On growing spine

Tonight is the start of a war. I hate to say it, but it is. The election of a Republican majority in the House and a far tighter Senate will spark an era of extreme partisan divide that will lead to what I can only expect to be a series of bloody and bitter battles that will give fodder for the country to be split in two. Rationale will fly out the window, civility will be a bygone memory, and little to nothing will escape the fray. Washington will go to a standstill, and the needs of Americans of all stripes will be forgotten in the name of ideological divide.

What remains to be seen is how the parties will respond. The Republicans appear set to put their rhetoric into action: they’ve declared that compromise will involve the Democrats meeting them all the way over on the right rather than halfway in the middle. The Democrats are yet to throw the gauntlet down. In one predictable light, the Democrats can be trusted to back away from the fight, deciding to take a Republican platform as evidence of “incremental gains.” The caucus will disintegrate, and any positive change will be credited to the “fresh ideas” of the right.

The Democrats cannot shy away from the fight that confronts them. They must set an agenda and follow it. They must get their party together on a core set of principles that make it clear that government not only can but must be trusted to take care of its citizens. Set aside the moral obligation that the government ensure the security of personhood for its citizens (more on that in a graduate thesis); this is a time where the strategy of recovery must be followed. There should be no doubt that the economy will improve; booms bust, then they even out and boom again, usually within the span of five years, and since we haven’t really learned much about self-control we can only assume that the boom will have the same rate and magnitude as our bust had. This model implies that the outlook will become much better by the time the next election rolls around. The people, however, don’t understand this; they think it’s the leaders that drive it, which is a better explanation for tonight’s wave than any other. When the people see a positive outlook, they think the incumbent had a say in it; when the positive outlook happens, then, the incumbent Democrats will look much better for it.

But this won’t happen if the narrative becomes driven by Republican ideas. If, say, a Republican-written tax bill gets the support of enough Senate Democrats to pass, it suddenly turns into the Republicans benefiting the economy. The “fresh ideas” of the right turn into the ideas that are changing the country. The wave, then, will continue. If, instead, the Democrats refuse to comply and run with their own agenda and the country improves in the vacuum of progress, their ideas are the narrative. Their ideas save the country. Their ideas stem the tide.

Tonight and the next two years ought to make it incredibly clear that an economic look at political science simply is ineffective. We’re told as political scientists to believe that a legislative body behaves like a market, with bills passing on lines that create the smallest of consensus possible. Politics is not a rational event. Politicians know that their jobs are on the line when they appear to lose spine; they not only let their platforms fall by the wayside but also earn scorn from their supporters for a refusal to follow their principles. This draws the politician to dig his heels in. The model should not be a left-right continuum where the median voter is the point where a bill passes. It is instead a model where the middle is no man’s land; the sides are on different pieces of paper. Nothing will pass.

While it would be nice to call for civility, we must also know what is too much. We must know what needs to be seen out (health care reform, economic stimulus, banking and credit reform). We must realize that with forward-thinking ideas, we don’t need to adapt them to the countervailing voices that destroyed this country in the first place. Intransigence may be the best thing for this country right now. The key will be spine. Do Democrats have enough of it to stand firm, stand principled, and stand by their record? One can only hope; moreover, one can only doubt.

Repost of an old, old, OLD Facebook note

First off, apologies again about this blog completely dying. Life happens that way. I’ll make my usual, “Hey I can has posts for youuuuuz” comment that will invariably mean little to no content coming in.

This is a repost of a Facebook note entitled “On punk rock, anarchism, and life in general” written in November of 2007. I’m reposting it because of an intriguing idea of a Punk Rock Anthropology brought up by a comment at this post on Jams: http://musicasdiscourse1.blogspot.com/2010/09/assignment-1-listening-to-and-being.html One thing you may notice is the author of the post. Yes, for Music as Discourse I will be from time to time writing blog posts. I’ll alert you, faithful reader, if I say or see anything of note that requires added commentary. Anyway, consider this my step IV:

The Against Me! show I saw last night was a fitting end to my punk show-going career.

“What?!?” many of you exclaim. “Colin not going to a punk show ever again?!?”

Yes, it’s the end of the line for my mosh days. I’ve realized a lot about the punk scene in the past year or so and have come to a few conclusions.

1. Punk, in and of itself, is the best example of why an anarchistic society doesn’t work. Punk rock, which bases itself on anarchistic principles of removing all sense of structure in order to make a perfect society, still will like the anarchistic society inherently run on the archetypes that run social order. Killing people is, unless you’re a complete psychopath, a bad idea that people will persecute you for. People generally resist any change to their system, even ones to solidify chaos. The thoughts in my head are not meant to be yours, but I can express them with the same sort of passion and/or vitriol that you do. The best way to live is by holding to your ethos. The problem is that archetypes create an unworkable stricture. If someone challenges the sanctity of the systemless system, they become an apologist. That’s echoed in the punk scene. A band like AM! gets vilified by the punk community because they decided to change their ethos and add elements of dance-rock. When they were challenged, they consciously decided to rail against the stricture of the scene. By challenging and innovating punk rock, they’ve become pariahs. Anarchism, like punk rock, devours its promising young too often to progress.

