As I'm sure everyone knows, Senate Democrats got rid of the filibuster for non-SCOTUS judges and other executive branch nominees yesterday. This was followed immediately, of course, by Republicans making various threats, saying Democrats would be sorry for doing so. So, for all intents and purposes, the filibuster is dead. I assume that if Obama gets the chance to appoint another SCOTUS nominee he/she will be filibustered and that will be that (or, alternatively, this will go away should the Democrats filibuster a GOP President's SCOTUS nominee). Barring filibusters of legislation would not be far behind.
Overall I would say this is a good thing. The senate is already anti-democratic enough (e.g., California has 50 times the population of 4 other states, yet the same representation in the Senate; DC has no representation at all yet is estimated to have more residents than at least 2 states) that adding on a rule that 41 senators can block whatever they want is not conducive to governing the country anymore.
A better reform would be to parcel out Senate seats the way we do house seats, with a minimum of one per state, and then having them elected on a statewide basis. That would still be fairly anti-democratic, but less so. Of course, given the process for amending the Constitution, that would never happen. So, we're stuck with it absent some unforeseen, society-wide upheaval.
before 1939 the crime of 'collaboration with the occupier' was unknown. There had been previous wars in which occupying armies sought and obtained cooperation and assistance from the people whose land they had overrun, but except in very particular instances--like that of the Flemish nationalists in German-occupied Belgium during 1914-18--this was regarded not as an invitation to crime but simply as part of the collateral damage of war. [p.44]
This is true, and I'd never noticed it before. What Judt overlooks is that punishment for 'collaboration' and postwar purges of those who worked for the losing side nonetheless have a long history in Europe -- in civil wars.
Maybe it's not coincidence that the civil war in Spain was widely felt to be the warm-up act for the World War. Was it something about WWII that made it more of a civil war? Or is it something about the post-19th century world? Even authoritarian regimes now have a "democratic" character, in that they rely on a more active consent from more of the governed. When 90% of the population is engaged in subsistence agriculture, they're not going to be on any ruler's "side" because no ruler is really on *their* side: their main job in a war is to keep their heads down and try to get enough to eat.
So what do you-all think? Is Judt wrong, and 'collaboration with the occupier' was considered a crime in earlier centuries -- during the Napoleonic Wars, or the 30 Years War, or the Hundred Years War? Did WWII have this 'civil war' quality in other theaters, outside Europe?
Guernica. Painted by Picasso in 1937, you can't look at it now without seeing the continuity between the Spanish Civil War and World War II. It was upon returning from the Spanish conflict, after all, that George Orwell presciently wrote of
the deep, deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs.
Once upon a time there were worthy causes and there were charitable givers. Setting aside the questions of what constitutes a “worthy” cause and whether structural changes in society would obviate the need for private charity – legitimate questions, but not germane here – the basic process seems to have been that the cause became identified with an Aim (A) and sought out those who had Cash (C) to help them finance that Aim.
This model still functions, as we all know from our junk mail, but alongside it has grown up another model that, frankly, puzzles me. It involves the insertion of Bozo (B) in between A and C. B, who believes in the worthiness of A, does not simply give to A, nor even simply solicit C for donations to A. Rather, s/he offers to do tricks for C, in return for which C will give to A.
At first (I suspect) there were things like “charity balls” organized by B in which C, in return for his/her donation, got some kind of social return in the form of amusement, public prestige, or an opportunity for networking. The same tit-for-tat (well, since it's an unequal exchange, make that tit-for-TAT) may also be perceived in things like charity concerts (the audience paying over the normal price for an event that is supposedly both exceptional and virtuous) and charity auctions (buyers paying more than market value for something that is of some actual, though lesser, worth). There may even have been tax benefits, especially to the target rich, who could “write off” as charity something of genuine value to them, though I have been told that the IRS tries to separate the real (market) value of an event or object from the inflated charity price, and only allows the difference as deductible – at least in theory.
But now Bozo has inserted himself into the process even more egregiously, at the grass-roots level. B will walk 5K, run 10K, or cycle across the USA in return for your sponsorship, i.e., your donation to A. B will shave his head. B will grow a mustache. (I was prompted to these thoughts, in fact, by the announcement that this is “Movember,” in which men grow mustaches to benefit charity, though the grace apparently does not apply to those of us who have already had a mustache for 49 years.) B will shoot baskets for 24 hours, or tapdance, or do something else uncomfortable and unlikely, and you, the prospective donor of Cash, are expected to pay A for this exploit, in spite of the fact that there's no obvious way in which you benefit from B's walking, running, cycling, shaving, growing a mustache, tapdancing, or any other of these activities.
