Second stop: the Mershon Center. Grabbing some books from my office. Mostly stuff dealing with atrocity, moral judgment in war, and globalization: the sort of materials needed to continue the "Little Eichmanns" essay.
Monday, February 7, 2005
The War Dogs Ride - Part IId
Second stop: the Mershon Center. Grabbing some books from my office. Mostly stuff dealing with atrocity, moral judgment in war, and globalization: the sort of materials needed to continue the "Little Eichmanns" essay.
The War Dogs Ride - Part IIc
Looking over my stack of books, the cashier has a question. Why, if the conservatives control all three branches of government, do they seem so angry? Not all of them are, but you wouldn't know that to read Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, et al.
The War Dogs Ride - Part IIb
First stop: Half Price Books near campus. This place tends to have the best selection of academically-oriented books for cheap. Note: I myself have yet to get remaindered; all my stuff is still in print and carried in inventory. Of course, that means I've yet to make the big kill that would result in a press run large enough to wind up yielding remainders.
(D) The War Dogs Ride - Part IIa
Gypsy before the ride: C'mon Mark G., Exercise at least some restraint.
Sunday, February 6, 2005
(D) The War Dogs Ride! - Part I
Got a good night's sleep Friday, and on Saturday hit several book stores, giving my credit card a workout and stocking up on three interelated categories of books: works dealing with globalization, works reflective of the current state of domestic political discourse, and works on the War on Terrorism. Accompanying me were my two doughty war dogs: Jethro (shown), and Gypsy (who is reclusive about photos, as she believes they steal her spirit).When I get time I'll create at least an author/title bibliography, because all told I must have bought fifty books and I can't keep them all straight in my head. But for now I will only say that among the books purchased were a number by pundits on both the Right and Left, mostly the Right. For example:
Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2003).
Ann Coulter, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (2004).
(Thank goodness for the remainder table, which is where most of this, ah, genre lands within a few months of publication.)
Sean Hannity, Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism (2002).
Sean Hannity, Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism (2004).
(Note to self: what's with the tight-lipped smile these people all display on their book covers? Why not a broad, friendly, we - control - all - three - branches - of - government grin?)
I'd be curious to know if CRO (see "Little Churchills") would permit me to dissent from the conservative line in class if it knew I had made an effort to read conservative opinion--and indeed, I read not only this fun but superficial stuff but also more serious paleo-con and neo-con opinion: William Kristol is a particular favorite of mine. My guess is that CRO would regard merely reading conservative opinion as just a particularly insidious form of political correctness. You have to agree with it whole-heartedly or you're still PC.
Whence the impetus for this book-buying binge? Well, to begin with, I'm a book junkie, so the see - the - pretty - book - I - must - have - it reflex is well-established in me. Second, the blogosphere is so awash in political opinion you can't help but get sucked in. Third, some of this stuff--not the Coulters and the Hannitys but the more serious neo-con opinion--is stuff I'll need for a new book project, or more precisely, the lastest proposed vehicle for the old book project.
Finally, while hitherto I may not have been interested in the Coulters, Hannitys, and Joe Scarboroughs of the world, plainly they are interested in me. Apparently they have trouble distinguishing me from academics of like Ward Churchill. I can't imagine why--aren't the differences obvious?
More to come.
(F) Little Churchills
Nice turnabout on "little Eichmanns" by Malcolm A. Kline of CampusReportOnline.net, Accuracy in Academia's "online news service in which we document and publicize political bias in education. Our articles focus on three issues: the exploitation of the classroom or university resources to indoctrinate students; discrimination against students, faculty or administrators based on political or academic beliefs; and campus violations of free speech." Here's the article re professors who supposedly have made statements equivalent to Churchill's. Apparently if you suggest that others besides Americans suffer pain and anguish when their loved ones die, that's equivalent to the "little Eichmanns" remark.
Oh, and "accuracy in academia" involves remembering the "sensibilities" of those who pay the taxes that support higher education. That might be politic, but a prerequisite for accurate?
Oh, and it would help me be more "accurate" in my opinions if I were to lobby university administrators to get ROTC onto more college campuses. (On both points, see the end of this article.)
Oh, and this is (needless to say) not a nonpartisan group dedicated to accuracy in academia on the part of all who have a voice, but rather a group organized to "battle political correctness and further the conservative movement."
Lastly--big surprise--nowhere on this site are there criteria by which one may distinguish legitimate non-conservative opinion from abuses of free speech. I'm guessing that's not an issue CRO cares to parse. Nor are there reports on professors who serve as models of vigorous but fair-minded exchange. Nor advice about how students can think critically for themselves. Nor-- ah jeez: let's face it, these guys want to indoctrinate students as badly as anyone on the Left, just in a different way.
But ya gotta love the "little Churchills" thing.
