Morning Update XXXIV: The "Tu Croque" Edition

Meena Hasan, here.

(1) It's Sunday, blah-blah Sunday here in Oberlin; sounds like a good day for a morning update!

From a post entitled "Modern conservative debate strategies, such as they are" by Scott Kaufmann over at Acephalous:

As you know, the classic tu quoque works like this:

Person X: It should be illegal to put babies on spikes.
Person Y: But I just saw you put a baby on a spike!

In this example, Person Y tries to undermine the argument of Person X by calling him a hypocrite. This is, obviously, a fallacy. But in a world in which people stand by SASQUATCH ISRAEL, the only way to improve a fallacious argument is, it seems, to double down on it. The reverse tu quoque, then, goes something like this:

Person X: It should be illegal to put babies on spikes.
Person Y: (putting a baby on a spike) But I just saw you put a baby on a spike!

Here's the example made more concrete (by me!)

(Some) Democrats: We should decrease the deficit.
Republicans: (railing about the need to extend the Bush tax cuts on the top income bracket) But in the past, you've supported things that would increase the deficit!

It would be funny if, you know, they weren't serious.

(2) Apparently, no one really like unions anymore--especially teachers' unions. Indeed, even many on the left have soured on unions in general and, to a greater degree, teachers' unions.

Now there are, I suppose, a number of good and interesting debates that one could have about teachers' unions, but there's something odd about people on the technocratic left--who believe, by and large, that merit pay would be a good way of increasing student test scores--beating up on teachers' unions, whose express purpose is to provide increased pay and benefits for teachers.

Ezra Klein half makes this point:

A lot of the people who think money is important for teachers also hate teacher's unions. Those unions, of course, make teaching a more attractive job with better wages and conditions, and that should increase the quality of the talent. Now, it so happens that teaching isn't incredibly lucrative, but that's a question that more about the pay level than about whether unions impose too much pay equality.

If I'm reading that right, then Ezra Klein--a member of the technocratic left if ever there was one--is making my point for me. Ad to this Mayor Fenty's (who, by the by, was an Oberlin grad) crushing defeat in D.C., and maybe there's something of a sea change coming.

Or maybe not. And even though I'm deeply skeptical of the sort of reforms pushed by the technocratic left, I'm equally wary of doing nothing.

I'll let Nicholas Lemann (who wrote the "comment" on school reform in the latest New Yorker take me out:

Large-scale, decentralized democratic societies are not very adept at generating neat, rational solutions to messy situations. The story line on education, at this ill-tempered moment in American life, expresses what might be called the Noah's Ark view of life: a vast territory looks so impossibly corrupted that it must be washed away, so that we can begin its activities anew, on finer, higher, firmer principles. One should treat any perception that something so large is so so completely awry with suspicion, and consider that it might not be true--especially before acting on it.

(3) This semester, I'm the Writing Associate for a First-Year Seminar (an FYSP in the Oberlin parlance). It's fun. I've been a writing tutor for the last three years, but before now, I've always worked in the Writing Center. This is the first time I've spent my time working for just one class, which has certain advantages (and disadvantages).

One of the advantages this time around is that I've been able to see firsthand the obsession that first-years seem to have with the driest kind of five paragraph essay: a fractal structure in which each paragraph includes five sentences that follow the same structure as the essay itself.

This group of freshmen seem to care--at the expense of most anything else--about the structure of the paragraph. You end up with a disjointed essay with five very discrete and unconnected units.

What's more, the theses themselves are timid, and the essays that follow aren't so much arguing something as pointing something out. When pressed, my first-years have claimed that this is what college-level academic essays should be, something that, in my experience, just isn't true.

In contrast, their informal essays are fearless and flowing; the ease with which they talk about themselves and their feelings on a given subject is amazing.

Questions: @Bubblegum Aesthetics: Am I crazy, or have you noticed this too? @Word Savvy: Can I blame standardized tests? @No One In Particular: Might the perceived yawning gap between informal and formal essays--and the facility with the former and the difficulty with the latter--come from the rise of "informal" modes of writing (viz. blogs, texts, tweets, Facebook updates, emails, etc.), modes of writing that used to fall under the providence of orality?

Of course, I should note that I do it too. That is: I blog. I email. I often write fractal and dry essays.

This is, I suppose, the "Tu Croque" Edition.

Subtle Sexuality, Feat. 'Nard Dog

It's a proud day for Mother Oberlin and her favorite son : Ed Helms.

Presidential Dispatch

Well, Marvin Krislov demands it:

Presidential Declaration: To help you ease back into classes after break, wearing pants is optional tomorrow. Margaritas are mandatory.

I wasn't planning on wearing pants anyway, but, whatever.

Eww

"Doggie Doo"
Kat Lee
Here.

I had just brushed my teeth and got into my PJs, when I checked my Google Reader one last time before I actually got into bed. I came across something that will no doubt haunt my dreams, and I want it to haunt yours too. Let's hope this is just an English thing, but read and be disgusted (via Dana at The Edge of the American West):

The fault lies with the females. The myth is that an affair between a student and her academic lover represents an abuse of his power. What power? Thanks to the accountability imposed by the Quality Assurance Agency and other intrusive bodies, the days are gone when a scholar could trade sex for upgrades. I know of two girls who, in 1982, got firsts in biochemistry from a south-coast university in exchange for favours to a professor, but I know of no later scandals.

But girls fantasise. This was encapsulated by Beverly in Tom Wolfe's novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, who forces herself on to JoJo, the campus sports star, with the explanation that "all girls want sex with heroes". On an English campus, academics can be heroes.

