Saturday Night Musical Tribute

In honor of Oxymoron:

Some Thoughts on The Social Network, and a Question of the Day

Not too long ago, we watched The Social Network for the first time, and I was very impressed with it.

My interest in the movie going into it was twofold: on a personal level, as an enthusiastic facebook user who nevertheless maintains heavy skepticism about the ultimate healthiness of social networking; and also on a professional level, as a writing teacher who more and more has been bringing issues surrounding digital culture into the classroom. I had my rhet/comp classes this semester read Time Magazine's writeup of Mark Zuckerberg, and in the process of breaking down the article my interest in how facebook came to be was much heightened.

One interesting thing about the movie, on a rhetorical level, is the irony of the title. Very little time is devoted to facebook, facebook use, or the exploding phenomenon of social networking. The "social network" of the movie, rather, explores the (pretty ruthless) tendrils emanating from Zuckerberg and his activities, both on the Harvard campus and then later, by virtue of Napster co-found Sean Parker, Zuckerberg's "arrival" in silicon valley.

As many have noticed, the Zuckerberg charcter that this movie gives us comes across as quite socially incompetent--if not actually sociopathic. That is, Zuckerberg is represented in the movie as someone who is a genius but who seems to lack the capacity to even imagine the impact of his actions on others, let alone truly care about others. Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Zuckeberg in this regard was quite good, as were most all of the supporting cast--especially Justin Timberlake's portrayal of Parker, which I believe deserved every bit of hype it got--really, his performance may have even been underrated.

However. For me, the movie's overt representation of Zuckerberg as a quasi-sociopath raises, I think, very serious questions about the ethics of making movies about public figures in their own time. The Time Magazine writeup pretty much demolished a key premise of the film: more specifically, that Zuckerberg's rise was triggered by having lost, and wanting to impress, a girl that, for all the millions he made, he could never get back (this motif was rendered even more heavy-handed by the fact that the movie explains Sean Parker's Napster achievment on the same terms. Parker has gone on record saying that the movie's portryal of him is almost wholly fictitious). But in truth, as Time's writers made clear, Zuckerberg already had the girl when he started Facebook, and he is still with her today. Further, the magazine writeup went out of its way to demonstrate that Zuckerberg is actually quite socially adept--unless he feels like someone is wasting his time, at which point he tunes them out.

Time's worries about Zuckerberg were mostly aimed at his cavalier posture towards Privacy and Privacy Rights. But that's perhaps another topic, for another post.

What I am interested in asking here is this: How serious of an ethics problem is it, when a movie projects a highly stylized, and for that matter very unflattering, interpretation onto a person--public figure or not--in their own lifetime? The last line of the movie features one of the legal team saying to Zuckerberg, before walking out the door: "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be."

Enter the Miscarriage Police

The triumphant return of the famous Assy McGee Award®. The Award possibilities these days are endless. But wow. You really cannot, cannot, cannot make this stuff up. In addition to the usual attempt to overthrow Roe v Wade:

Franklin wants to create a Uterus Police to investigate miscarriages, and requires that any time a miscarriage occurs, whether in a hospital or without medical assistance, it must be reported and a fetal death certificate issued. If the cause of death is unknown, it must be investigated. If the woman can't tell how it happened, than those Uterus Police can ask family members and friends how it happened. Hospitals are required to keep records of anyone who has a spontaneous abortion and report it.

This country is losing its fucking mind. The fact that someone, even one person can attain political power with such an agenda, suggests that the nation in which that it a possibility might well be a hellhole. Combine that with the fact that there is nothing extreme about Rep. Bobby Franklin in the context of the party to which he belongs. Combine that with the fact that there is only the barest legitimate opposition to this bad craziness in the US political system, and you've pretty much got a good probability that this country is a hellhole.

Scott Walker and Women

Here's an interesting writeup on Scott Walker's "crusade" against women's rights.

Before linking to Mother Jones, Charles Johnson pithily notes:

Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker is not only trying to destroy public employees’ unions. For years, he’s also been working hard to force women back into the Dark Ages

Heh.

Wisconsin: Not a Last Gasp, but a Homage

Why has the situation in Madison, Wisconsin, emerged as such a galvanizing issue for liberals nationwide? While the specific dispute over the collective bargaining rights of workers would seem to be enough, I have a feeling that there is something deeper to this that has, hitherto, gone mostly unexplored--namely, the presense of a widespread sense that what we are witnessing is a last gasp, of sorts, for liberalism in the United States.

On a policy level, it is hard to imagine the dispute in Madison ending in any way other than with a victory for Governor Walker. All they have to do is wait for the protests to quiet down, the media cameras to roam elsewhere, and the Democratic legislators to return. And I think that at bottom, the protestors and those of us who sympathize with them, know this. But still there is something to the fact that they are playing out the string. That is the nature of a last gasp. That is, on all except a few red meat social issues like abortion and gay rights, I believe that we are in the early stages of a broadcloth surrender of American liberalism as we know it.