If you believe in A, why not just give to A? And if you don't, how does B's action – irrelevant to A, generally – inspire you to such charity? Is it simply the fact that this kind of transaction eases social tension? We in the modern West tend to have difficulty both with begging and dealing with beggars, but in this arrangement B says to C, “I'm not begging, but rather offering some exertion as a token, a kind of reciprocity, for your generosity to A.” So face is saved on both sides. Is that all it is?
I understand that this is how a lot of charity works today, and heaven knows we need it (setting aside the question of structural changes, etc.). It is certainly not my intention to undermine worthy causes, even supposing my blog posts had the power to influence such things. But am I the only one who sees this whole system as odd? Yes, it “works,” after a fashion, but it's monstrously inefficient as a mechanism for getting needed money from C to A, and I'm not particularly fond either of being the Bozo or of enabling other Bozos by sponsoring them. What am I missing here? Is a puzzlement.
I am currently exploring private schools for my oldest child for kindergarten next fall. We live in the DC area and there is an astonishing (at least to me) number of private schools for children of all ages. Some are pre-K through 12th grade, some through 8th, and some only through 3rd grade. Similarly, there are private High Schools and Junior High Schools.
My wife and I have visited 7 of these private schools, and all of them have an incredible amount of resources. This, of course, stems from the fact that tuition is also incredible. The administrators seemed top notch, as did the teachers, as well as the facilities. The list of colleges to which the students went on to attend showed that children certainly succeeded at these schools (admittedly an imperfect metric). The application process is akin to applying to college, with the basic application, a tour, a parent interview, a child visit/playdate, teacher recommendations, test scores, and, in some cases, a transcript, all required. There are deadlines, notification dates, and waitlists. All this for kindergarten. And again, the tuition is also akin to college.
I also toured the local public elementary school. It's a good school, probably he finest public elementary school in the District. In fact we bought our house in the school's neighborhood nearly 10 years ago so that, should we ever have children, they could attend a decent public elementary school. The school principal is almost universally praised (she gave a better and more informative tour than most of the private schools we saw), and the parents we know whose children attend seem very happy with the school.
But there was no comparison in terms of resources to the private schools. The public elementary has 720 students in pre-K through 5th grade. Only in pre-K and Kindergarten are there 2 teachers per class of 22-28 students. There are 5 classes in K, 1, 2, and 3rd grade, which drops to 4 in 4/5th grade and then there is a commensurate increase in students per class. In contrast, the private schools always had two teachers per class, at least through 3rd grade if not longer (before students start moving between classrooms during the day). No more than 24 students per class, sometimes only 20, sometimes even fewer. And the largest had only 4 classes per grade, while some has as little as one.
Over the past copule of years the public elementary school has added 2 medium sized and then two large trailers to accomodate the increase in students, which at least shows how strong the school is. There were no trailers at the private schools unless they were in the midst of a renovation. The principal at the public elementary, in response to a question, let her frustration show at how they seem to be constantly bombarded with new tests/standards/methods, "I've been doing this for 30 years, there's still 26 letters and 10 digits, come on people!" No mention of this at the private schools. No foreign language offered at the public school until 3rd grade and then only Spanish. Spanish for all students beginning in pre-K or K at the private schools, and then sometimes Mandarin and French as early as 2nd grade. And on and on.
And this was at likely the best school in the District in a neighborhood with incomes well in excess of the national average. I can't imagine what the situation is like at an "average" elementary school in a poorer section of the city, and how that might compare to the private schools I've seen.
But...what is to be done about this? In fact, I don't think anything canbe done that might make up this difference. Could we put more resources into public schools? Sure, but to even things out would require so much more that we would never get there. And the private schools would still have other advantages that public schools would not be able to match no matter the resources (like the ability to easily expel students and an alumni network to tap into for funds, networking, and other resources). I don't think banning private schools would be constitutional (not to mention that it's probably not a great idea). There could be more cross-pollination across school district lines between the richer and poorer neighborhoods, but again the private schools wouldn't need to do that (to their credit, they all had generous scholarship programs for poor students, but of course that puts them in a position to accept only the students they want after careful screening, whereas the public schools have to take every child in the neighborhood).
In the end, however, I think we're stuck with this extreme dichotomy between the public school system and the private one at the grade school level (as well as others), where the vast majority of the students who attend the latter former will never catch up to even an average student at the former latter.