Normal girls - more interested in abs than in labs, more interested in pecs than specs, more interested in triceps than tripos - will abjure their lecturers for the company of their peers, but nonetheless, most male lecturers know that, most years, there will be a girl in class who flashes her admiration and who asks for advice on her essays. What to do?

Enjoy her! She's a perk. She doesn't yet know that you are only Casaubon to her Dorothea, Howard Kirk to her Felicity Phee, and she will flaunt you her curves. Which you should admire daily to spice up your sex, nightly, with the wife.

This was written by Terence Kealey, a vice-chancellor at the University of Buckingham. And though I'd like to think it was written, oh, say 70-or-so years ago, it was written in 2009.

There's just so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin. I mean, we all know that (to quote Dana) "all professors are married men." And we know that "normal" girls are vapid anti-intellectuals, so that's not problematic. Nor is the power dynamic between a professor and a student unbalanced or cause for discomfort.

Really, what got to me was that gross little turn of phrase: "Which you should admire daily to spice up your sex, nightly, with the wife."

This is one of those things that does happen, though. And, without naming names, it's happened at least twice in my time at Oberlin. To be perfectly honest, it's not so much the affairs that bother me--I don't like to make it a habit of judging a person's sex life--as much as it is the perverse rational for the affairs as stated so clearly (and ickily) by Kealey. It's scandalous, but acceptable, I guess, for older married men to ogle doe-eyed female students, but any deviation from that archetype is, well, absent from the discourse, as they say.

Even in narratives that purport to turn this oft-romanticized relationship on its head (i.e. Franzen's The Corrections or Tim O'Brien's Tomcat in Love) end up falling into a different sort of trap: older professor taken advantage by scheming nymphet co-eds.

Yes, the problem isn't so much in the specifics--though I imagine it could, sometimes, be. That is, it's possible, I suppose (at least in principle) to have a healthy sexual relationship between a professor and a student, and it's possible (and, I'd imagine, due to the fucked up power dynamics) to have an unhealthy sexual relationship. But the truly sick thing is the cultural background against which these relationships take place, viz. casting college women as either doe-eyed know-nothings or scheming predators and male (always male) college professors as either sex symbols or helpless fools, hoodwinked by the allure youth.

It's that part makes me feel a little queasy.

Two other quick thoughts: (1) this is the exact problem I'm having in writing for Oberlin Blogs. Lately, when I feel the impulse to blog its either to (a) make fun of Republicans, (b) post links to inane things I find while I should be studying, or (c) come across news entirely unsuited to giving prospies an impression of Oberlin life. So, instead, I churn out about a paragraph a day of dead prose about this or that thing I'm doing right now, which even I am bored to tears while reading, and, meanwhile, my already paroxysmal posting there gets downright pathetic.

(2) This is more serious. I'm going to repost pretty much the entirety of Dana's post at The Edge of the American West because it's spot on:

it really should go without saying that female students are not “perks” and it’s entirely possible that the curvy young woman asking for help on an essay just wants help on an essay, and good advice would not say “look, but don’t touch”, but “be a professional.”

The problem here is not the common claim that Kealey was brave enough to voice that “look, don’t touch” ethic that all professors have towards their female students but are terrified to mention because of the fear of PC police. It flirts with establishing the idea that female students should expect to be ogled, and as long as one goes home and tackles the wife afterwards in lieu of taking up with the student, there’s no harm done.

As we say here, knock knock.

Lastly, to take your minds of off the sex lives of old British professors, here's Glenn Beck killing an analogy and a frog:

Required Reading

"Seasonal Flux"
Mike Fitzimmons
Here.

If you're on campus, you really should check out this issue of The Grape. Aside from the cute, little dig at my expense (I'm the burnt-out fifth year in the caption), there's an excellent article by The Grape's own Emmett Booth. It's on the new Oberlin news site, Fearless and Loathing. A teaser:

The Review does more than provide a middle-of-the-road, rigid outline of campus, but its impact on campus is limited by that cultural profile. Similarly, when The Grape is perceived as nothing but the weed-and-porn rag, it struggles to accomplish anything outside that domain. Fearless and Loathing is already airing out the conversation and the culture, and its particular methods and goals mean that everyone can benefit.

As I said, it's a good article.

To add my two cents: one advantage of the rapid turnover of college life is that in a year or two, the ghettoized landscape of the various publications can shift dramatically. In my five years, I've seen The Grape become more serious and The Review become a little looser.

Of course the downside to this is that it's very, very difficult to establish any sort of institutional memory. This is why, in my time, Oberlin has been littered by any number of publications that just didn't make it.

More Rolling

Veronica Mars,
As Fearless and Loathing put it: a "teenage BAMF"

Well The Review's got some more competition, in the form of Fearless and Loathing, a new HuffPo-like blog for Oberlin. I've added it my feed, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops in the coming months.

And while on the subject of my blog roll, here's another: Ess and Kay, by "a currently unemployed [Oberlin] college student who isn't satisfied." Go read about fashion, pop culture, media, etc.

Yes, yes! Roll the blog.

Morning Update XXII: The Little Blogs That Could Edition

Statue dedicated to that Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at Bush
From AP,
Via Next Year In.

It's another hellish morning here in Oberlin. The sun won't shine, the snow won't stop, and I need to go grocery shopping, but my car's snowed in. While I'm bitching, I think I'll mention that my efforts to make eggs & bacon were met with carcinogenic bacon and a smokey apartment.

