Dewey, or Dewey not?

Last week Solon posted on death threats over pizza. I responded to his post with a comment about a sign in front of a liquor store that reads "American-owned." Solon and I noted how both these instances attempt to exclude Americans who embody some kind of otherness. We also acknowledge how uncomfortable it can be when such attempts to marginalize and exlude groups are cloaked in a language of patriotism.

I've been reading some John Dewey today, and I think he aptly addresses the issue of American otherness:

No matter how loudly any one proclaims his Americanism, if he assumes that any one racial strain, and one component culture, no matter how settled it was in our territory, or how effective it has proved in its own land, is to furnish a pattern to which all other strains and cultures are to conform, he is a traitor to an American nationalism. Our unity cannot be a homogenous thing...; it must be a unity created by drawing out and composing into a harmonious whole the best, the most characteristic which each contributing race and people has to offer. ("The Principle of Nationality" 288-89)

Guaranteed to break the ice at parties

Here is a fun party game: Try to discern what these symbols mean in this cartoon from Captain's Quarters.

Call the Attorney...

Wait... on second thought you may not want to call this attorney, the top attorney in the United States. Yester, while testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales declared that not every citizen or individual in the United States possess the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. Instead, he assured us, that Congress cannot take the right away. Oddly, is Congress cannot take something away, there must be something to take away (a simple correlation of ideas).

Here is the Constitutional Right in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”


Here is the transcript:

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

Torture is okay...

if it occurred before December 30th, 2005. From CNN:

Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, a legal adviser to the Office of Military Commissions, told reporters that the manual provides for a "clear prohibition of evidence obtained by torture" if it was obtained after December 30, 2005.

But if it was obtained before that time, and if the judge determines that it is reliable, it may be admitted, he said.

Why bother with a cut-off date?

The UNI Ranking

I know, I know: I am way beyond my time.

Paul Lukas, at ESPN, developed the "UNI Ranking," which gauges a city's performance in the crucial category of athletics aesthetics with the uniform numerical index, a.k.a., the UNI.

For an explanation:

Here's how it works: First, only cities with at least three major-level sports teams are eligible for a UNI ranking (college and minor league teams don't count -- because there are too many of them and because their uniforms tend to change too frequently anyway). Unfortunately, this means two-team cities such as San Diego, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Buffalo and Nashville didn't make the cut (and are therefore implicitly uninhabitable). But ineligibility can have its advantages: Because Cincinnati has only two teams, for example, it was spared the albatross of having its ranking pulled down by the Bengals.

Assigning teams to specific cities involved a few judgment calls. Should the A's, Raiders, Warriors and Sharks count as San Francisco teams? (Yes.) Should the Nets, Devils and Islanders be filed under New York? (No.) Should the Patriots be assigned to Boston? (Duh.) That sort of thing. After lots of careful consideration, Uni Watch ended up with 20 U.S. cities plus Toronto meeting the three-team standard.

A rigorous, highly scientific set of standards then was employed to rate the uniforms of each team in the 21 cities. The ratings, on a scale of one to five stars, roughly translate to the following expressions of civic pride (or angst, as the case might be):

Five Stars = "Man, is this a great city or what? Why didn't we move here sooner?"
Four Stars = "Hey, maybe that broker's fee wasn't so outrageous after all."
Three Stars= "I really like it here. But you know, I like lots of places."
Two Stars = "I pay property tax, school tax and garbage tax just so I can look at this?"
One Star = "Call the movers -- we're leaving tomorrow."

After adding up a city's ratings and dividing by the number of teams, Uni Watch ended up with the city's average score. Because a uniform can be enhanced or diminished by its surrounding context, especially on TV, a stadium/arena bonus (for particularly attractive settings) or penalty (for domes or artificial turf) of as much as one point was applied to certain cities. The average score, plus this bonus or penalty, yields the city's final UNI, destined to become the key yardstick of urban stature.