Oh, and "accuracy in academia" involves remembering the "sensibilities" of those who pay the taxes that support higher education. That might be politic, but a prerequisite for accurate?
Oh, and it would help me be more "accurate" in my opinions if I were to lobby university administrators to get ROTC onto more college campuses. (On both points, see the end of this article.)
Oh, and this is (needless to say) not a nonpartisan group dedicated to accuracy in academia on the part of all who have a voice, but rather a group organized to "battle political correctness and further the conservative movement."
Lastly--big surprise--nowhere on this site are there criteria by which one may distinguish legitimate non-conservative opinion from abuses of free speech. I'm guessing that's not an issue CRO cares to parse. Nor are there reports on professors who serve as models of vigorous but fair-minded exchange. Nor advice about how students can think critically for themselves. Nor-- ah jeez: let's face it, these guys want to indoctrinate students as badly as anyone on the Left, just in a different way.
But ya gotta love the "little Churchills" thing.
(D) A New Plan
I have never been a very systematic person. Get me interested in something and I don't figure out one book to read on the subject. I figure out thirty or fifty or ninety. And I don't read them in some predetermined order, but rather dip into them all at once. It isn't the most efficient use of time and effort. It's merely the use that suits me.
As with reading, so too with things analogous. Until it was noticed by a significant number of readers (or until those readers were noticed by it), War Historian had only one gait: the discursive or diary-type entry (D), though some of these were developed sufficiently to merit the name of informal essay (E). Safe to say, however, that I had never tried the sort of entry that is composed mainly of a link to a newsworthy item; i.e., a "filter" blog entry (F). That last type, however, has been the mainstay of War Historian since about Jan. 22. And useful such entries have been as a way of letting me post daily (at least) while having time to gain a better handle on the blogosphere. I've found a lot of stuff I never would have guessed was up here. Who would have thought, for instance, that online users would handicap sites like this one as if they were shares on the New York Stock Exchange?
You might call all this surfing the blogosphere the equivalent of a reconnaissance. Maybe even a reconnaisance in force. But it's time to recover the patrol to make its report, and time to regularize the blog once more.
People seem willing to let a blog be about anything, and yet they also appear to insist on certain conventions. For example, you have to post regularly, at more or less predictable intervals. You have to have a consistent style or voice. You have to have a focused "beat," or range of topics that come under discussion. Apparently it helps to be pithy. I've somewhere read that most readers prefer posts they can digest in a couple of minutes.
I can't be helpful on the last score, because I find the discursive entry more useful for my purposes. But I can certainly be better organized in other ways, and I'm ready to routinize the blog again. Basically here's the plan:
One diary- or discursive-type (D) entry per day;
one or more filter-type (F) entries per day;
one essay-type (E) entry per week, to appear on Fridays.
I'll try to incorporate as many links as I can, so that readers can move smoothly from one discursive entry to the next. But since I actually have a life and may not always have time to do this, starting with the February entries I am adding D, E, or F at the start of the title to each entry, so that readers will have an easier time navigating on their own.
Continue to next discursive entry.
As with reading, so too with things analogous. Until it was noticed by a significant number of readers (or until those readers were noticed by it), War Historian had only one gait: the discursive or diary-type entry (D), though some of these were developed sufficiently to merit the name of informal essay (E). Safe to say, however, that I had never tried the sort of entry that is composed mainly of a link to a newsworthy item; i.e., a "filter" blog entry (F). That last type, however, has been the mainstay of War Historian since about Jan. 22. And useful such entries have been as a way of letting me post daily (at least) while having time to gain a better handle on the blogosphere. I've found a lot of stuff I never would have guessed was up here. Who would have thought, for instance, that online users would handicap sites like this one as if they were shares on the New York Stock Exchange?
You might call all this surfing the blogosphere the equivalent of a reconnaissance. Maybe even a reconnaisance in force. But it's time to recover the patrol to make its report, and time to regularize the blog once more.
People seem willing to let a blog be about anything, and yet they also appear to insist on certain conventions. For example, you have to post regularly, at more or less predictable intervals. You have to have a consistent style or voice. You have to have a focused "beat," or range of topics that come under discussion. Apparently it helps to be pithy. I've somewhere read that most readers prefer posts they can digest in a couple of minutes.
I can't be helpful on the last score, because I find the discursive entry more useful for my purposes. But I can certainly be better organized in other ways, and I'm ready to routinize the blog again. Basically here's the plan:
One diary- or discursive-type (D) entry per day;
one or more filter-type (F) entries per day;
one essay-type (E) entry per week, to appear on Fridays.
I'll try to incorporate as many links as I can, so that readers can move smoothly from one discursive entry to the next. But since I actually have a life and may not always have time to do this, starting with the February entries I am adding D, E, or F at the start of the title to each entry, so that readers will have an easier time navigating on their own.
Continue to next discursive entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)