But this post is congratulatory not bitchy. I like to think that I read a pretty accurate sampling of lefty blogs; in addition to the blogs on my roll (which I'm too lazy to list, so just look for yourself), I scan through Daily Kos and MyDD. But you know how I found out about a statue dedicated to the Bush shoe-thrower? From fellow Oberlin blog Next Year In. Yesterday. Not from dday at Digby's Hullabaloo. Today. Congratulations Next Year In on the scoop.

Although, dday's post was cleverly titled "Richard Perle Was Right," which, let's be honest, is pretty damn funny.

While on the subject of scoops, congratulations to another fellow Oberlin blog, Bubblegum Aesthetics for the scoop on the death of John Updike.

Side Note: As I write this, I realize that it could be considered in poor taste to congratulate someone on this. After all, a man is dead.

Another Side Note: I wonder if there are awards for obit writers?

Back to the Point: Way to go! No one else has even talked about Updike's death. You'd think he wasn't a super influential author and critic or something. Honestly, lefty blogosphere, you're embarrassing yourselves.

Or maybe you just don't have the stones to admit that you didn't actually read Updike (who did?). But, no fear; Cineaphile at Aesthetics didn't either, but he still a post.

For the record, I had to read The Centaur in high school. Stunningly, Mr. ___, the much hated high school English teacher (who once read aloud an essay of mine as an example of what not to do), managed to find Jesus imagery in a book that quite self-consciously used ancient Greek mythology. Whatever.

Back to Updike. Insightful and well-written thought from Aesthetics:

Even stranger, how could I have read The New Yorker off-and-on for twenty years and not read John Updike, who seems so central to its literary ethos?

More to the point, why do I feel like I've read John Updike, without having perused a word, and why did I feel a sense of loss when I read of his passing yesterday? It's a testament to his talent that I can sense his presence in those places named above, can know that his influence has its fingerprints on generations of artists I admire, much like Joyce does on a generation of artists-- you can feel that something is "Joycean" or "Updike-like" even if you've never picked up a copy of Ulyssess or Rabbit, Run. The imprint is there, and the imprint will remain.

On the docket today: a post about Bush-bashing. Also other stuff. Stay tuned.

Oberliner Public Service Announcement

A toilet
Here.

To the other residents on my floor: Please stop vomiting in the bathroom. I need to use it, and it's hard to go in there when it smells so badly.

If you absolutely must vomit, then maybe clean it up.

Or, don't drink so fucking much. That would work too.

Cheers,
Ich Bin Ein Oberliner

Morning Update XIX: OMGZ ItS Teh Unionz! Edition

Support the Employee Free Choice Act

In the last issue of The Oberlin Review, we were treated to an op-ed piece by Cara Lawler (of the OC Republicans) and Prof. Tim Hall (the Ethics Professor). They argued that an Obama victory spells: "a permanent loss of prosperity and freedom."

The points go like this.

Obama supports:
(1) "Increases in business and capital gains taxes," (Lawler and Hall don't mention that the US currently has one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world)

(2) "A permanent, partially nationalized banking industry," (OMGZ NO!!!! BUT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN GOING SO WELL!!!!)

(3) "An expensive and inefficient government health care system." (And God knows that what we have now isn't more expensive than just about any other health care system in the world. It's also known world-wide for its efficiency)

(4) "The elimination of secret balloting in union elections." (aka the Employee Free Choice Act. Lawler and Hall claim to be worried about Union intimidation. I couldn't agree more; all those poor giant corporations with their massive anti-unionization machines really need our help to keep unions out of their stores. It's not like you get fired just for talking about organizing these days.)

(5) "a return of the so-called 'fairness doctrine.'" (OH NOZ!)

It's pretty scary shit. Of course, my responses are mostly snarky and without substance, so let me direct your attention to Fred Bernard's article in this week's The Oberlin Grape (no link):

ere’s what just happened: unregulated investment in subprime mortgages resulted in the greatest American financial crisis since the Great Depression, dragging the Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Latin American economies down into the muck with it in a global domino effect that, if it could be rendered visibly, would look like a portent of the Biblical Apocalypse. Since this is American politics, a political sacrifice was demanded, and Alan Greenspan (he’ll do, certainly) was duly compelled under the torture of public humiliation to admit that he had been wrong about self-regulating markets all along. Other economic authorities, from Martin Wolf of The Financial Times to Joseph Ackerman of the Deutsche bank have stood over the body of neoliberalism and proclaimed it very dead. Both officially and culturally, the curtain appears to have closed on the era of Friedmanite libertarianism.

Still, there are holdouts. The Oberlin Review published an op-ed from student Cara Lawler and associate professor Timothy Hall prior to the election that promised that Obama’s economic regulations “would bring a permanent loss of prosperity and freedom” and were “the most powerful argument for McCain.” It’s a strikingly doctrinaire piece of libertarianism, written by a stubborn vanguard beholden to theory and dismissive of the reality of “actually existing” libertarianism that has wrought catastrophe in every corner of the globe. In other words: when McCain is path to freedom and Obama is the relative despot, it might be time to put the book down.

The most prominent flaw in libertarianism, besides its implicit hostility towards democracy, is its assumption that the government and private industry are two insolvent, naturally hostile camps, rather than different manifestations of private power. The crude assumption is immediately apparent in Hall and Lawler’s assertion that “the government has strong-armed its way into partial ownership of the nation's largest banks.” In fact, the government was invited- indeed extorted- to “nationalize” the banks by the banks themselves to, which at this point means little more than giving the banks billions of dollars with no string attached. This is blackmail and collusion, not Soviet planning.

