So what do P.Z. Myes and my shoddy German have in common? Virtually nothing, but Myers led me to an article in Der Spiegel that I can actually read! Of course, it helps to know the cast of characters and the plot in advance, but I digress. To learn all about Ben Stein's new fiasco, check out the Times' piece here. "Premise Media," indeed. Anybody else smell the Dis-discovery Institute?
For Myers' usual irreverent take on the muddy affair, do see this.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Moyers Interviews Bogle
Bill Moyers is once again reminding us of the power of good reporting. Moyers Journal, his new show on PBS, has had some of the most provocative and timely interviews and reports of any on television (which is, sadly, not saying as much as it really should be...).
The most recent episode features an interview with the founder of The Vanguard Group, John Bogle, who has some rather withering things to say about the health of the latest twist on American capitalism. Bogle recently published a lively essay in Daedalus, which is available via Moyers' PBS site here.
Moyers also reports on the fraud and (lack of) funds oversight in Iraq, and manages to pack in an interview with George Packer and Deb Amos on the topic of the Iraqi refugee crisis. Thank you, Bill.
The most recent episode features an interview with the founder of The Vanguard Group, John Bogle, who has some rather withering things to say about the health of the latest twist on American capitalism. Bogle recently published a lively essay in Daedalus, which is available via Moyers' PBS site here.
Moyers also reports on the fraud and (lack of) funds oversight in Iraq, and manages to pack in an interview with George Packer and Deb Amos on the topic of the Iraqi refugee crisis. Thank you, Bill.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Evangelicals Hear Ahmadinejad, Flock to Iran
Watching Ahmadinajad's recent speech at Columbia, this peculiar line appeared to me, and I thought instantly that it would make a good front page article for The Onion. This, because, what struck me most about the speech was just how congenial its general message was to the evangelical right in America, stressing the priority of spirituality--or spiritual science--over material science, the various evils inherent in allowing secular powers to pervert the lessons of science, and, of course, the implicit message that only a continual return to the teachings of the prophets, which function precisely to enlighten us to the prejudices and bigotry of our age (or any other) might allow us to escape the disastrous fate of secularization.
So I think I might have, accidentally, stumbled onto a modest proposal for all of those right-wing evangelicals in the U.S. who so bemoan the forces of secularization: Go to Iran! They'll love you there. They agree with virtually every one of your major policy initiatives, from the teaching of religious texts, to the squashing of anti-religious speech. And as an added bonus, they don't even have any homosexuals! Bon Chance!
Incidentally, in all seriousness, those interested in a more informed view of the much-hyped Ahmadinejad would do well to read this.
So I think I might have, accidentally, stumbled onto a modest proposal for all of those right-wing evangelicals in the U.S. who so bemoan the forces of secularization: Go to Iran! They'll love you there. They agree with virtually every one of your major policy initiatives, from the teaching of religious texts, to the squashing of anti-religious speech. And as an added bonus, they don't even have any homosexuals! Bon Chance!
Incidentally, in all seriousness, those interested in a more informed view of the much-hyped Ahmadinejad would do well to read this.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Profile of Justice Stevens
Jeffrey Rosen has written a very nice profile of the Supreme Court's oldest and longest-serving justice, John Paul Stevens. The piece is perhaps a bit too deferential, but given the Justices' notorious aversion to publicity, it's something of a coup that Rosen would be granted such exclusive access to a sitting member of the Court.
Rosen's easy style almost obscures what I think is the piece's most interesting puzzle--explaining how a self-styled "conservative" Ford appointee has come to be viewed as the leader of the "liberal" wing of the court. But the notion that an expert member of an institution that functions by attempting to reconcile new and difficult decisions with a standing body of law and its various interpretations through history could be correctly viewed as anything other than "conservative," should be seen at the outset as laughable.
There is, to be sure, a question about the priority that different values should receive in the process of reconciling the new decisions with the old. But when any given faction of the court prioritizes its values in a way that is consistently at odds with standing precedent, it's difficult to see how they may, without irony, meaningfully be styled "conservatives."