The winners (rating in parentheses):
(1) Boston (5.25- Everyone looks good at Fenway; bonus point awarded)
(2) Chicago (4.8)
(3) San Francisco (4.33)
(4) (tie) Los Angeles (4.0)
(4) (tie) Pittsburg (4.0)

Rounding out the top-ten:
(6) New York (though, the Islanders fell off the radar) (3.83)
(7) (tie) St. Louis (3.67)
(7) (tie) Cleveland (3.67)
(10) (tie) Philly (3.5)
(10) (tie) Houston (3.5)

I think that the writer should have created a top-ten list for the unlivable places.

Next time I'm on campus, I'm traveling to the library like this.

In Honor of MLK Jr...

Here is an excerpt from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." I prefer this to "I Have a Dream."

This is a great passage to use in class to discuss the style of the argument reinforces the argument. In the second paragraph, King combines anaphora (repetition at the beginning of a clause) with copia (excessive use of clauses) to argue that civil disobedience is the necessary course of action and the timing of the boycotts and protests is correct, especially for the demonstrations in Birmingham, which occurred over the Easter holday-- a time when, traditionally, shopping was very important to the local economy.

Here is the passage:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Further attacks on a free society...

According to CNN:

Charles "Cully" Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said in a radio interview last week that companies might want to consider taking their business to firms that do not represent suspected terrorists.

Stimson's remarks were viewed by legal experts and advocacy groups as an attempt to intimidate law firms that provide legal help to all people, even unpopular defendants.Sonnett said in a statement that Stimson had made a "blatant attempt to intimidate lawyers and their firms who are rendering important public service in upholding the rule of law and our democratic ideals."

Stimson on Thursday told Federal News Radio, a local commercial station that covers the government, that he found it "shocking" that lawyers at many of the nation's top law firms represent detainees.

Stimson listed the names of more than a dozen major firms he suggested should be boycotted.

"And I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms," Stimson said.

Who needs to live by the ideas in the Constitution.

Death Threats over PIzza

From CNN: A pizza joint in Dallas received death threats and hate mail since it catered to its office, I mean, allowed customers to pay in pesos. One email stated, "This is the United States of America and not the United States of Mexico." According to the business, 60% of its customers are hispanic. So far pesos payment accounts for 10% of the sales.

This seems to be very peculiar, especially because of the location. When I lived in New York, no one cared whether or not customers paid for their goods in American or Canadian currency. Most of the sales clerks knew the currency exchange rate, customers would pay, and then receive any change in U.S. currency.

In Texas, the story is quite different. While some of the outcry is over "illegal immigration" this does not make sense. Either the business is doing an excellent job of attractive new customers on a consistent basis or the business caters to illegals that have an unlimited supply of pesos. Both of these seem unlikely. I do not want to speculate, though I fear I know, what this really suggests.

Criticism of this business plan seems as ridiculous as towns that make either English or Spanish the official language of a given subdivision.

In both issues, it seems to make an "other" out of a group. Worse, one strategy in the immigration debate is to characterize any non-white as non-American. You can only be "American" if speak English and look "American."

Maybe, if more laws like this pass, we should make a requirement that Americans should speak and write correctly. Isn't that the next logical step?

New Artist of the Week

Maybe the first of multiple installments. It depends on the availability of artists,

Here is a link to the song "Heartbeats" by Jose Gonzalez. He is a bluesy-indie/folk singer/ songwriter. "Heartbeats" reached #9 on the UK charts.

On the downside, the video in question is a commercial for SONY Televisions. This is not a plug for that, but it certainly is for his work, especially his album "Veneer".

Another first...

In light of the debacle about which Solon reports in "Playoff? What do you mean playoff?" (The Rhetorical Situation, 08 January 2007), I will be the first major media figure to declare that a playoff is needed for college football.

Playoff? What do you mean playoff?

As the BCS Title Debacle reaches an ending and the score now 41 - 14 in the fourth, who will be the first to declare that a playoff is needed for college football?