The authors that an Obama victory will result in a “partially nationalized banking industry.” To whatever extent the banks are nationalized under Obama, providing some public control is better than the current Republican “nationalization” plan that does little more than guarantee the financial sector money every time their rapacious greed screws everything else up. Actual nationalization might provide accountability; the Republican plan rewards failure. Which is more conducive to free market ideology?

“Obama's promised subsidies for companies that do not relocate abroad are tariffs in all but name.” Correction: tariffs might actually mean something; subsidies for good corporate behavior, a la Al Gore’s proposal to offer tax breaks for companies with lower carbon emissions, are the crumbs of a solution our government offers us instead. Corporations are going to stop relocating to poor countries with autocratic governments and an oppressed labor force because Obama’s going to bribe them with taxpayer money? Hall and Lawler need not worry: jobs and capital will continue to bleed from America despite Obama’s repressive attempts to bribe them.

“It is introductory economics that free trade benefits both national partners.” It is basic common sense, however, that indicates that it doesn’t. Thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicide over the past few years, having lost their farms to foreign competition; Afghan farmers turn to opium production because of the imported grain dumped on their market, driving them into the grip of their nation’s warlords; and Jamaican agriculture economy has been wiped out, while foreigners imported into Jamaica work in the industrial economy that was offered to Jamaica as a replacement. A walk through the Indian countryside- or for that matter, the industrial exoskeleton of the American Midwest- will tell you how beneficial free trade has been, not “introductory economics.” This reflexive appeal to doctrine is surprisingly audacious given that it was the same “introductory economics” that got Alan Greenspan eaten alive a few weeks ago.

The authors then castigate Obama for wanting to implement a civilized health care system in the US, which they claim will be “expensive and inefficient.” For all its inefficiencies, a government health care system would be a better provider of health care that a system has a profit-incentive in aggressively refusing to treat many of its customers. If energy privatization in California and England, water privatization in Latin America, and education privatization in Africa have proven anything to us, besides the appalling incompetence of their planners, is that governments are better providers of essentials than are private entities. The American health care system, a model of inefficiency and red tape that would disgrace any government, is further testament to that.

Finally, the authors warn of two assaults Obama would levy against free speech: “the elimination of secret balloting in union elections” and “a return of the so-called ‘fairness doctrine,’” the federal law that requires that broadcasters give “equal time” to different opinions on major issues. McCain would militarize American society to an extent unprecedented in American society, and the most totalitarian thing the Democrats will do is revise some broadcast regulation? As for the elimination of secret balloting, the issue at hand is not the sacred American right to the secret ballot: it’s whether or not employers can use the union ballot process to obstruct labor activity. Unless, of course, we are to believe that Wal-Mart and other companies opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act are suddenly concerned about their employees’ privacy.

Still, I agree with libertarians on one point: people generally act on their own self-interest. When Americans elected Barack Obama president, they didn’t do it so that they could cheer the precise, beautifully Newtonian alignments of an unencumbered market ran, for their own good, by their betters. They did it for themselves.

Knock, motherfuckin' knock.

Can I just point out how awesome it is that Oberlin has two newspapers (not to mention about 8,000 other publications). As far as diversity of media outlets go, Oberlin is better than most major metropolitan areas.

Lastly, the following clip is my senator, Amy Klobuchar, arguing for The Employee Free Choice Act. She's not the best speaker, but her heart's in the right place. I was worried that she was just another suit, and actually considered supporting the crazy-liberal candidate over her in the 2006 election.

Part of that was my natural dislike of DAs and the fact that she--like all politicians--is a litte crazy. But, whatever, she's doing pretty good, and I'll be happy to vote for her in 2012. Anyway, here's the clip:

Morning Update XVII: The Fuck It's Cold Edition

Richard Thompson
From The New Yorker, here.

And winter is upon Oberlin. I followed my morning routine today: I grabbed breakfast at the Science Center Cart, I picked up a copy of the Times, and sat outside, drinking my coffee and doing the Monday crossword. About halfway through the puzzle, I realized my hands were blue. What happened? It wasn't but a week ago that, if you sat in the sun, you'd have to take off your sweater. Oh, Oberlin, your weather is schizophrenic, your winters cold, your summers unbearable. And for months in between, you swing between snow and heat like a yo-yo.

Now, though, I think it's cold for good. If only we could get the sun to shine so things wouldn't be so dreary...

As usual, I'm with Ezra Klein; today's XKCD is really quite touching. Also, it's a strange day when Ezra Klein, XKCD, and Warren Ellis are all talking about the same thing.

An article in yesterday's New York Times seems evidence as much as anything else that yesteryear's conservative identity politics is dead--or at least dying. It's called "The Transformation of Levittown," and, though the writing tutor in me says something's a little off with this prose, the blogger in me says, wow, this is pretty interesting. Michael Sokolove writes:

These were the voters whom Mr. McCain was targeting when he made a big bet on Pennsylvania, investing money and a substantial amount of his time and the time of his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin. But Mr. McCain’s message, to the extent it was received at all, irritated them. The Democrats of Levittown did not defect — they stayed in the fold, and then some. Over all, in the four municipalities that Levittown spans, Obama got a slightly higher percentage than John Kerry did in 2004, and because of higher turnout, emerged with a 3,200-vote greater margin of victory. (Levittown is defined by ZIP codes and Levitt-built homes, but is not its own incorporated town. Large parts of it extend into towns with large white working-class populations — Bristol, Middletown and Falls Townships, as well as Tullytown Borough — but it does not make up the entirety of any of those places. In those four jurisdictions, Obama defeated McCain, 41,110 to 25,034 — contributing to his resounding 11-percentage-point victory in Pennsylvania.)

