" in PS460. I'd be less than candid, were I to say that progress thus far with this format has been an unqualified success. There have been a few of you who have assumed virtually the entire load of responsibility for posting to this blog. A number of you have yet to contribute a sentence. Does this mean you would be happy with others "carrying the ball" when the group is small enough to make maximum feasible participation a realistic prospect for all who are enrolled in the class. I will be visiting with those of you who have thus far failed to participate in any visible, meaningful way in using the opportunity you've been given to claim ownership of your formal education. I've commented publicly on the horrid performance of last year's seminar -- the childish, immature cliques, the declaration by many non-participants that their virtual silence and free-loader approach to the class was somehow the fault of those who didn't like them. I'm not sure what's preventing the current group from getting on with it, but I can say that you have a right to feel good about your work and progress in this class when it's finished and you look back on it. I would hate to think that there are members who have already concluded that this format or a challenging book are too much to expect a group of advanced undergraduates to take on and make of the experience a productive and fun learning experience. But I'm unwilling to pretend that this group is unable to do better. If Abhay is not the only one that's a bit "off his game," then we need to ask what the game actually is, and what is it that might interfering with "A-game" performance to the maximum extent feasible. Enough speculating; all look forward to your own thoughts as we move forward.
Cheers,
DT
Money Well Spent
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/hobart/
I apologize if, to some, I'm misusing Obamadogs to rant about my frustrations with college administrations, but I stumbled across this article and it only added fuel to my fiery hatred about the current state of higher education in the US. A college in New York is resorting to 3-D glasses to attract prospective student, wasting more resources toward prospective students at the expense of the education they provide their current students.
I understand colleges need students to operate, but when will institutions draw the line when it comes to its mindless quest to get another $40,000 out of unsuspecting high school students? Not anytime soon.
Colleges will claim such tactics are necessary to stay competitive in the cutthroat world of college admissions. Although colleges may be competing harder against one another, the intense battles playing out across the country do not seem to be caused by colleges fighting over a shrinking pool of prospective students.
More students are going to college than ever before, and even though there are more opting to go to community colleges than in the past, I do not think college admission staffs are faced with shorter lists than before.
I believe colleges are having to resort to such trivial strategies because their "brand" is becoming less attractive to the high school student. Colleges continue to not hesitate to bump students' bill a couple thousand dollars, but the concepts of raising academic standards and basic students services are not so welcomed.
The article mentions how colleges are offering to wave admission essays for prospective students. What kind of image is this projecting? "Hey, come to our college, you don't have to write an essay to get in. Hell, you probably won't have to do much when you get in, we just want your money.
Instead of demanding more from students, colleges are settling for the bare minimum, and this is only aiding in their demise. Colleges are thinking too much in the short term to fix their economic woes, when they need to become committed to long-term solutions to repair the financial mess they've dug themselves.
This means demanding more from prospective students in the admissions process to set the tone for the rest of their college experience. The only way colleges will project a true better image of themselves is when they produce graduates that are the product of a demanding college that doesn't sacrifice academics for applications, but currently this idea seems tragically way too idealistic. Thoughts?
I apologize if, to some, I'm misusing Obamadogs to rant about my frustrations with college administrations, but I stumbled across this article and it only added fuel to my fiery hatred about the current state of higher education in the US. A college in New York is resorting to 3-D glasses to attract prospective student, wasting more resources toward prospective students at the expense of the education they provide their current students.
I understand colleges need students to operate, but when will institutions draw the line when it comes to its mindless quest to get another $40,000 out of unsuspecting high school students? Not anytime soon.
Colleges will claim such tactics are necessary to stay competitive in the cutthroat world of college admissions. Although colleges may be competing harder against one another, the intense battles playing out across the country do not seem to be caused by colleges fighting over a shrinking pool of prospective students.
More students are going to college than ever before, and even though there are more opting to go to community colleges than in the past, I do not think college admission staffs are faced with shorter lists than before.
I believe colleges are having to resort to such trivial strategies because their "brand" is becoming less attractive to the high school student. Colleges continue to not hesitate to bump students' bill a couple thousand dollars, but the concepts of raising academic standards and basic students services are not so welcomed.
The article mentions how colleges are offering to wave admission essays for prospective students. What kind of image is this projecting? "Hey, come to our college, you don't have to write an essay to get in. Hell, you probably won't have to do much when you get in, we just want your money.
Instead of demanding more from students, colleges are settling for the bare minimum, and this is only aiding in their demise. Colleges are thinking too much in the short term to fix their economic woes, when they need to become committed to long-term solutions to repair the financial mess they've dug themselves.