"Radical unitary executive statist thugs," would, I suppose, have been been a bit gratuitous. Rosen chose instead "movement conservatives," a phrase so oxy-moronic that it at once gives up the game, for those who trouble themselves to think about it.
Rosen's easy style almost obscures what I think is the piece's most interesting puzzle--explaining how a self-styled "conservative" Ford appointee has come to be viewed as the leader of the "liberal" wing of the court. But the notion that an expert member of an institution that functions by attempting to reconcile new and difficult decisions with a standing body of law and its various interpretations through history could be correctly viewed as anything other than "conservative," should be seen at the outset as laughable.
There is, to be sure, a question about the priority that different values should receive in the process of reconciling the new decisions with the old. But when any given faction of the court prioritizes its values in a way that is consistently at odds with standing precedent, it's difficult to see how they may, without irony, meaningfully be styled "conservatives."
"Radical unitary executive statist thugs," would, I suppose, have been been a bit gratuitous. Rosen chose instead "movement conservatives," a phrase so oxy-moronic that it at once gives up the game, for those who trouble themselves to think about it.
New Krugman Blog
Friday, September 21, 2007
Royksopp - Remind Me
I just can't seem to get enough of this video. For extra bonus points, guess the commercial that uses a variant. This is sheer genius!
Naomi Klein's New Project
Naomi Klein has just published a new book, and it looks well worth the read. As an added bonus, she's managed to enlist the help of the fabulous Cuaron family to help craft a short film.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Dworkin on the Roberts Court
The somewhat controversial but always interesting Ronald Dworkin has penned a must-read essay in this Month's edition of the New York Review of Books. It details the setbacks suffered under the new five-justice conservative voting bloc of the US Supreme Court. However short, it's not a happy history, and certainly doesn't bode well for the coming decades. I highly recommend giving it a careful read.
Krugman Again
Now that the times has decided to end "Times Select," I suppose I can once more indulge in guilt-free linking to Krugman columns. Last Friday's column was his best work in a good while. In it, he outlines not only the new Inside-the-Oil-Industry evidence of failure in Iraq, but the first intelligent explanation for the bungler-in-chief's new willingness to trot out the latest in a long series of revisionist Vietnam analogies. I recently had occasion to read a rather good book on this subject by a fellow named Bruce Franklin, a short review of which can be found here. In essence, Franklin tells the story of the successful political and media campaign to refashion Vietnam as both a war in which the North Vietnamese were the violent agressors, but worse, in which American defeat [whatever that might mean in this context] is explained by an evil domestic empire of liberal reporters and spitting, violent, anti-war activists. Kudos to Krugman for connecting the dots.
Response to the Tasering
Among the various responses to the tasering incident at UF, the two that have garnered the most attention are those of University President J. Bernard Machen and Senator Kerry.
First let's review, in pertinent part, Machen's response:
"I want to state going in that we're absolutely committed to having a safe environment for our faculty and our students so that the free exchange of ideas can occur....The incident that occurred yesterday is regretful for us because civil discourse and dialogue did not occur."
In light of recent events, the efficacy and/or existence of any such committment is questionable. And we should note that the second claim is patently false. Even if true, it's a non-starter. It's false because civil discourse and dialogue certainly did occur, at least for some period. It's a non-starter because the non-occurrence of civil discourse isn't, by itself, reason for regret. That a University President should indulge in meaningless speech isn't surprising, but it is, at least in this case, regrettable.