“McCain pointed a lot of fingers instead of giving answers,” Steve O’Connor, a plumber, told me.

Mr. Obama’s message, on the other hand, seemed like it had entered some voters by IV injection. “I don’t want a clone of George Bush,” Mark Maxwell, 47, a corporate chef, said. “With McCain, that’s exactly what we’d get.”

Said Lisa Winslow, a 20-year-old college student: “I’m not rich. I can’t afford to vote for McCain.”

What had changed for Mr. Obama? The financial meltdown obviously made a huge difference. Five more months of exposure to him, and his millions of dollars worth of advertisements, engendered a comfort level. And Iraq, to a much greater extent than the pre-election polls implied, mattered. Nearly every Obama voter I talked to mentioned it, and many linked it to the economy.

In short, with the economy collapsing, people have started to respond to--gasp--substance over personality attacks. This election feels like vindication (or at least the beginings of vindication) for Michael J. Fox's character in Aaron Sorkin's The American President:

LEWIS (FOX):People want leadership. And in the absence of genuine leadership, they will listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership, Mr. President. They're so thirsty for it, they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

PRESIDENT SHEPARD: Lewis, we've had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand, 'cause they're thirsty, Lewis. They drink it 'cause they don't know the difference.

In 2004, I felt like Shepard. We had just reelected a president who was pulling apart the already-fraying fabric of our progressive institutions and social compact. Republican character attacks and slights-of-hand--the Rovian strategy of identity politics and 50% + 1 governance--had felled two Democratic nominees, and since Reagan, we had yet to see liberal governance.

But, now, the narrative slowly emerging from the Obama victory is that voters--even those "Reagan Democrats" in Levittown--have rejected Rovian politics: the politics of minimalist coalitions and political Pentecostalism.

Intrigued? Go, read.

Last today, I'd like to plug George Packer's new article in The New Yorker. Packer is fast becoming one of my favorite magazine journalists. The last article I went gaga over, "The Hardest Vote," was about Glouster, Ohio. I think I talked about it for about a week nonstop. If you missed it, then go, read.

But in his latest article, Packer seems to be with me--and Krugman, and most of the lefty blogosphere--that what we need from Obama is a New New Deal. He writes:

Barack Obama’s decisive defeat of John McCain is the most important victory of a Democratic candidate since 1932. It brings to a close another conservative era, one that rose amid the ashes of the New Deal coalition in the late sixties, consolidated its power with the election of Ronald Reagan, in 1980, and immolated itself during the Presidency of George W. Bush. Obama will enter the White House at a moment of economic crisis worse than anything the nation has seen since the Great Depression; the old assumptions of free-market fundamentalism have, like a charlatan’s incantations, failed to work, and the need for some “new machinery” is painfully obvious. But what philosophy of government will characterize it?

Of course, he doesn't stop there:

For the first time since the Johnson Administration, the idea that government should take bold action to create equal opportunity for all citizens doesn’t have to explain itself in a defensive mumble. That idea is ascendant in 2008 because it answers the times. These political circumstances, even more than the election of the first black American to the highest office, make Obama’s victory historic. Whether his Presidency will be transformative, in the manner of Roosevelt and the handful of predecessors named by F.D.R. in 1932, will depend, in part, on history—it’s unclear whether today’s financial troubles will offer a political challenge, and an opportunity, of the magnitude of the Great Depression. But the power of Obama’s Presidency will ultimately hinge on how he chooses to interpret the “modern application” of liberalism in the twenty-first century.

During the two years that he spent campaigning for the Presidency, amid relentless media scrutiny, Obama made a greater commitment to specific plans than Roosevelt did. Yet he, too, represented different versions of moral leadership to different groups of voters, at various stages of the campaign. Roosevelt’s answer to his interviewer reflected a belief that the Presidency has both a political role and a philosophical role. Obama, using the language of the modern age, has reflected Roosevelt’s belief: there is the “post-partisan” Obama and the “progressive” Obama. Some tension exists between these two approaches, but he will have to reconcile them if he is to fulfill his ambition of bringing profound change to the country.

Look, I can't blockquote the entire thing. Just go, read.

Electoral Betting

UPDATE: BLURG! The stupid Dailykos map thing is down. Wait til tomorrow to post. I'll see if I can try something else tonight.
My Electoral Prediction

Well, election season is upon us. Duh. It is beyond banal to say that this is an important election. So I won't say it. I will say, however, that this is a prime opportunity to show off your pundit chops. So, if you are so inclined, I would like to present the Ich Bin Ein Oberliner Electoral Betting Pool (NB: we bet points not dollars, because, obviously, I would never break the law so egregiously...).

Unfortunately the points pool is only open to those here in Oberlin as they are the only ones who will be around to receive the excellent point prize! But anyone can show off their pundit chops and earn pundit plaudits by following these instructions BEFORE, SAY, THREE O'CLOCK TOMORROW.

(1) Go to Dailykos.com, (2) Click on their "Daily Kos Political Scoreboard" on the top banner, (3) Make the map to your liking, and (4) link to it in the comments of this post (there's a handy "LINK" button on the DKos Map). INSTANT FUN!