This means demanding more from prospective students in the admissions process to set the tone for the rest of their college experience. The only way colleges will project a true better image of themselves is when they produce graduates that are the product of a demanding college that doesn't sacrifice academics for applications, but currently this idea seems tragically way too idealistic. Thoughts?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
More on titles for the post-Ricci capstone
Fellow 'stoners: I believe it is agreed that Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded 2.0, originally nominated by JE, has survived the collective scrutiny of the other class members as the second text to accompany Ricci for this edition of PS460. We also have Matt Taibbi's The Derangement as a nominee, with the possibility of using the article-core written for The Rolling Stone, as a surrogate for the 360-page volume--if nominator Andrew is okay with that compromise.
Rilind's nominee or second of The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria seems to be close to a final selection too, but we'll take a few minutes to invite opposition of it exists.
Other items are awaiting more aggressive endorsement, and these include Dryzek's Democracy in Capitalist Times, a volume I nominated on the degradation of our politics to zombie-like spectacles, and ,now, the new volume by Jeremy Rivkin, The Age of Empathy, which has been recognized as the Huffington Post's book of the month.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/empathic-civilization-exc_n_448475.html. It is a "big book" -- in argument and in literal length at 700 pages -- and will likely affect thinking about politics in the future for quite awhile. But it too has a core-article summary, published in The Huffington Post, which might be a proactical cocnession like the Taibbi volume.
We need to be thinking about writing -- assorted and diverse projects, including posts here on the Blog are usually more attractive than a giant term paper -- after the Ricci reviews coming up a week from now. So if you get ideas on any of the foregoing, doesn't hesitate to weigh in on these pages so we can save class time.
Ulak wadoo,
dt
Rilind's nominee or second of The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria seems to be close to a final selection too, but we'll take a few minutes to invite opposition of it exists.
Other items are awaiting more aggressive endorsement, and these include Dryzek's Democracy in Capitalist Times, a volume I nominated on the degradation of our politics to zombie-like spectacles, and ,now, the new volume by Jeremy Rivkin, The Age of Empathy, which has been recognized as the Huffington Post's book of the month.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/empathic-civilization-exc_n_448475.html. It is a "big book" -- in argument and in literal length at 700 pages -- and will likely affect thinking about politics in the future for quite awhile. But it too has a core-article summary, published in The Huffington Post, which might be a proactical cocnession like the Taibbi volume.
We need to be thinking about writing -- assorted and diverse projects, including posts here on the Blog are usually more attractive than a giant term paper -- after the Ricci reviews coming up a week from now. So if you get ideas on any of the foregoing, doesn't hesitate to weigh in on these pages so we can save class time.
Ulak wadoo,
dt
Sports and Politics on Super Bowl Weekend
David Brooks's most recent column, "The Sporting Mind," retrievable at the following address -- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html -- is timely and pertinent to Ricci. He draws upon a yet-unpublished piece by a Duke sociologist on the role of sports in moral education. Gillespie's argument is pitched at a cultural level, and he claims that Western Civilization has witnessed three major "paradigms" for sports as a moral socialization experience. The Greeks featured individual athletic excellence and this served as the foundation for Western thinking about achievement and society in that the accent was on individual effort and not on team work. The Roman paradigm reduced sport to a battle for survival between slaves, not free men; and the ultimate moral message was the State reigns supreme in that it is the State only with the power to devise these fight-to-the-death spectacles as moral parables. Finally, the British model appeared with the return to participation on the part of free men, but with an emphasis on the morality of well-honed team work.
American experience, says Gillespie, has featured in the past a fusion of the Greek and British paradigms. Bart Giamatti, the late Commissioner of Baseball, and a classical scholar at Yale where he served also as President, once said that Americans "act like the British, but think like the Greeks" when it came to sports. Brooks goes on to note that Gillespie is troubled by what he sees as the increasingly Roman cast of major college sports in the U.S. He laments the growth of Big Time college sports because it has become so professionalized and the masses have been reduced, as in Roman times, to mere spectators. He concludes by calling for a return to more widespread participation -- as in intra-murals -- by ordinary citizens; in other words, he's arguing against the socio-political morality of a "Super Bowl Society."
That this is Super Bowl weekend -- and it happens to coincide with our concluding look at Ricci's lament about political science and democracy -- Gillespie's and Brooks's line of thinking is grist for our ongoing conversation. It is worth noting, in case you've not read the article itself, that Brooks takes issue with Gillespie's "normative" embrace of participatory-democratic sports. Brooks ends up saying that it might be absurd, but it's still cool. So what does this have to do with politics, political science, and our common life together?