2. Punk rock is a means for inspiring thought. When I was in 6th grade, my mom bought me Green Day’s International Superhits. That summer, I bought the Punk-o-Rama Volume 7 sampler and went to the Warped Tour the next day. All of those were revelatory experiences for me because it was the sound of what I had begun to think. It was the sound of anger, of frustration, and of an awareness of the world surrounding me, personal or global. When I looked out at the Against Me! show last night, I would guess that half of the people in there were under the age of 16. They all had not gotten that message yet, that it’s time to open your eyes and notice that within your life and world things are screwed up. It’s not healthy for a country to foster a generation of kids expecting to have the world, many of whom went to the show. Punk music is what helped me, what was the catalyst, to become socially alert, aware, and involved, and I truly believe that a band like Against Me! is still the sort of band to do that.

3. Once you’ve been converted, you can’t get as high as you got on that first night. Punk shows, after you’ve seen what they can do to your life, continue to have an undeniable power for a long time as a testament to that first feeling that the world had been revealed. You look around and see that there’s 200 people just like you that understand the trials of the world. They came to that show for a feeling of rebirth. Over time, however, it’s difficult to continue feeling that same way ever again. You can’t continually be 14 all over again. You start realizing that when you slam into someone in the pit, it sort of hurts for both you and them. You begin to think and question yourself, “Why am I looking to feel something again when there’s other experiences out there?” You can’t regain the feeling of revelation totally, and as you realize that you begin to look elsewhere.

4. I’m too old for this. I’ve seen my life totally changed by punk rock, yeah, but I’ve become detached from the politics, the emotion, and the want to hit someone. If a punk band is saying something, I can listen, but the sound is usually better on vinyl than it is with the microphone gain cranked to Hell. I can love the message still and believe in it, but I can live without destroying my vocal cords.

Against Me! was a fitting end to my punk show going career, particularly since their encore was three of their oldest songs, a throwback to when I was still young and more naive than I am now, all played with Tom Gabel on acoustic instead of electric. The final song, “Walking is Still Honest,” sums up my life in the scene:

“Dear shithead/This isn’t happening/The sky is really falling/The paint’s all made of lead/There’s asbestos in the walls/Hell’s coming to rip off the doors/To your privileged heaven/Do you want to love and feel it?/You can look but you can’t taste it/You can reach but you’ll never have it/We are untouchable/Untouchable is something to be…You can be almost anything/When you’re on your fucking knees/Not today/Not my son/Not my family/Not while walking is still honest/
And you haven’t given up on me.”

Yeah, there is still a load of problems in the world. One of the greatest continues to be that theory never become anything but that. Punk rock stands as a testament to the idea that changing minds is the first step. I’d like to start taking the second one.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Consultative Group on the Past on Northern Irish Transitional Justice

Note: The last (and easily longest, at 8900 words counting citations) of my papers, this beast was written for POL 4410: Justice in Times of Global Transition for Professor Leigh Payne. It analyzes the work of the Consultative Group on the Past, a commission in Northern Ireland, and its recommendations for ways forward after the Troubles of 1966-1998. It is missing a more healthy analysis of Northern Irish identity, something I intended to use to frame transitional justice as inherently ineffective in NI, but the Report the Group lays out is long enough and filled with both positive and negative aspects to transitional justice. Ultimately, I find that while it will do some good for society, the end result will be lacking to fix Northern Ireland’s problematic history of sectarian violence. Do look out for Professor Payne’s book The Justice Balance,  co-written with other members of her Transitional Justice Data Base team, which hopefully will come out in 2010. I used a draft copy, along with she and her associates’ draft papers, in my analysis.

On Christianity, Being “Alive,” and the Abortion Debate

Note: Second to last in the series of final papers, this was written for CSCL 3910: On Human Nature, taught by the fantastic Harvey Sarles. Take whatever course he teaches in Fall 2010; chances are you’ll see me. This paper brings in different sides of modern Christianity, namely science, philosophy, and a history of dualism, to the abortion debate. Essentially, the questions within Christian thought surrounding what it means to be alive, when the soul is transferred, and how to deal with critical verses in the Old Testament all lead to a very inconclusive answer to whether abortion can be justified. Through the paper, I show both sides to the argument and attempt to, when I know them, explain their justifications before explaining my own Christian-influenced view on one of American society’s most divisive topics.