I'll be at Hug House tomorrow night for the election festivities. If you're going, make sure and bring a couple points with you for entry to the pool and other fun games. If you're in Oberlin and want into the pool otherwise, shoot me an email. Happy Election, and vote, damnit, vote.

Safer Sex

Tonight is Safer Sex Night, Oberlin's own school sponsored orgy informational and educational event celebrating safe sex. You might call it Safer Sex Week, as the week is marked by SIC (Sexual Information Center or something) sponsored workshops like "how to please an anus." The week is also marked by somewhat frightening posters appearing around campus marked with statistics about unsafe sex.

It pisses off all the right people, namely the Christianist Right, which you gotta love, and, though I haven't been myself since Freshman year and don't particularly care for the event, I like the fact that (1) we piss of Christianists and (2) we get a school sponsored party celebrating sex.

That said, I'm trying to sleep, and it's a Thursday night, so, loud, drunk freshmen in skimpy clothing--yeah, you--shut the fuck up.

WUV!!!!111,
Ich Bin Ein Oberliner

Metapost and Congrats

Oberlin's own Spiral's first issue.
They just came out with a new one, no link, sadly.
Here.

Congratulations to Spiral! They just came out with their second issue. You can grab one in Mudd, but I imagine they're going fast. They are Oberlin's magazine dedicated to genre fiction. And what is genre fiction, you ask? Their website :

Genre-fiction is an umbrella term that includes science-fiction, fantasy, romance, erotica, mystery, and horror—anythihttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifng that goes beyond the traditional bounds of literature.

Cool.

I haven't had the time to peruse this issue, but it looks nice. I've added their link to my roll. You can read the first issue their in PDF. And let me say this, the back cover of the new issue features a two dragons and a scary figure all in silhouette, but the scary figure is carrying a white iPod, in a fantasy parody of those iPod ads. Awesome.

In other news, on the docket today:

(1) Google is cool;
(2) Notes on antipolitics (maybe);
(3) Ich Bin Ein Oberliner gear?

To paraphrase Ezra Klein: Mama said to wonk you out.

Midterm Dispatch

Mudd Library
Here.

A quick break from the soul-crushing midterm week: In A-Level of Mudd (our library), you can get a scalp massage. And free food. And free coffee. Awesome.

In other news, I strongly encourage everyone to read the following two posts from Ezra Klein (here and here). Maybe this will whet your appetite:

A couple older writers have asked me what happens if Obama wins the election and loses the white working class, and seemed confused by my reply that "he becomes president." The emergent post-McGovern coalition uniting the professional class with minorities with the young and with the poor is not, as far as I can tell, considered a particularly legitimate demographic coalition. Too many of its members drink Starbucks coffee or something.

Sorry I'm too busy to blog for real. Maybe tomorrow...

College Journalism

Not technically a union image, but, whatever.

The Oberlin Review, Oberlin College's proud paper of record (est. 1874) has some explainin' to do. They ran a series of articles and an unsigned editorial on the potential UAW strike (here, here, and here). This blogger's sources at The Review tell me that most--if not all--of the sources for their stories were Union workers. President Krislov and other administration officials apparently declined to comment. It seems that the College is legally bound not to reveal anything about ongoing labour negotiations.

Sources in the Administration, Student Senate, and The Review have all told me that the administration feels The Review article was full of shit (I'm paraphrasing, obviously), as--they claim--healthcare has nothing to do with the negotiations. However, my sources inside the union tell me that healthcare does have to do with the negotiations.

Oh Noze!

Look, the administration is refusing to even leak background information about the strike talks, and the unions are talking. I'm with The Review on this one. If the college isn't going to comment on the record, then they'll just have to deal with a one-sided account of what's going on. That's the price you pay for not treating The Review like a serious publication. In other words, if President Krislov and the trustees are pissed because they feel that no one knows their side of the story, then why not get some Communications Office flunky to say something to someone. If you're that pissed at The Review, The Grape would be happy to get that scoop. I know, I know, they're not supposed to say anything, but since I'm just a blogger and a lowly copy editor and I've heard more than one administration official bitching about The Review's coverage, I'd say the cat's pretty much out of the bag.

In other news, while there are a lot of rumors flying around, and I wouldn't believe half of them, the fact that this campus is so pro-union even without knowing the facts is a testament to the strength of the labour movement here on campus. W00t.

Although I do wish we knew what the hell was going on... Krislov, spread the love.

The Month in Review

"Johnny Thunders" (2008)
Illustration by Michael Newell.
From Facebook. If you want to see more, friend the man.

Somehow, I've managed to get myself sick again. So, please forgive my lack of consistent posting these last few days. I also have two rather large papers on the docket: "Against Period Performance: The Need for a Postmodern Performance Practice" and "The Elites". Last night, too, was layout night at The Grape. In short, I've been busy.

Fortunately, I haven't been too busy to read. I'd like to make a couple of notes before I throw out this month's book list. (1) I've rethought my previous rule that I ought not post books I read for class. Fuck that. The books I'm reading are generally quite interesting, and have been playing an increasingly large role in my thinking on a variety of other subjects. (2) I haven't yet figured out how to put magazines--or even in I should put magazines--on this list. But, for class, I've read three issues of The New Yorker, two issues of Harper's, and one issue of The Atlantic. So there. Here's the list:

September Book List

Jason Aaron
-(Guera, illust.), Scalped, issue 21.

