Well, what now?

Capstone10 is basically over -- though I'm not finished appending comments to the Q study papers yet -- and I thought about closing down Obamadogs for another year. But what would I vent my spleen on with regard to the bizarre political "reality" we find ourselves in? I could continue to write the White House (and I will) and I could continue to fire off comments on the NY Times columnists. (I probably will, but I'm still ticked because my comment on David Brooks' piece today, "Riders of the Storm," where he claims the internet does not contribute to our polarized political discourse did not get published. I'm ticked because Brooks started his essay with a thought that was ascribed to Cass Sunstein, ex-husband of Martha Nusbaum (our convo lady last fall) and now an employee in the Obama White House. The piece, "The Daily We" that was attributed to Sunstein, and became the root of his argument that the Internet is indeed a pro-democratic force is actually a chapter in Sunstein's book on the internet, Republic.com; except the title is "The Daily Me," not we, and the point is that we can and do customize our access to "news" and "politics" so as not to have to engage in genuine dialogue across points of view. In other words, Sunstein was arguing exactly the opposite of what he was be cited to support by Brooks.

The Times will have to print a retraction tomorrow, but it will appear in a small-print part of the hardcopy and most will not notice it. But this ticks me off in the same way my comment about Zirra's entry on Avatar and my position on Factor 3 made me aware of. Brooks is a highly paid, well-regard journalist, conservative or not, and such an error should not pass a good copy editor. There are lots of thoughtful commentaries on our public life that don't match the market value of a NY Times columnist. Hence my irritation that, once again, there's such a disparity between real value and the market's version.

That said, I'll be leaving Obamadogs open for all you folks who'll be moving on to solve other problems and endure other challenges (and a jerk or two as well) en route to the completion of the credential thing. You have a right to feel pretty good about your Capstone class: thanks to Justin's initiative, we read a good and timely book that will not lose its value -- market or otherwise -- as the world moves to address the ills Friedman charts. You upheld obligations for doing work worthy of a senior seminar at this college without the onerous incentive or threat of the grade. That's an important lesson in itself: we have our individual standards, and we have our commitments to adhere to group standards, self-imposed as well. The Q studies were quite impressive for first-time ventures, pilot studies, to be unertaken with minimal time, no resources to pay for the dirt work of research -- data collection and the like -- and they all dealt with important aspects of the human experience. And each has possibilities for further "refinement" in pushing the envelope on what we know about phenomena that, frankly, we don't know that much about.

So congrats to all. You've on the brink of achieving an important marker in your formal educations. But whether the formal journey continues or not, perhaps the most overlooked achievement is that you've come along way down the road of learning, far enough to realize that the formal stuff is only a start, really. The informal will, God willing, never grow old; and no matter how specialized your personal inquiries might take you, may the excitement of discovery continue to be enhanced by sharing it.

Cheers,
DT