Terrorism in the Context of Cultural Globalization

Note: Another political science paper: This was written for POL 4885W: International Conflict and Security, a class taught by the thankfully departing Asli Calkivik. The subject matter is interesting, but to be honest, this professor conclusively ruined any interest I had in being in IR for the rest of my life. I’m shocked I spent any intellectual effort on this. Anyhow, cultural globalization is displayed in this paper as an avenue for terrorism and international discontent to arise.

Journals on 30 Rock

Note: Another in a series of finals-related essays. This collection of one-page entries is for CSCL 3177: On Television, in which students are taught how to overanalyze every television show in light of multiple different prevailing philosophies about film, media, and culture in general. These essays discuss NBC’s 30 Rock, a show that I suggest you watch for your own good. Tina Fey is the Carl Reiner of our generation; she’s the singular TV comedic voice, and she’s putting her talent to use in an homage to TV!

Evaluating the EU’s Role in Afghanistan

Note: This is my final paper in POL 4810: Transatlantic International Relations, taught by the hilarious and otherwise brilliant Franz Kernic. It details the EU’s role in the war in Afghanistan; specifically, how has the EU acted, how it hasn’t acted, and how it has adapted to the changes in the dynamic of the war regarding both the changes in policy by the United States and the deterioration of security on the ground. My personal opinion: the failures in Afghanistan are more the result of the United States and their decision to fight one unnecessary war in Iraq while dealing with a more serious and more necessary security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The EU’s failings have been to an extent a misunderstanding of the limits of soft power, but it is more than reasonable to suggest that if a soft power role is the one assigned, it shouldn’t be an expectation to cover for someone else’s hard power slack.

World Cup predictions

So to remain sane, I keep a few hobbies. I play guitar. I fail miserably at cooking. And I follow global football, known to dirty Americans as soccer.

Analyzing Methods of Suture in Political Melodrama

Note: Another in the series of papers! This paper was written for CSCL 3177: On Television. It uses a text from Kaja Silverman’s The Subject of Semiotics on suture, the film and literary technique that places the viewer or reader into a text. I used the pilot episodes of NBC’s The West Wing and Fox’s 24 to give a thorough analysis that validates Silverman’s points.

I don’t necessarily think that analyzing these shows in the light of cinematographic techniques is a good idea; far from it, in fact. A close reading of the episodes brings out these characteristics if you’re digging for them, sure, but I find it difficult to think that the people who write, shoot and act these shows are well-steeped in cinematic theory. The same sort of issue pops up when analyzing texts in light of tropes; you skirt giving an analysis of what people are saying if you focus exclusively on how they say it. In that spirit, I added the caveat in the end of the essay: the producers of The West Wing and 24 aren’t effective in their use of suture because they follow the norms, but because of how subconscious, or unintentionally, it feels.

“How Long Must We Sing This Song”: Transitional Justice in Northern Ireland

Note: This is a project description for POL 4410: Topics in Comparative Politics – Justice in Times of Global Transition. In essence, the field of transitional justice deals with post-conflict studies; namely, how do countries deal with the horrors of a past that often involve authoritarianism, civil war, extreme racism, and other sickening bits of oppression. This paper deals with transitional justice methods after the Northern Irish Troubles, a thirty-plus year war that saw sectarian tensions between ethnic Irish Catholics and British Protestants explode into separatist terror and loyalist bloodshed. It’s a subject near and dear to my heart as an ethnically Irish Catholic who can draw half of his family tree less than 100 miles from Ulster, but simultaneously as a Protestant Lutheran. I’ll admit my biases: I cannot justify support of a terrorist organization, but I inactively support the efforts of the Sinn Fein to unite Ulster with the whole of Ireland. Irish identity, to me, includes Ulster, both its Protestants and Catholics, and I wholeheartedly hope that there will come a day where a peaceful Ireland can also be a united one.
Anyhow, the paper I will be writing after this for 4410 will be an analysis of the reports by the Consultative Group on the Past, which are detailed near the end of the second section. They are available at www.cgpni.org. I highly recommend reading both the full report, which contextualizes the Troubles in a good way for the layman, as well as the executive summary, which boils the report down into the key issues and recommendations for the British and Northern Irish governments to heal the nation (if you can call Northern Ireland a nation, which is a debate for an entirely different paper). I’m not sure if I’ll post the later paper, as it’ll be 25 pages long and will contain a healthy amount of theory that will go over your heads without taking this class. If you are available, however, a good primer for transitional justice will be occurring over Friday lunch (12:15-1:15 or so) at the U of M’s St. Paul Student Center, where Professor Leigh Payne (the teacher for my class) will be discussing her latest book on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.