And how do you convince the presidents of the major Universities that college football needs a playoff?

And how do presidents of major universities declare to the nation that academics for division schools, especially for football players, are not important?

How do you ask universities to schedule one less game (with the loss of guaranteed profits), for a chance at another game?

Just some basic questions, that's all.

Political Communication through Music

This semester I will be instructing a Political Communicaiton class. While trying to find new ways to reach my students, I decided to spend a week discussing music as a form of political communication. The songs must address political issues, with political being thought of as control and use of the basic resources and interests of a community or the arrangement of relationships between individuals in a community.

I have been putting together a list. Here are some example listed by artist, song, and theme. I am sure that there are multiple songs tha I am missing, especially when it comes to Rap (this is one genre of music I know little about).

(1) What am I missing? (Especially in regards to minority voices such through women artists and in rap)

(2) Why is there a dearth of political music in the 1990s? (There may be a few answers to this quesiton such as an "era of Good Feeling" after the end of the Cold War, an economic boom, the rise of Clear Channel and the centralization of playlists, the lack of social unrest to protest, and the rise of individual angst and the commodification of that angst.)

Here a brief list (there are many songs i am missing):

1960s
Barry McGuire “Eve of Destruction,” (imminent apocalypse, 1965)
Bob Dylan, “Blowing in the Wind,” (civil rights, anti-war; 1962)
Bob Dylan, “"The Times They Are a-Changin’” (Social Protest; 1963)
Creedence Clearwater Rivival “Fortunate Son,” (Those that did not fight, 1969)
Merle Haggard, "Oakie from Miskogee," (Anti-Protestors; 1960s)

1970s
Marvin Gaye, “What’s Going On,” (Vietnam; 1972)
John Lennon, “Imagine,” (anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-religion, anti-corporation, 1971)
John Lennon, “Give Peace A Chance,” (1972)

1980s
Bruce Springsteen, “Born in the U.S.A,” (Soldiers Retuning from War, 1984)
Nina- “99 Red Balloons” (Nuclear Proliferation, 1984)
R.E.M. “Orange Crush” (Vietnam)
U2, “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” (The Troubles in Northern Ireland, 1983)
Fugazi, “Suggestion” (Objectification of Women” 1989)
Public Enemy, “Fight the Power,” (1989)

1990s
Arrested Development, “Tennessee,” (lynching; 1992)
Guns N’ Roses, “Civil War; (a tribute to anti-war songs; 1992)
The Cranberries, “Zombie,” (The Toubles, Easter Rising; 1994)
Rage Against the Machine (multiple songs though there may be something rotten in Denmark about this band)

2000s
Alan Jackson, “Where were you,” (September 11th; 2002)
Toby Keith, “Country of the Red, White, Blue, Blue” (September 11th; 2002)
Dixie Chicks, “Travelin Soldier,” (Anti-War; 2002)
Dixie Chicks, “Not Ready to Make Nice,” (Anti-Bush Remarks,, 2006)
Bruce Springsteen, “Into the Fire” (September 11th; 2002)
Green Day, “American Idiot,” (Ridicules American under GWB; 2004)

George W. Bush wrote an editorial

[Place your punchline here...]

It appeared today in the Wall Street Journal

I'll Swear on what I want to.....

Or maybe, I'll Fall on you Quran.

Representative elect Keith Ellison will use a Quran, which was once owned by Thomas Jefferson, during his official swearing in ceremony on Thursday. Ellison is the first Muslim elected to Congress.

To no ones surprise, certain individuals, who seem to be more fundamental in their beliefs, are convinced that this is the (a) morally incorrect (b) the end of the United States as we know it and/or (c) a time to make sure others know how Christian you are by oppossing this.

Republican Rep. Virgil Goode, who seems to be a character straight out of the forest of Young Goodman Brown, wrote a letter because of Ellison's actions, there will be more Muslims elected to office and there will be more Muslims who enter the United States through immigration. Whether or not it is legal or illegal immigration does not matter. What matters, according to Goode, is that Muslims do not enter this country ,most likely to ruin the Christian character of the United States, which for some reason is omitted from the Constitutions. Maybe someone should tell Rep. Goode.

