Sunday, November 27, 2011

Grad school blues

Title's extremely cliche I know. But I have to dump this in a blog post because no one wants to hear how depressed I am right now.
After pouring a year of my life into my master's thesis it is finally done. A year of trying to balance family life with scholarship and very little direction. One hundred eight pages using three pages of bibliographic entries totalling thousands of pages of research.
If I was a superstitious person I'd almost say someone was trying to stop me from finishing. On Tuesday of last week my computer died, windows just decided not to boot up and if I ever had a backup disc to reload the OS I don't know what happened to it. Our laptop also decided that the power socket wasn't going to work anymore either. Luckily my wife borrowed a new one so I was able to keep working. Of course, I had to move to the kitchen table and our hard wooden kitchen chairs. Then we went to the in-laws for Thanksgiving and somehow I was able to find time to work there. A first, and I actually finished the last chapter there. It felt great to have overcome the obstacles. I spent most of yesterday editing and making the preliminary pages. Then we took a roadtrip to print out copies for each board member and deliver them to campus. It was raining, we put the copies in a plastic bag inside my backpack to keep them dry. I run up to the department building and what do you know but the doors are locked. Ugh. We pulled around so I could drop off some books at the library and I saw the lights on in the other side of the building. I decided to make a second effort and yeah! it was open.
This kind of is the story of my life, things always work out but never the way you expect and there are always additional obstacles placed in the way just to make things interesting.
So we finally get home after spending alllllllll day with this. Then I get an email from my advisor. As usual it is so ambiguous I don't know what to think. My wife mailed him the three chapters I had finished and edited after he told me it was unreadable. Yeah. So he says the writing is improved but now has issues with my content and argument. He considers what I dropped off, after a year of struggle, a first draft. But I am scheduled to defend it next Monday.
So, say by some miracle it is just good enough to pass. And another miracle I am able to defend my work just enough to get him to sign off on it. And by some other miracle I am able to get the special paper to print out a perfect copy to give to the graduate school for binding and cataloging in the library. I already screwed everything up enough that my name won't be in the commencement book and I don't even want to buy another cap and gown to do the ceremony. I just want to get the stupid piece of paper, no party, no celebration, just get it over with.
Burned out, that is how I feel right now. The year I spent on the project was the culmination of five previous years training and preparing for this. What's next? I need to recover for a while before even considering a doctoral program.
That means I get to compete with all the other lab rats for some menial job with no benefits or job security. yippee. Maybe I'll feel better tomorrow. Tomorrow's a new day right? After all this crap, there has to be a payoff. There just has to be something. So, maybe tomorrow I'll have the strength to crop back some of the gloom and get back to it. Here's to hope!

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

More sports metaphors

Conservatives, it has often been noted, support their "team" with all the zealousness that they support their favorite sports franchise. This really is as dumb as comparing the fiscal policy of a nation with the budget of a family. There are different reasons for this, but they betray the same intellectual weakness.

For all the ferocity of a rivalry between say, the Packers and the Bears, the confrontration has a certain arbitrariness. Football teams are the same in many ways. They wear similar uniforms, just with different colors and symbols. They play by the same rules and respect the authority of officials. They use the same terminology and the plays come from the same ideas. And, crucially, when one team wins, that's it. If the Packers win they don't get to install universal health care and if the Bears win they don't get to subsidize too big to fail banks. You can switch them around as this wasn't meant to be representative of either political party. But to a non-fan, the contest is pretty meaningless.

This isn't true in politics and government. Each side represents clearly different ideas and when one "wins" they get the power to implement them. While a win for the Packers makes their fans feel good, it really is just a tickmark in the appropriate column. But when a shithead like scott walker wins by lying, manipulating, and spending a boatload of money from people who don't even live in this state, there are real consequences. All the "rah, rah, rah" doesn't really disguise the fact that republicans aren't playing by the rules, ignore the refs, and count on the rabid worship of their fans to cover the con-job of stealing the nation's wealth for their owners.

I guess I don't get it. Sports fans will spend hours memorizing the statistics and rosters of their favorite teams, but the political equivalent takes their party's official pronouncements as gospel and can barely be bothered to spend that "magic 5 minutes" thinking about what it actually means. If your team loses, nothing real happens and you live to see another day. But a pampered, elitist hypocrite tells you he's "just like you" and you believe it. How many morons out there said they liked bush because "they wanted to have a beer with him?" Now, maybe if your team wins and they get to invade other countries and draft your gullible ass to die for oil there would be a reason to act like sports is life or death. But can't you spare a few minutes from comparing quarterback ratings to do a little critical thinking about issues that may actually, tangibly affect your life?

Monday, November 14, 2011

And out come the thugs

"Working towards the Fuhrer." Just wanted to post the thoughts of a so-called conservative and prepare anyone working on the recall for what you may be up against. It's not a game to these people, they hate democracy, they hate our freedom to dissent, and they hate the idea that some Americans don't want to live in a fascist society. If you encounter one of these "volunteers" don't engage them, just call the police in case they decide to start something.