American experience, says Gillespie, has featured in the past a fusion of the Greek and British paradigms. Bart Giamatti, the late Commissioner of Baseball, and a classical scholar at Yale where he served also as President, once said that Americans "act like the British, but think like the Greeks" when it came to sports. Brooks goes on to note that Gillespie is troubled by what he sees as the increasingly Roman cast of major college sports in the U.S. He laments the growth of Big Time college sports because it has become so professionalized and the masses have been reduced, as in Roman times, to mere spectators. He concludes by calling for a return to more widespread participation -- as in intra-murals -- by ordinary citizens; in other words, he's arguing against the socio-political morality of a "Super Bowl Society."
That this is Super Bowl weekend -- and it happens to coincide with our concluding look at Ricci's lament about political science and democracy -- Gillespie's and Brooks's line of thinking is grist for our ongoing conversation. It is worth noting, in case you've not read the article itself, that Brooks takes issue with Gillespie's "normative" embrace of participatory-democratic sports. Brooks ends up saying that it might be absurd, but it's still cool. So what does this have to do with politics, political science, and our common life together?
Friday, February 5, 2010
Color-coded graphics for the Obama budget
Hey folks,
If you want a good visual -- via the NY Times interactive function -- of where the proposed budget would be spent for FY2011, check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
For those who care about Sunday's game, I'm picking the New Orleans Saints for purely sentimental reasons. If any city deserves to reap the psycho-emotional benefits that accompany a Super Bowl victory, it is the Orphan of Katrina, the Emerald Isle aka "Nawlins." I'll say the score will be 35-31, and Drew Brees will be the game's MVP. No forecasts are allowed after Sunday, noon, CST.
If you want a good visual -- via the NY Times interactive function -- of where the proposed budget would be spent for FY2011, check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
For those who care about Sunday's game, I'm picking the New Orleans Saints for purely sentimental reasons. If any city deserves to reap the psycho-emotional benefits that accompany a Super Bowl victory, it is the Orphan of Katrina, the Emerald Isle aka "Nawlins." I'll say the score will be 35-31, and Drew Brees will be the game's MVP. No forecasts are allowed after Sunday, noon, CST.
More bad news on the college loan reform bill
Well, it just doesn't seem to get any better. Here's the latest on the effort by bank lobbyists to defeat the reform of the college-loan business to remove the middlemen and better serve students and families.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/us/politics/05loans.html?hpw
Abhay, you could contact your colleagues at other schools and have the collective student bodies flood the email boxes of those on the pertinent committees. You don't have the lobbyists' cash, but you have numbers on your side. In an election year, that will get their attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/us/politics/05loans.html?hpw
Abhay, you could contact your colleagues at other schools and have the collective student bodies flood the email boxes of those on the pertinent committees. You don't have the lobbyists' cash, but you have numbers on your side. In an election year, that will get their attention.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A federal role in rising college costs?
Today's debate topic on the NYTimes online is on the question of the federal government's role in addressing rising college costs. Just in case you want to weigh in, or take a peek for possible relevance to the policy class discussions.
I'm working on finishing up the Avatar Q sample, which reminds me that we'd considered designating this as a "text" for a capstone class discussion. If so, I'd recommend that those who've not seen it, try to do so soon. For those like me who don't get into science fiction, I'll just say that you'll likely not be turned off by this one by its genre alone. In fact, the technical wizardry almost makes it a genre unto itself.
I'm working on finishing up the Avatar Q sample, which reminds me that we'd considered designating this as a "text" for a capstone class discussion. If so, I'd recommend that those who've not seen it, try to do so soon. For those like me who don't get into science fiction, I'll just say that you'll likely not be turned off by this one by its genre alone. In fact, the technical wizardry almost makes it a genre unto itself.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
1994 = 2010?
I couldn't help but think of the Presidency class I had with a few fellow Capstoners in the fall of '08 when I was listening to the State of the Union. Obama's defensive nature I interpreted to indicate that the Democrats are concerned about the wave of Repbublican momentum (although I'm not sure if such alarm is truly warranted).
I related this with the Presidency class as the Democrats fell hard in 1994 after Clinton's health care debacle, a similar dilemma the Obama Administration is facing right now. I discussed this with Justin in the policy class and I did agree with him on how the Democrats will not stand to lose as much as they did in 1994 this fall.