Even in the paralytic days of 2002, as the US solidified sweeping tax cuts, passed the Patriot Act, and careened into initiating a second war, liberals did not show signs of entirely giving up. But now we look at the political landscape in its totality, the cost of the last eleven years, and all we see is wreckage. Consider:

• The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue unabated. Where are the protests? Where is the opposition? (It is fashionable now to speak of "war fatigue," and that economic concerns have emerged as primary. Perhaps there is something to this; although it's too bad that the deaths and the billions spent are not thereby rendered any less real.) I think that the anti-war protestors saw there was absolutely no way to stop US military adventurism, and so gave up. Look for very little hue and cry when the next one starts.
• Debate over government's role in the economy has been overtaken by quibbles over how much spending to cut, and where to cut it. The possibility of making meaningful changes to our tax code has been eviscerated and liberals know it.
• Relatedly, liberals have surrendered the idea that corporate power could be checked by governmental regulations.
• Um, it goes without saying that liberals have surrendered on health care as well.

Never in my lifetime have I seen such lethargy, such absence of liberal narrative or vision as we have known it in this country. Workers rights, poverty, education, the environment--all have been rendered less than afterthoughts in our national conversation. The words "Liberal," "Progressive," &c. will not go away however--they are simply shifting to mean different things, different priorities. Perhaps it will mean things like battling the repeal of child labor laws and opposing conscription.

In context, those will certainly be worthy battles, and they may even be winnable.

I think that, knowing something like this in their gut, liberals turn their eyes to Wisconsin and feel something stir. Maybe it is less a last gasp than a homage.

Sunday Happy Musical Tribute.

Seriously?

 Like Harrogate, it has been a long time since I blogged here.  Typically I blog at Pieces of M, as my blogging has been focused on my job search, my work and teaching, and my mothering.  However, the things going on in the U.S. are really pissing me off.  Sure I get that the U.S. is in serious debt.  I get that.  I also get that the budget needs to be cut, or my great-great-grandchildren will also be in debt. That said, I don't think the way to go about it is by cutting programs that benefit/provide services for individuals without insurance or who can't afford insurance.  I mean seriously, cutting Planned Parenthood and PBS?  Reproductive rights and the arts?  Seriously Republicans?  Could you be a little creative at least?  Like, I don't know, taking a pay cut or increasing taxes on individuals who make over $200,000 a year? 

After a Long Hiatus

Harrogate Returns.

Tuesday Musical Tribute

Reconsidering the 14th Amendment

Top Republicans are making the case that Congress should repeal the 14th Amendment. This is a new strategy in the fight over immigration since repealing the 14th Amendment and ending birthright citizenship would bring an end to "anchor babies."

This seems to be anther case where the Republican "right to life" begins at conception and ends at birth.

See here and here.

Parenting and Happiness, again....

Over at Democracy and America, there is a critique about the marriage and happiness article in New York Magazine. The critique is well worth the read.

While I have a few more thoughts on the issue, especially concerning the definitions of the terms, the role of agency in parenting and marriage, and the notion of identity, I will try to work on a longer post tomorrow when I am not teaching and only writing.

Well Here is Something to Contemplate

From the New York Magazine: Why Parents Hate Parenting, or, "I Love My Children but Hate My Life."

I am just reading through the article now but it discusses a lot of frustrations with being a parent, especially the diminishing returns. There is not much hope two pages in to the article.

File Under: Ignorance is Strength.

It must be the campaign slogan for the GOP this fall.

From CNN: MIchael Steele on the War in Afghanistan

In a speech at a Republican fundraiser in Connecticut Thursday, a YouTube video shows the RNC chairman declaring of the war in Afghanistan, "This was a war of Obama's choosing."

"This is not something the United States actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," he added....

That statement is at odds with the fact the United States led a NATO coalition with overwhelming public support to invade Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks, and has prompted William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, to publicly call on Steele to step down.

"There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they're certainly entitled to make their case. But one of them shouldn't be the chairman of the Republican party," Kristol wrote.

Speaking at the Connecticut fundraiser, Steele also appeared to suggest any conflict in Afghanistan may be unwinnable.

"Well if [Obama's] such a student of history, has he not understood that that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops," Steele he said in expressing a position that is not only at odds with the White House but most of the Republican Party as well.

Heye said Steele was making the point that "[t]he responsibility for building and maintaining that strategy falls squarely on the shoulders of the President."

The Politics of College Sports

In the wake of the conference realignment and the multiple discussion of how college sports weakens academics, here is an interesting article on the way College Football supports academics and research standards. This Salt Lake Tribune article, by Gordon Monson, which focuses on why BYU hasn't joined a mega-conference, especially the PAC-10 like its rival, the University of Utah, argues that the culture of BYU prevents it from being invited into the Pac-10.

The Utes are a better fit. They’re the kind of research institution that the Pac-10 prefers. Some say they are more “liberal” in their approach to academics, and that’s true, too. Their way of doing business is more in line with what Pac-10 schools do. As for athletics, football in particular, Utah’s accomplishment in winning two BCS bowls since 2005 is remarkable.

