<$BlogRSDURL$>
the end of the world is nigh
Monday, December 10, 2001
  mark twain wrote the following in 1900 in response to u.s. drive to empire (particularly the teddy roosevelt clique in government). i LOVE IT. yet another example of how cool twain was. need i mention that it is every bit as appropriate now as it was in 1900 (just don't get all square about what "empire" means)?

[to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic]

mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the sword;
he is searching out the hoardings where the stranger's wealth is stored;
he hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
his lust is marching on.

i have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
they have builded him an altar in the eastern dews and damps;
i have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps--
his night is marching on.

i have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"as ye deal with my pretentions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
let the faithless son of freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
lo, greed is marching on!"

we have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;
greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
o, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
our god is marching on!

in a sordid slime harmonious, greed was born in yonder ditch,
with a longing in his bosom--and for others' goods an itch--
as christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich--
our god is marching on.

 
  why would there even be a debate about whether to release the new tape of bin laden to the media?

i think i have an answer: as long as the government limits (through the u.s. media lackeys) public access to bin laden's image, words, mannerisms, etc., they CONTROL the image the public has of him. or rather, they can control it for most people. see, the notion that we are fighting evil only flies if the enemy appears evil. if, as is often said, bin laden is a pretty smooth operator, he might come off as less than evil in a video tape. more human, perhaps, than we would like to think. perhaps even sane. worst case scenario: he might appear innocent.

so, better to keep complex images away from the fragile minds of the sheep (er, citizens). i suspect that this is the rationale.

this is linked pretty closely to the fact that, as yet, the mountain of evidence the u.s. claims to have has also been kept back (see also the secret military tribunals and the secrecy surrounding the mass arrests of "suspects"). if the evidence is so persuasive, why not persuade us? no, no, let the adults make the decisions (i've actually heard some right wingers say that bit): he's guilty, trust us. 
  the end of the semester is always exciting, but this has been more exciting than most.

see below and on my Live Journal for the story of the problem student with whom i had a heated argument.

see the LJ again for the story of my (unfortunately not at all secret) admirer. then read this part: she has struck again. in an email friday she credited me with, more or less, reawakening her loins (they have slumbered since the death of her husband). it gets worse: she has signed up for both of my classes next semester!

this story could get nasty. see, i'm in a pickle.

my boss suggested today that i attempt to dissuade her from taking my classes in hopes of avoiding complications. fine. sounds like a decent idea, until one considers this: to this point my only action has been to tell her that it is inappropriate for me to discuss it with her. fine. but if i ask her not to take me then i will be taking major action. what if it pisses her off? sounds like a potential problem to me.

i could also write her again and make it abundantly clear that this can't stand (and this time point out that i have a partner, birgit, of seven years). this option is icky to me not least because i don't like discussing my personal life with folks in general and students in particular. it is also icky because, like option one, it carries heavy misinterpretation possibilities. my roomie counsels strongly against this one because she "used to be her" (meaning any non school correspondence can awaken hope in the heart of an admirer).

then there is the easy option: ignore her most recent email and hope for the best. i like this one for obvious reasons.

nightmare scenario if she takes the class: she got all "a"s this semester. what if she does poorly on an assignment next semester and views her grade as retribution?

--------------

on a lighter note: i caught a plagiarist late last night. i derive a perverse pleasure from doing that. the only problem is that i can't do the proper paperwork on this one until the spring (if the university will allow it) because i'm leaving town tomorrow. sigh. i can't finish the villain off! but time is on my side . . .

memo to students: many of your instructors KNOW HOW TO USE THE INTERNET. 
  scott (aka misterrogers [link at right]) gave the gift of ram for my birthday and now i can (among other things) edit blogs without fear of lockup. wooooo! 
Sunday, December 09, 2001
  ANOTHER problem is that they have infected me with the misuseofapostrophitis. help! 
  another problem is that student's can't seem to see the difference between "succession" and "secession". ugh. 
  ever heard of people's minds being colonized?