All I have to say to you Owen is, get a hobby man. Do you really have nothing better to do that act as a self-appointed gestapo agent?

From boots and sabers, our local gauleiter.

"I will not physically threaten or curse anyone collecting signatures. I will make every personal effort to ensure that the entire process is lengthy, and unpleasant for all concerned."  -So, I have to ask, which is it? All these things you plan to do are designed to intimidate anyone who wants to participate in our free and democratic process.

1) Record and report.


A recall drive is a public activity and participants are generally working in a public setting. I will take pictures, record conversations, take videos, and publicize it all. I hope that the folks are on their best behavior, because a lot of us will be watching. In fact, the Republican Party has set up a website to collect all of these reports. Yup, Big Brother is watching.

2) Power of the purse.

Just like the recall employees/volunteers, everyone who signs a recall petition is signing a public document. I’ll be looking at those names and making them public - especially for people in my neck of the woods. If you sign the petition and happen to own or run a local business, you can expect me to publicize that fact and decline to spend any more of my hard earned dollars with your establishment. After all, if you get your way I will need those dollars to pay my taxes. Two packs a day huh? That's the only tax that has gone up, any other claim is delusional.

3) Explain yourself.

As a close follower of the issues, I am well-equipped to debate the recall effort, the motivations, and the consequences. If you come to my door or approach me in public, you can expect a lengthy debate. I don’t really care if I convince you the error of your ways, but the longer you are talking to me, the less time you are spending collecting signatures. If you get frustrated and storm off in a huff, I’ll enjoy posting the video/audio. Heck, even if you don’t, it will be fun to highlight your lame arguments. Of course, in order to prove you not simply a dogmatic true believer there would have to be some argument that you could admit wasn't "lame."

4) Show ID.

Every recall petition must be signed by the person circulating it. As such, anyone signing it has a responsibility to verify the identity of the circulator to make sure it’s on the up and up. If you ask me to sign it, I will ask for ID, record your information, and use that information as I see fit. If you are from out of state, you can expect to see your name in lights. If you refuse to show me an ID, I’ll be forced to take a picture and ask my readers if they know who you are. I will also ask if you are being compensated and, if so, by whom. Can't bear the fact that some people might work against fascism for free eh?

——-
I will not physically threaten or curse anyone collecting signatures. Nor will I do so to anyone who signs the petitions. I will be polite, friendly, and engaged. But I will make every personal effort to ensure that the entire process is lengthy, and unpleasant for all concerned.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Election '11

There were glimmers of hope across the country last night. A few of the more obnoxious elements of the right-wing attack on freedom were turned back. These are great achievements and all of us who are tired of corporate power hijacking democracy have reason to cheer. Unfortunately, freedom is still very much on the defensive. Aside from the recall of "the tea party president" in Arizona, these were largely negative victories. And of course, fearless leader didn't lead a hand.

These can only be considered "liberal" victories if one defines liberal as simply not the latest incarnation of the dogmatic and insane far right. Common sense might be waking up a bit and proclaiming ignorance an invalid political position. If there is even a chance to start telling zealots they don't have a leg to stand on, I'm all for it. Maybe discourse could actually originate in the same universe for a change.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Finally, a concise sports to politics metaphor

Will there be a GOP sabotage backlash in ’12? - Salon.com: I'm always lamenting the fact that too many people see politics as a sports contest and have a tendency to be as irrational as die hard fans when it comes to votes. But I now see an upside to that. One of the virtues of sports is that the players have to adhere to a set or prescribed rules, something that is pretty much automatically accepted by everyone involved, including fans. You might protest a particular call or play, but in general, you acknowledge the boundaries. In that sense, Republican intransigence can be seen as a deliberate attempt to circumvent protocol in a way that actually harms everyone in the stadium or park, regardless of their loyalty to one team or another. While there will always be a group of die hards willing to support their favorites under any circumstances, it appears an increasing number of people are waking up to the fact that the consequences of a flagrant disregard for the consequences of winning at all costs is threatening the entire political system, not just one ugly season.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Lessig, polarization, and possibilities

My thesis advisor is a distinguished intellectual historian and he frequently makes the point that the most interesting thing to write about in that subject is where political allies disagree. It is a little trickier to interpret a debate in progress, but in this case it may be very important to get ahead of. A colleague posted a piece of it yesterday, the ultimate question seems to be whether or not liberal intellectuals should work to find common ground between OWS and the tea party. Lawrence Lessig seems to be the source of the exploration for cooperation. He is a law professor at Harvard and has been passionately advocating for both a reexamination of intellectual property laws in favor of a freer culture with fewer fences and reforming elections to get money out of the process. I have a lot of respect for him, but on first and second examination this idea of trying to bring the tea party into a larger movement to fight the power of big banks and their control over our government seems to be a monumentally bad idea, more on that later.