Jorge Luis Borges
-A Universal History of Iniquity, (1) "The Cruel Redeemer Lazarus Morell", (2) "The Improbable Impostor Tom Castro", (3) "The Widow Ching--Pirate", (4) Monk Eastman, Purveyor of Iniquities", (5) "The Disinterested Killer Bill Harrigan", (6) "The Uncivil Teacher of Court Etiquette Kotsuke No Duke", (7) "Hakim, the Masked Dyer of Merv".

Michael Chabon
-Summerland.
-Werewolves in Their Youth: (1) "Werewolves in Their Youth", (2) "House Hunting".

Warren Ellis & Mike Wolfer
-(Jimenez, illust.), Gravel, issue 5.

Newt Gingrich
-Rediscovering God in America.

Bruce Haynes
-The End of Early Music.

Robert Hill
-"Overcoming Romanticism".

David Lapham
-(Lapham, illust.), Young Liars, issues 1-7.

Cy Spencer
-(Gane, illust.), The Vinyl Underground, issues 1-12.

David Tischman
-(Fabry, illust.), Greatest Hits, issue 1.

Brian Vaughan
-(Harris, illust.), Ex Machina, issue 38.

Matt Wagner
-(Hadley, illust.), Madame Xanadu, issue 4.

Joss Whedon
-(Moline, illust.), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season 8, issue 18.

Bill Willingham
-(Allred, illust.), Fables, issue 76.

G. Willow Wilson
-(Perker, illust.), Air, issues 1 & 2.

Brian Wood
-(Kelly, illust.), Local, issues 1 - 12.
-(Ormston, illust.), Northlanders, issues 9 & 10.

As you may remember, I'm very busy and more than a little sick, so I might not be posting these soon (also, The Office is on tonight, my friend John McKean is playing a harpsichord recital tonight in Fairkid Chapel, and--let's not forget--the Palin/Biden debate), but here's what's on the docket:

(1) Comic Reviews, in Brief, including, Air, Northlanders, The Alcoholic.

(2) Bailout?

(3) This one isn't on the docket so much as something you should do. There is an excellent article coming out in The Grape by opinions editor Fred Barnes on Newt Gingrich's recent speech. It's in the features section. The Grape will be out on Sunday. I strongly recommend that you pick a copy up, if only to read that article.

(4) The International Union of Copy Editors, Local 42, Oberlin, OH.

I'll talk nerdy to you.

These Guys

The Rock-its
They look older now.

I had the pleasure of seeing The Rock-its open tonight at The 'Sco (the main band was Stars Like Fleas--an unfortunate name for a supposedly good band). I didn't stay for the main act, but, then again, I wouldn't have shown up at all were I not friends with The Rock-its bassist. For those of you here in Oberlin, The Rock-its used to be called Matthias Miller and Nighthawk, nee Matt Miller and Nighthawk, nee The Bent Three, nee The Gay [somethingorrather]. They are more commonly know as "that rockabilly band".

For those of you who don't know, rockabilly is essentially fast sock-hop music, slightly updated. It's pretty fun, and I'll tell you what's amazing: some variations on twelve-bar blues can set people dancing pretty hard. I danced quite a bit and then smelled for my shift at the Writing Center (whoops).

I'm fairly certain The Rock-its intend to play more this year. Probably mostly at house parties. I believe The Grape has a review forthcoming, and I'm pretty sure it'll be positive; I saw the photographer, at least, dancing up a storm. But let me add my nod of approval to the deafening chorus sure to come.

Even if you have to go to some gross basement in a house party on Woodland. Even if--heaven forbid--you have to hit The Masonic Temple (I would tell you where I peed in that place, but I don't want to get sued), go see them play. It's a fun time.

Newt Gingrich Hates You

from http://wordle.net
Word cluster of the following article.

I'm inflicting this draft of an upcoming article for The Grape on you for two reasons (1) I need to know if it's good and (2) I need to know if it needs a conclusion. Fire away, reader(s).

A quick note. I am one of two copy editors for The Grape, and am writing this for them for that reason. Also because I couldn't say this stuff in The Review, also elevating readers and all that.

Here it is.

Hide your women, and lock up your booze; Newt Gingrich is coming to Oberlin. The Honorable Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the United States House of Representatives, former professor of history, and former(?) two-time adulterer will be speaking at Finney Chapel on Wednesday, September 24.

Gingrich is best known for his role in the 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, The Contract With America, and the ensuing failed impeachment of President Clinton.

Gingrich, too, has received notoriety for his tawdry personal life; his biography is speckled with scandal, hypocrisy, and base lechery. His first wife was his high school geometry teacher whom he married when he was nineteen. He divorced her after a series of messy—and potentially delightfully kinky—affairs. Infamously, he demanded that they discuss the terms of their divorce as she lay in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery. He then refused to pay alimony. Fortunately for wife number one, his hometown church began collecting donations for her.

Three months after this divorce, he married wife number two. Then, after a drawn-out affair with a congressional staffer, he divorced wife number two and made an honest woman out of that lucky staffer.

But in the spirit of hating not the player but the game, it might be prudent to move away from Gingrich’s personal life; it is too easy to point out the flaws, foibles, and hypocrisies of politicians, even if they are as glaring as Gingrich’s affair during the Clinton impeachment probe. There is much more to Gingrich’s life outside of politics, much more than his hedonistic sexual predilections and his violations of (several) House ethics rules.