However, after reading the attached article, I can see a 1994-like defeat, although not as devastation, for the democrats as a more realistic possibility with the remarks from Obama. His "the difference is me" stance on the comparison between 1994 and 2010 makes me question if he has what it takes to stop the rush from Republicans.
In 1994, Clinton was able to do what he did best, be a politician, relate with people, and project an image in response to the Republican resurgence, which allowed him to turn sure defeat into re-election.
Obama may be extremely popular, but I have yet to see anything that indicates he is half the politician that Clinton was, which i why his lackadaisical demeanor should be a concern for Democrats.
The honeymoon from the the election is over, but this article shows that many in the White House still believe they can bank on the support they received almost a year and a half ago. While indicating that nothing is wrong is an understandable strategy, it's alarming to see Obama does not seem to bother to acknowledge the current political environment as Republicans pick up steam.
Although I don't feel Republicans will rush congress and retake the majority like they did in 1994, and there is no sign they have a charismatic leader to sphere head such a movement like Newt Gingrich, Obama's lack of interest toward the opposition only serves as an opportunity for Republicans to gain legitimacy among the public and stall any progress that Democrats hope to make. Thoughts?
I related this with the Presidency class as the Democrats fell hard in 1994 after Clinton's health care debacle, a similar dilemma the Obama Administration is facing right now. I discussed this with Justin in the policy class and I did agree with him on how the Democrats will not stand to lose as much as they did in 1994 this fall.
However, after reading the attached article, I can see a 1994-like defeat, although not as devastation, for the democrats as a more realistic possibility with the remarks from Obama. His "the difference is me" stance on the comparison between 1994 and 2010 makes me question if he has what it takes to stop the rush from Republicans.
In 1994, Clinton was able to do what he did best, be a politician, relate with people, and project an image in response to the Republican resurgence, which allowed him to turn sure defeat into re-election.
Obama may be extremely popular, but I have yet to see anything that indicates he is half the politician that Clinton was, which i why his lackadaisical demeanor should be a concern for Democrats.
The honeymoon from the the election is over, but this article shows that many in the White House still believe they can bank on the support they received almost a year and a half ago. While indicating that nothing is wrong is an understandable strategy, it's alarming to see Obama does not seem to bother to acknowledge the current political environment as Republicans pick up steam.
Although I don't feel Republicans will rush congress and retake the majority like they did in 1994, and there is no sign they have a charismatic leader to sphere head such a movement like Newt Gingrich, Obama's lack of interest toward the opposition only serves as an opportunity for Republicans to gain legitimacy among the public and stall any progress that Democrats hope to make. Thoughts?
Direct Democracy
I ran into this post today on Politico: www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith (you might have to scroll down- it's called The Arrival of Direct Democracy.
In it, an article is linked that discusses how technological updates have brought us closer to direct democracy have brought partisanship to an all-time high and may be responsible for the ideological purity demanded by both sides (particularly in healthcare). It also suggests this may be responsible for the government gridlock seen recently.
It also seems like a call for a return to the elite model (Smith disagrees) and actually lays the blame of government failures not at the expenditure of political energy at things like American Idol but rather at the fact that there is too much involvement now.
What does everyone think? Personally, I think the (at the risk of sounding like a snob) that some of the grassroots energy in the Republican Party has driven it away from any attempt to governing. Personally, I feel a return to a elite-run model in that party would in fact benefit the way in which government ran. Not so sure on the Democrat side (don't follow their politics as well). But I'd be interested in what everyone thinks...
In it, an article is linked that discusses how technological updates have brought us closer to direct democracy have brought partisanship to an all-time high and may be responsible for the ideological purity demanded by both sides (particularly in healthcare). It also suggests this may be responsible for the government gridlock seen recently.
It also seems like a call for a return to the elite model (Smith disagrees) and actually lays the blame of government failures not at the expenditure of political energy at things like American Idol but rather at the fact that there is too much involvement now.
What does everyone think? Personally, I think the (at the risk of sounding like a snob) that some of the grassroots energy in the Republican Party has driven it away from any attempt to governing. Personally, I feel a return to a elite-run model in that party would in fact benefit the way in which government ran. Not so sure on the Democrat side (don't follow their politics as well). But I'd be interested in what everyone thinks...
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Post Racial?
Since the election President Obama there has been a lot of discussion on what "race" means in the US today. Has one presidential election moved us beyond our history of racial discrimination and prejudice, are we a post-racial nation? This subject is often tackled from an intellectual or public-opinion angle. What does it mean for the man/woman on the street, though? Information like this, from today's NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02herbert.html serves a reminder that rationalized racism is still alive and well, at the levels of power where it matters the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)