This event seems to be the first response to Lessig's conference on working with the tp groups. Then Lessig wrote a short essay on the results in Huffpo. If you are interested it seems videos of speeches from this conference can be found here. In response Dave Zirin wrote an essay arguing that trying to join hands with people who hate you and hold views abhorrent to so many on the left might not be a good idea. Lessig then comes back that "we" have no right to call ourselves "The 99%" if we alienate the 30% of the country that considers itself conservative.

Drawing the net even wider is Gene Lyons who pops up on Salon from time to time. While Lyons mostly talks about why "intellectuals" on the right are freaking out about OWS, he also cites Matt Taibbi as siding with Lessig. Though the opinions seem unconnected and Lyons did not link to his quote. I have not found it yet, but maybe there is some reality to the whole question. If rush and the right-wing noise machine that instigated, organized, funded, marketed, etc. the "tea party" lost even a bit of control over their monsterous creation and it started thinking for itself, they might realize that big business is just as capable of messing up their lives as "big government." Here is the quote: “The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of Middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues.” Furthermore Wall Street greed is: “an issue for the traditional ‘left’ because it’s a classic instance of overweening corporate power—but it’s an issue for the traditional ‘right’ because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state.” The closest blog link for Taibbi's analysis can be found here, but a lot of his entries are on the subject.

I think this is an exhaustive list so far, the debate is exciting and a far cry from teabags all the time. If nothing else, OWS has given the left something to argue about that is on their side, even if not "under their control." I worry about what would happen, Lessig seems to treat polarization as the core problem and that "we" could find common ground if only Lyons "tribalism" is suppressed. The real issue seems to me to be despair versus fanaticism. The protesters in OWS, regardless of their ideological or partisan affiliation, share one feature that drives them and this is the near-hopeless belief that the system is broken and stacked so far against them that they have nothing to lose by acting up. Contrast this to what motivates the teabaggers. Fear. It should be noted too that surveys of tea party supporters have revealed that they are the republican base, nothing more, nothing new really. According to Taibbi, the spark that set off the tp movement was not TARP or anything smacking of institutionalized greed, but a rather insignificant initiative by the Obama administration proposing to help people stay in their homes.

Hatred of people not like them and the heretical thought that government might do something to help them, when "everybody knows" that the crash was precipitated by poor blacks buying too much house. Then the equally heretical idea that a black president was going to force them to pay for all those illegitimate black babies and their undeserving of life parents healthcare. I dislike putting too fine a point on it, but this was a primary motivation. Birtherism has the same underlying features, if you have already "othered" someone there is no depth you can't stoop to in pursuit of destroying them. Maybe I've just encountered and dealt with more of these people than Lessig has. But they are a lot like the terminator, they can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with, they do not feel remorse, or pity, or empathy, they never, ever, admit a mistake much less apologize for hurting others. Ever argue with someone in the tea party or sympathetic to them? Facts just bounce off their established frame, they always troll the conversation onto "their" side.

This isn't me saying this. You can read all about framing in George Lakoff, about the long process of establishing a political storyline in Drew Westen. The authoritarian personality in Bob Altemeyer, fanaticism and the true believer in Eric Hoffer and Hannah Arendt. Eliminationism and parafascism in David Neiwert. Ur-facsism in Chris Hedges. These are specialists with a lot of experience in combatting the anti-American tendencies of the far right. Just ask yourself a question, why were teabaggers able to get away with carrying loaded firearms to political events, spit on and insult in the worst ways members of congress? Why are the unarmed protesters of OWS getting beaten, shot with rubber bullets, and subjected to all the latest in "non-lethal" police armament?

In principle, it would be interesting if teabaggers could be deprogrammed and join occupy events. But, whether individually or as an organization, fanatics would poison any meaningful movement for reform and justice. Even if their social conservative views could somehow "be checked at the door" they would always seek to capture the movement. When Lessig forwards the idea that the left needs to go after tea party members and groups to grow and approach the 99% they claim, he is either out-of-touch or really holds the liberal dream of the perfectibility of man, that no brownshirt is beyond redemption.

Here is a wildly optimistic graph someone made in support of the idea.

GH observes the observers.



This came from a site called "politically incorrect and proud of it too." Because nothing's more american than being free to hurt and disparage others. Aren't double standards fun? Just for fun here's a quote from this morning: "Let's help the economy by closing down businesses and ports with protest. Well done Oakland Occupiers your really helping your city out..." Most of the other reactions to this event had to do with how the Longshoremen and other workers are losing pay because of the demonstration.





Contrast the ad hominem picture with a picture made by someone supporting OWS.


Stark eh?
Then there is this quote from one of the forgotten founding fathers. I cannot verify the source but this analogy seems similar to Paine's style.



Update I: Not everyone in Oakland apparently feels that fighting greed and injustice is less important than a day's wages. Rolling Stone doesn't think the general strike in Oakland is very effective, but at least they are covering it.