More difficult to understand is the response of Sen. Kerry. I'm referring, not to his after-event statement, but to his behaviour during the arrest. His defenders have claimed that he tried to intervene and answer the question. But shouldn't we ask whether this is sufficient? Of all the people in the audience, Mr. Kerry was probably the only one who has taken an oath to "support and defend" the US Constitution. Mr. Kerry, more than anyone, should appreciate the scope of constitutional free speech protections. He can't claim ignorance of circumstances. He was interacting with Meyer as the police approached and dragged him away. Whether or not he knew about the tasing is strictly beside the point. Meyer's speech rights went out the window the minute armed guards laid hands on him. Nor can Kerry plausibly claim that police intervention made the event a police matter. As a Senator, one would hope that he would be in a better place to discern what sorts of actions do and do not fall under the domain of police enforcement than even the best trained of the campus two-five. Had Mr. Kerry been any sort of leader, he would have used the incident to actually teach his audience about civil discourse by example.
We seem to have become confused about the meaning of "civil discourse." To be civil, a discourse need not be polite, nor deferential, nor soft spoken. "Civil," is a description, not of the form of speech, but of the forum. Obnoxious, biggoted, and even hateful speech also falls within its purview. We protect speech not because it's polite or convivial, but because protecting speech--especially speech with which we profoundly disagree--preserves our own right of self expression and defense, and (sometimes) promotes just the sort of debate which is necessary to the health of a democratic society. We tolerate free speech because the suppression of speech is a paramount--and, as in this case, often violent--failure of civil discourse. We tolerate free speech because not to do so prompts those who are censored to turn to alternative, sometimes violent, means of expression. We tolerate free speech because the violent suppression of speech is itself a ground for violent reprisal.
Which brings me to my last point. It is, perhaps, not shocking to find that Machen is mealy-mouthed, or even that Kerry is a coward. What is more shocking, to my mind, is that an auditorium full of able-bodied students at a public university should tolerate, under any circumstances, this sort of abuse. Those who aren't willing to fight to protect their own rights will, in due course, lose them.
Welcome to the police state.
First let's review, in pertinent part, Machen's response:
"I want to state going in that we're absolutely committed to having a safe environment for our faculty and our students so that the free exchange of ideas can occur....The incident that occurred yesterday is regretful for us because civil discourse and dialogue did not occur."
In light of recent events, the efficacy and/or existence of any such committment is questionable. And we should note that the second claim is patently false. Even if true, it's a non-starter. It's false because civil discourse and dialogue certainly did occur, at least for some period. It's a non-starter because the non-occurrence of civil discourse isn't, by itself, reason for regret. That a University President should indulge in meaningless speech isn't surprising, but it is, at least in this case, regrettable.
More difficult to understand is the response of Sen. Kerry. I'm referring, not to his after-event statement, but to his behaviour during the arrest. His defenders have claimed that he tried to intervene and answer the question. But shouldn't we ask whether this is sufficient? Of all the people in the audience, Mr. Kerry was probably the only one who has taken an oath to "support and defend" the US Constitution. Mr. Kerry, more than anyone, should appreciate the scope of constitutional free speech protections. He can't claim ignorance of circumstances. He was interacting with Meyer as the police approached and dragged him away. Whether or not he knew about the tasing is strictly beside the point. Meyer's speech rights went out the window the minute armed guards laid hands on him. Nor can Kerry plausibly claim that police intervention made the event a police matter. As a Senator, one would hope that he would be in a better place to discern what sorts of actions do and do not fall under the domain of police enforcement than even the best trained of the campus two-five. Had Mr. Kerry been any sort of leader, he would have used the incident to actually teach his audience about civil discourse by example.
We seem to have become confused about the meaning of "civil discourse." To be civil, a discourse need not be polite, nor deferential, nor soft spoken. "Civil," is a description, not of the form of speech, but of the forum. Obnoxious, biggoted, and even hateful speech also falls within its purview. We protect speech not because it's polite or convivial, but because protecting speech--especially speech with which we profoundly disagree--preserves our own right of self expression and defense, and (sometimes) promotes just the sort of debate which is necessary to the health of a democratic society. We tolerate free speech because the suppression of speech is a paramount--and, as in this case, often violent--failure of civil discourse. We tolerate free speech because not to do so prompts those who are censored to turn to alternative, sometimes violent, means of expression. We tolerate free speech because the violent suppression of speech is itself a ground for violent reprisal.