in my early american history course this semester (and in my modern western civ courses of previous semesters) i emphasized that the big issue for the early labor movement (during the first industrial revolution) was NOT pay or safety or benefits or anything else that one might normally suspect. most early labor movements were, in fact, fighting against industrialization itself! they didn't want to work in a factory AT ALL (even for good wages and safety and benefits and all the candy). furthermore, they didn't want ANYONE to work in a factory. i'm overstating but this is essentially true. (think "luddism")

the issue was independence. i even told my students that the very idea of working for ANY wage (even a good one) was repulsive to these folks because they placed independence at the top of their list of priorities and, no matter how gilded, the factory was just a cage.

my students just cannot seem to get their heads around this notion. i think it is because most of them are industrial people (broadly drawn: including white collar). very few come from, say, farm families. it apparently doesn't occur to them that a job (any job) is a defacto loss of independence. the only reality most of my students can consider is that you work for someone else and rely on them for your survival (sort of) and are at their mercy (with the goal of eventually getting to wield the whip yourself). the notion that this is a recent development in the u.s. (and europe and a few other places) and is still not the nature of things in much or most of the rest of the world is too much, i think, to comprehend for your average american student.

so what? so maybe this is why so many people think anti globalists are crazy (at best) or sinister (at worst) or that people in many parts of the world resist becoming more like the u.s. not because of any inherent inferiority or "backwardness" but because they are, more or less, happy to be what they are and would prefer to be left alone.

isn't history cool? 
  the post immediately below this one contains an error. i was unable to repair it because, for some reason, i.e. locks up every time i try to edit a blog. harumph.

anyway, read the word "thing" as "think" in the thing below. 
  i'm going into full nerd mode for the lord of the rings. see this article in The Observer for an attempt at explaining why grown ups get all wiggly when they thing about it.

Guardian Unlimited Observer | Review | Mordor, he wrote... 
Saturday, December 08, 2001
  but then i get comments like this:

"this history class has allowed me to finally open up my eyes and take a look around. after years of being force fed falsehoods about my forefathers being all holier than thou figures, and the country being blameless, i am allowed to see a glimpse of truth about what made this country the way it is today."

bless him.
 
  i teach history class, by the way.

i teach a very critical sort of history. i'm a lefty, so that's part of the reason. the main reason is, however, that i figure that one reason the world is in the state it is is that folks don't know much about history. or, they "think" they know. for example: if folks believe that everything in american history has been part of an unblemished march towards freedom and human betterment, then they react in certain ways to the american present and future. however, if folks know about problems, nastiness, ugliness, conniving, cheating, evil, and what not (as well as the good things) then they will view the country (and their place in it) as more complex, more challenging, and (i think) more interesting and more needing of their active participation. odd sentence, but you take my point.

so given the above it always bugs me when i seem unable to make a dent in some folks. see, i have my students reflect on what they've encountered in the course on their final exams (and they can say whatever they want too: there is no correct answer). so far two of those i've read have come from folks who are downright angry that the mythical glories of america's past have been tarnished by nasty facts. sigh. why does the truth disturb people so much? why are conservatives (both of these guys claim to be conservative) so particularly repelled by a nuanced view of history? how can you take comfort in a history that disregards truth? why, joseph campbell, are myths so much more popular than history? 
Friday, December 07, 2001
  below is a quotation from David Corn's recent article in The Nation. it regards Asscraft's testimony before the senate judiciary committee. see my earlier post and then come back to tell me how wise and cool i am.

"In his opening statement, Ashcroft unleashed the harshest attack of the day. He blasted his critics, claiming that "their bold declarations of so-called fact have quickly dissolved, upon inspection, into vague conjecture. Charges of 'kangaroo courts' and 'shredding the Constitution' give new meaning to the term 'the fog of war.'" Then he went on to assert that the critics were threats to the nation's security: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists--for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.""

according to asscraft i aid terrorists. fuck him. 
  i just heard on npr that dubyah called the terrorists fascists. two things spring to my mind.

1) it takes one to know one (cheap shot, i know)

2) is christopher hitchens w's new speechwriter? see znet, the nation, and counterpunch for discussions of chris's recent wierdness. 
  ugh.

apparently the dems wanted more money for defense than even the repubs. we are through the looking glass now.

by the way: today was "america got its hat handed to it day". on this date, in 1941, the air and naval forces of the empire of japan attacked the u.s. fleet at pearl harbor, hawaii.

most americans view the attack as utterly dastardly and as the opening shots of what was american's last unquestionably just war.

a few things beg consideration, however:

-- the u.s. fleet was moved to pearl harbor from san diego shortly before the attack precisely because . . . the u.s. expected trouble from the japanese.