Gingrich has authored a number of historical fiction novels, which delve into the “what ifs?” of history. Unlike much historical fiction, which ends up ghettoized in the back “genre” aisles of Barnes and Nobel, Gingrich’s work is regularly a bestseller, and often met with critical approval. For example, disgraced ex-Marine and conservative demi-god, Colonel Oliver North lauded one of Gingrich’s recent works (with co-author William Forstchen), Days of Infamy, a retelling of the infamous Pearl Harbor attacks as, “Absolutely brilliant! Fast paced and filled with tension and suspense. Every page resonates with the momentous events and great personalities of World War II—and scenes so carefully crafted you feel like you’re there. This is a ‘must read’ for all who look at history and wonder: ‘What if…’”

Beyond his fiction works, Gingrich has written several non-fiction books, mostly declaiming the state of affairs today, and pressing for a kind of a change anathema to most at Oberlin. But Gingrich—like so many conservative politicians—does not merely push for radically rightist-christianist policies, which in and of itself would cause friction in a place like Oberlin, but he views the world in an entirely different way than we.

It is this fundamental difference in world-view that makes Gingrich such a polarizing figure on a majority-liberal campus like Oberlin, and it is sure to make his coming speech, particularly the question and answer session, a high blood pressure event. Civility, after all, is hard to achieve when one believes—as Gingrich does—that we are the enemy, not just of his policies, but of his God and of America itself.

Gingrich, in his books, demonstrates quite clearly why those who oppose his policies are fundamentally un-American. Gingrich begins his Winning the Future with a test on where the reader stands “on the great and growing gap between traditional American values [that’s him] and the secular liberalism of the Left [that’s us].” From these questions one can easily divine what he thinks of us. We are not proud to be an American. We do not believe in God. We like personal injury lawyers and have abortions for fun.

With vitriol, he frames his books such that every passage shows his disdain for his—and his country’s—enemy. He writes:

America has been divided into these two camps. In the first are those elites who find it acceptable to drive God out of the public life and who, in general, also scorn American history, support economic regulation over freedom and competition, favor a “sophisticated” foreign policy led by the United Nations, and agree with The New York Times.

But Americans in the other camp who are proud of our history know how integral God is to understanding American exceptionalism, know how vital the creative and competitive spirit is to being American, and believe that America is worth defending even if it irritates foreigners who do not share our values.

Putting aside, for the moment, the ludicrousness of putting economic regulation and freedom on two sides of a dialectic, as though they were mutually exclusive; putting aside, for the moment, the fact that neither elite nor sophisticated are insults; putting aside, for the moment, the unfathomably obtuse and downright scurrilous straw-man argument that those who opposed President Bush’s actions post-9/11 somehow believe that America is not worth defending; putting all of this aside, it is hard to read this passage without coming to the twin conclusions that, one, Newt Gingrich hates us, and, two, Newt Gingrich is an irreconcilable blowhard.

But the fundamental problem with Newt Gingrich isn’t his facile and illogical vituperation. It isn’t even his playa-wannabe sexual habits. The problem with Newt Gingrich is that he believes that God makes America great. Let me rephrase. He believes that a specific—and wholly sectarian—God is the font from which all that is good in America flows. And, as such, to claim—as many on the Left do—that there are some structural problems in America is to claim that there is something wrong with God.
The flip side of this coin is that, according to Newt, to argue—as many on the Left do—that we ought not force Newt Gingrich’s conception of God into the public sphere is to argue that we ought not to put back what makes America great.

Here is the crux of Newt Gingrich’s persecution complex, the crux of his bile and scorn. In the good ol’ days, men were men, women were women, and America, blessed by God, was a land of puppies, unicorns, and post-marital orgasms. Now, he sees that world slipping away; the elitists, the commies, the hippies, and the secular Left have taken prayer out of schools and God out of the government. And since Gingrich, and his christianist brethren, have confused piety for patriotism, the inescapable conclusion is that we have taken what is good of America out of America.

North Quad at Night

It's a humid, wet night here in Oberlin. And what's happening on North Quad? Outdoor dance party, featuring...

Freshmen...

Reviews, In Brief

John Grider
Here
[ED NOTE: This demonic image is in honor of The Honorable Newt Gingrich.]

I've been reading. Allow me to present some (very) short reviews of some of the things I've been reading. Fun!

The Vinyl Underground, issues 1 - 12

Twelve issues, I fear, were not enough for this series. Writer Si Spencer and penciller Simon Gane did a good job with Underground. But it was a little cramped. It's fun, and it's quick. There are three main mysteries, but the structure of the thing makes it seem as though Spencer got a little too wrapped up in mysteries one and two to really give mystery three (ostensibly, the one that ties it all together) the treatment it deserved. Pity.

THE GOOD: Fun and lighthearted without being air-headed. THE BAD: A bit kitchy in the first few issues, and, as mentioned earlier, a touch on the short side. THE UGLY: I'd go out and buy it in trade, but this one isn't headed for the hall of fame.

Rediscovering God in America

Oh Newt Gingrich! How is it possible that you're a professor of history! Seriously. How is that possible. This book is facile to the core. The writing is sharp and tight, but it requires a number of logical leaps for the argument to even be valid (as in, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, which says nothing about the actual truth-status of the premises).

THE GOOD: Um... did you know that Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House? THE BAD: Newt Gingrich thinks you should cut your hair, you goddamn hippies. Also, the argument is that God is the font from which American Government flows. THE UGLY: Newt Gingrich finalized his divorce agreements while his wife was in a hospital bed. Don't read this book unless you have to.

[ED NOTE: Hide your women! Lock up your booze! Newt Gingrich is coming to Oberlin. It's the 24th, I think. The Q & A should be fun. I wonder if they'll have to bring in extra security like they did for Malkin.]