BYU, conversely, is conservative and is owned not only by a church, but a church that supported Proposition 8, that won’t allow its teams to play on Sunday, and that keeps a watchful eye on the academic pursuits of its professors. While it’s a stellar institution that’s extremely difficult for students to get into, it’s more limited in graduate-level research. It’s a terrific university, but a different one — unlike any in the Pac-10.

When I worked in Los Angeles, I talked with a number of Pac-10 athletic directors who were in favor of getting BYU into the league because whenever their teams played the Cougars, thousands of more tickets were sold. Had it been up to them, BYU would be in. The holdup was with certain school presidents, for the aforementioned reasons

While many complain that athletics weaken research and teaching at College Football Factory Schools, this suggests that College Football not only offers Research I schools more money for research, it helps support and maintain a certain academic culture necessary for research.

Update: to see how academic standards fall short at BYU, read this on how Jeffrey Nielsen, a non-tenure track professor was fired for his freedom of speech.

This May Be A First

According to Yahoo, The Stanley Cup will be on display during Chicago's Gay Pride Parade.

For a real lesson on tolerance, people should speak to Defenseman Brent Sopel. From the article:

The Blackhawks took pride in bringing the city together during their quest for the Cup; cutting across demographics and eventually partying with 2 million Chicagoans at their championship rally. They also took pride in sparking a revival for hockey in the Windy City, and grassroots organizations like the CGHA are essential to the expansion of the fan base and the growth of the sport.

But above all, it's been a progressive year for hockey and tolerance. The late Brendan Burke, the son of Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke who died tragically in an auto accident earlier this year, shared his story of coming out in the hockey world and received an outpouring of support.

Burke's legacy is one of the reasons why Chicago defenseman Brent Sopel(notes), his wife and four children will appear with the Cup at the Pride Parade, according to the Sun-Times:

"When Brendan came out, Brian stood by him, and his whole family stood by him, like every family should," said Sopel. "We teach our kids about accepting everybody. Tolerate everybody, to understand where everyone is coming from."

I am pretty sure that championship teams from the other major sports, Football, Baseball, and Basketball have not stepped out. I am almost certain NASCAR would not do this.

For all of the common tropes of violence and incivility, it is good to see hockey as one of the first sports to make tolerance a virtue.

For a great article on Brendan Burke, read John Buccigross' piece, "We Love You, This Won't Change a Thing."

As the Right Realigns

Even more Conservatives take aim at the Tea Party. Though David Frum has been attacking the Tea Party for sometime, his new article suggests how it will hurt the Republicans this fall, i.e. two-steps forward, two-steps back.

The Weekly Standard has a lengthier piece on the paranoia and conspiracy at the base of some Tea Party Leaders. e.g. Glenn Beck. And, Glenn, you're having a bad day when The Weekly Standard attacks you.

My Rather Conventional Tribute to the World Cup

Shocking I would post this. I Know.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

Or, being too incompetent to know you are incompetent. The New York Time Reports.

I have only one thing to say: Juice On!!!

Civilian Control of the Military: The Summer of Our Discontent

In the new issue of Rolling Stone, which will hit stands on Friday, Michael Hastings interviews Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan. The article will be brutal against the Obama Administration and, in some cases, against Obama himself.

Here is a description of article from MSNBC:

In Rolling Stone, McChrystal is described by an aide as "disappointed" in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."

Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. And the White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

And

The article portrays McChrystal's team as disapproving of the Obama administration, with the exception of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who backed McCrystal's request for additional troops in Afghanistan.

The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

It quotes a member of McChrystal's team making jokes about Biden, who was seen as critical of the general's efforts to escalate the conflict and who had favored a more limited counter-terrorism approach.

"Biden?" the aide was quoted as saying. "Did you say: Bite me?"

It seems that even before the war is over individuals are attempting to dissociate themselves from the Country's longest war.

This is not good for anyone involved: the military leadership, the troops, the president. The insubordination in the interview probably undermines civilian control of the military, especially for Democrats. It certainly provides Republicans with a damning critique of Obama, from someone who voted for him, for the 2010 and 2012 elections. It creates a familiar fault line within the Democrats between Obama and Clinton, which has been a developing Republican meme (see Red State and Peggy Noonan).

Update: McChrystal apologized. Obama has summoned him to Washington. McChrystal will probably get removed from his post as it is fairly uncommon for leading military people to call out the Commander in Chief and even less probable that they survive in their position when they do. This works well for McChrystal as he gets to publicly denounce the strategy and is no longer responsible for the implementing the plan. Now that is responsibility.

With the blood in the Gulf, it seems as if it is time to strike.

Question of the Day: Thursday, June 17th, 2010

With the contentious nature of the economy and the University, I, as I am sure others, have thought about what my career would be outside of academic life. Surely I must be better at something, right? There must be something else out there that would make me want to get out of bed in the morning?

Well, I don't know if there is. Yet, in light of the road not taken, if you were not in your current profession or trade what would you like your career to be and why?

Of course, answering rick star or movie star to this question would be quite dull so please choose something you could actually see yourself wanting to do.