-- the japanese had been at war against china since 1934. had we lifted a finger? no.

-- how did the u.s. come to own hawaii? don't know? check it out. shorthand: we took it over in the 1890s. it was a colony, ladies and gentlemen.

-- why would the japanese bother attacking the u.s.? well, hawaii is in the pacific, but that wasn't their main interest. we also owned the marshal islands, guam, midway, and the phillipines. in other words, our empire was in the way of their empire. this helps explain why we based our fleet in hawaii to begin with.

now, i have to say the following: i don't get into the idea that highly placed members of the u.s. government "let" japan attack because they wanted u.s. isolationists to wake up. there is compelling evidence of this, but it doesn't wash with me. i suppose it is possible . . . perhaps i just don't want to believe it.

also, the empire of japan was a nasty beast. japanese occupation troops behaved horribly in korea and china. no fan of imperial japan am i. they were bastards, but until 1941, let us be clear, they were "our" bastards.

much has been made of the similarities between 1941 and 2001. i think there are LOTS of similarities in how things started and the origins thereof, but i fear that the similarities stop there.

more thoughts on this are possible later.
 
  i shouted at a student today for the first time.

this story requires background. see my livejournal (link at right) for this.

the student in question was outraged at the grade he received on his essay (a 60%). for around 45 minutes i tried to explain it to him. he could not accept it (or, perhaps, understand). he became increasingly belligerent (sp?) and, fortunately, there were plenty of witnesses in the office.

eventually he shouted that i had "fucked him" on the grade. i blew my top and shouted "no, dude. you fucked yourself. if you can't understand that, then to hell with you." he then said something to the effect that i didn't have to get all riled up, and i pointed out that he had started it and that i would "give as good as i got." i said (rather too loudly) "reread the assignment, reread your essay, and if you still don't understand email me because i will not speak to you again. we are finished talking. think it over and get back to me or not. i'm done." he stormed off cursing me.

jeez.

so i'm listening to "the sunday's" to calm myself. sade is next.

happy birthday to me. 
Thursday, December 06, 2001
  ok, as if you needed evidence.

the u.s. senate judiciary committee (including, i'm sad to say, rusself feingold) are a bunch of chickenshits.

they let (attorney general) asscraft basically tell them that their concerns (no matter how mild and polite they are) are unimportant and that he and the other reichsministern (er, um, i meant cabinet members) need answer only to the fuehrer (er, i mean dubyah, er i mean cardinal richelieu, er i mean dicky boy).

sigh. so much for the importance of the democrats controlling the senate. makes me wanna holler, throw up both my hands. 
 

Ever wondered what happened to the beastie boys? 
  hampshire college is probably a cool place.

Click
Wednesday, December 05, 2001
  right around 1/24th of a shopping day left till my birthday, by the way. 
  i'm not much of a joiner. i generally actively resist trends. if you look at this page, for example, you'll find evidence of very little web hipness. that is partly because i'm simply not particularly savvy and partly because i choose not to do some of the things i know are possible (such as emoticons, which i loathe).

i do, however, type in lower case on this sort of thing and on email. this is not so much me bowing to the nerd god as it is me being lazy. and oh, my children, i am very, very lazy. you will learn this all too soon, if you choose to read regularly. 
SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE!!! Speak out against all sorts of bad stuff, in fact. Speak out against me, if you must. this is a collection of my thoughts on things i find interesting, funny, scary, or otherly categorizable (including neologisms, if that is what i've just typed [or even if it isn't]) PEACE. THAT'S ALL. GIMMIE PEACE. I'VE ALWAYS CALLED YOU JEEBUS, YOU'VE ALWAYS CALLED ME GREG . . .

ARCHIVES
12/01/2001 - 01/01/2002 / 01/01/2002 - 02/01/2002 / 02/01/2002 - 03/01/2002 / 03/01/2002 - 04/01/2002 / 04/01/2002 - 05/01/2002 / 05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002 / 06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002 / 07/01/2002 - 08/01/2002 / 08/01/2002 - 09/01/2002 / 09/01/2002 - 10/01/2002 / 11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002 /


Powered by Blogger