In a letter to constituents, Goode wrote:

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

While there are many legal and moral issues at play here, it is good to see that freedom association is alive and well with the members of Congress.

Start acting like (semi)bigots

In the news today, avocates for banning gay marriage in Massachusetts voted to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to go forward today. The measure still needs to be approved during the next legislative session before it moves to the ballot where the citizens of the state would be able to vote yea or nay.

In the rather incoherent move, the legislators voted for it, reconsidered by a vote of 117 - 75 after one of the gay legislatos scolded the other legislators, and, finally, the legislators then voted for it again by a tally of 64 - 132.

Further signs of incompetence by the legislators can be seen through whatthe amendment would do: as written, the amendment would ban further gay marriages from taking place, though it would leave the current gay marriages in place.

What does this action mean: look, we don't hate gays because we allow some to marry; we just don't want any more married.

Some where there was a document in American law that discussed equal protection under the law. I am not sure where it went, but was there a few years ago.

If this passes, I think I will move to Massachusetts and propose an amendment that states only individuals right of center can marry. Maybe only those who earn above $55,000. Maybe only those with blond hair and blue eyes. Maybe only those who believe in the divinity of the five books of Moses (though, how did Moses author books after he died?). Or maybe we can prevent atheists from filing law suits.

If you could pass any amendment, what would it be?

Taxation without Representation may End (in 2007)

It may finally happen, well, maybe. Washington D.C. may receive what colonists fought for: Representation.

Just think: it took only 200+ years for all citizens of the United States to receive representation. That is Democracy for you.

For an interesting video, you can check out Stephen Colbert's interview with a representative from D.C, Elanor Holmes-Norton.

Meta-Review of 2006

Since everyone is posting ther top-ten lists of 2006, (top ten movies, ten worst movies, top-ten songs, top-ten thoughts while bathing), I propose we list the top-ten of top ten lists. Or, maybe just the top-of-the-top list.

Here is one from Slate: "The Bill of Wrongs: The Ten Most Outrageous Civil LIberties VIolations in 2006." This is sure to break the ice at parties.

As they said in the '70s, "It ain't over till it's over"... Wrapping up the Rocky countdown a bit late

Perhaps many of you have already paid the price of admission and watched Rocky Balboa. For those who haven't, I will continue with the Rocky countdown. I know that this final bout is a bit late, but I was out of town and unable post the final clip. Please forgive me. And for those of you who were waiting to watch the movie until The Rhetorical Situation properly set the stage and ushered you into the theater on opening day: you can purchase a ticket tonight, as the coundown is now complete.

This final clip is from Rocky V, which most people consider the worst movie in the Rocky franchise. But I urge everyone to give it another chance. It's not a bad flick and really it sets the stage for the final installment. What's more, it delivers one of the most chilling moments of any Rocky sequal: the scene in the bar when Rocky challenges Tommy Gunn. "You knocked him down; why don't you try knocking me down." It's just plain awesome! Almost as awesome as Tommy's mullet. And I have a clip of it here:



Now that the countdown is officially complete, I guess I will leave you with a trailer to the newest installment, which I saw ealier this week (the day after I returned home, of course). And as I predicted several weeks ago, it is the best Rocky film since the original. I can't say enough good things about it. It's definitely the best movie of the year. And for those of you wondering...

[spoiler ahead]

... it does end as I predicted at the start of this countdown. That's right, I called it again!!!

College Football's Monopoly

As I gear up to wacth this year rounds of college bowls, I will begin the bowl season with my penance. Over at Counterpunch, Ralph Nader addresses the monopoly known as the BCS.

I do wonder at whether or not that at some point in my life I will have to choose between being an academic and enjoying college football. I'll try to give it one more year before I make a decision.