Which brings me to my last point. It is, perhaps, not shocking to find that Machen is mealy-mouthed, or even that Kerry is a coward. What is more shocking, to my mind, is that an auditorium full of able-bodied students at a public university should tolerate, under any circumstances, this sort of abuse. Those who aren't willing to fight to protect their own rights will, in due course, lose them.
Welcome to the police state.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Case of Andrew Meyer
Last night I discovered, belatedly, the new case of campus tasering. The incident which immediately comes to mind is a similar event in the Powell Library of UCLA last November. There, a student with the misfortune to be approached by the campus police while studying...and not carrying his ID card...had the good fortune to be tasered multiple times while being hauled out of the facility.
This time, we get the case of Andrew Meyer, a journalism student at the U of F, getting hauled off and tasered in the middle of asking Senator John Kerry a question in a campus speaking event. In the aftermath of the event, a number of facts have come to light. Apparently, Meyer is a journalism major with something of a penchant for making public spectacles. Apparently, he had planned to make something of a scene. Apparently, he jumped in line to ask his question. And then, obviously, his question was something of a rant that went on for, well, not quite two minutes.
So here we have it: an obnoxious person making an obnoxious spectacle and getting tasered.
Except that none of what Mr. Meyer said or did rose even remotely near the US bar of prohibited speech, outlined most famously in the fighting words doctrine of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. Given that Meyer engaged in no violence, and had actually managed to formulate three provocative, but also quite politically relevant questions, his treatment by the campus police was simply illegal. The moment they laid hands on him, they crossed the fine line that separates civil discourse from violent suppression. Meyer's speech was obnoxious, perhaps offensive, and very definitely public. But the funny thing is that he was taking part in an event--a speech by a sitting Senator--that by definition is precisely where such speech should be most protected.
This time, we get the case of Andrew Meyer, a journalism student at the U of F, getting hauled off and tasered in the middle of asking Senator John Kerry a question in a campus speaking event. In the aftermath of the event, a number of facts have come to light. Apparently, Meyer is a journalism major with something of a penchant for making public spectacles. Apparently, he had planned to make something of a scene. Apparently, he jumped in line to ask his question. And then, obviously, his question was something of a rant that went on for, well, not quite two minutes.
So here we have it: an obnoxious person making an obnoxious spectacle and getting tasered.
Except that none of what Mr. Meyer said or did rose even remotely near the US bar of prohibited speech, outlined most famously in the fighting words doctrine of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. Given that Meyer engaged in no violence, and had actually managed to formulate three provocative, but also quite politically relevant questions, his treatment by the campus police was simply illegal. The moment they laid hands on him, they crossed the fine line that separates civil discourse from violent suppression. Meyer's speech was obnoxious, perhaps offensive, and very definitely public. But the funny thing is that he was taking part in an event--a speech by a sitting Senator--that by definition is precisely where such speech should be most protected.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Blogs Mirroring Life
Yes, so this blog, with its brief spurts of activity every so many months, with no discernible pattern, seems to be mirroring my life. The good news is that the inactivity may be coming to a halt, and possibly on both ends. I've got lots of updates to make to this, but to start, I should probably add that my latest dissertation thoughts have to do with the so-called compresence of opposites thesis. The whole thing is unintelligible, and needs to go to the dustbin.
For now though, I just thought I'd chime in with an update, to let everyone, or no-one, know that I'm still here.
For now though, I just thought I'd chime in with an update, to let everyone, or no-one, know that I'm still here.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Explaining Religious Belief
The NYT ran this nice little article in Sunday's Magazine. It deals (all too briefly, really) with some interesting problems in providing an evolutionary explanation for religious belief. Thought provoking, at least.
From the Heels to the Heels
So, it looks like my last post was at the end of one break, and this post comes near the beginning of a much later one. Too much has happened in the intervening period, but I've been suddenly struck by the urge to update the links here, and use it, as I once did, as a nice record of the interesting things I've been reading online lately. So be sure to check out the updated links to the right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)