And of course I will, in my own small part, perpetuate the dichotomy by sending my kids to one of these private schools (if they get in).
I'm going to combine Veterans' Day and Remembrance Day by talking about a WWI veteran I never met.
My father's father joined the US Army in 1913, just before he turned 28. He was in the 28th Infantry Regiment, Company M, part of the Big Red One, and served under Pershing in the Pancho Villa Expedition. When the US entered WWI, they were one of the very few units with any experience, so my grandfather arrived in France with Pershing in 1917. He was wounded in the Battle of Soissons on July 19, 1918, and retired from combat, though he didn't leave France for another year.
I never knew my grandfather -- he died in 1947, years before my parents even met. He didn't really talk much to my father about his military experiences, but Dad recently shared one story with me.
In the 20s and 30s, Dad noticed that his father wept every time a certain popular song was played. The song was "My Buddy", recorded by Henry Burr:
Direct YouTube link.
Eventually, he told my father why the song made him cry.
He said there was a guy in his unit, presumably another Private[1], called "Hymie", who was a good friend. In one engagement, Hymie got caught on the barbed wire and couldn't escape as they made it back to their emplacement.
He survived into the night, with the Germans using him for target practice. They know this because he kept calling out to my Grandfather by name, begging: "If you ever loved me, shoot me now."
But he couldn't do it.
So far, I haven't been able to figure out "Hymie"'s name. "Hyman" was a common Jewish first name at the time, and a not uncommon last name, as well. It's also, of course, a nickname (and/or insult) for a Jew, so it's completely possible that Hyman was no part of his official name, at all.
It's particularly difficult to do the search because so many US Army records were lost in the catastrophic 1973 Archive Fire. I've searched the American Soldiers of World War I database for "Hyman", and cross-checked the hits with New York's Abstracts of WWI Military Services, to find out which units they served in. If anyone knows how to get casualty lists for the First Division on the company level, please let me know. I haven't found anyone from the 28th Infantry, but I did happen to come across this record:
Hyman Lashiwer, KIA September 12, 1918, and posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross:
Private Lashiwer, with three other soldiers, volunteered to carry wounded men of other companies from in front of our advanced positions and carried this work on under violent machine-gun fire while a counterattack was developing.
I can't say "Thank you for your service" in response to stories like these, as though veterans are waiters.
In the case of WWI, it's particularly difficult because the whole thing was such a horrible, pointless catastrophe: 16 million dead even without including the 50 million or more deaths from the 1918 influenza epidemic, which was certainly incubated and spread by the war. And IMHO *all* the major combatant powers lost the war: the only clear winner was Vladimir Lenin.
But I want to remember and honor people like Hymie Lashiwer and my grandfather regardless of whether the war they were in made any sense, or whether they fought to "victory". War is a huge part of the human experience, with effects that radiate outward from the people on the battlefield all through society, and down through history: of countries, and of families. Like mine, so that I feel a connection to the grandfather I never met and the grief he carried all his life. I study war to learn how he lived, and to work against having it happen again.
[1] He'd been in the Army for a long time to only be a Private, you might notice. My Dad says he made it up to Sergeant at least once, but was busted back down for fighting. whoops. I won't say, "this is what happens when you're Irish", but at least being Irish gives you an excuse.
And now, new revelations about ancient Greek music have emerged from a few dozen ancient documents inscribed with a vocal notation devised around 450 BC, consisting of alphabetic letters and signs placed above the vowels of the Greek words.
The Greeks had worked out the mathematical ratios of musical intervals - an octave is 2:1, a fifth 3:2, a fourth 4:3, and so on.
The notation gives an accurate indication of relative pitch: letter A at the top of the scale, for instance, represents a musical note a fifth higher than N halfway down the alphabet. Absolute pitch can be worked out from the vocal ranges required to sing the surviving tunes.
I'm getting ready to work the polls tomorrow, yet again. Don't forget to vote, those of you who have something to vote for. To my fellow Jerseyans: be especially sure to make the effort if you're not voting for Chris Christie. The rest of you can stay home, there's no need to make it a blowout. Please.
However, I am a New Jersey voter, and we are either the most cynical or the most realistic voters in the country, as a rule -- we regularly re-elect Congresspeople with what would, in other states, be toxic approval ratings. And I'm not going to say that we approve of cronyism and corruption, exactly, but we tend to approve of getting the job done. We also don't care much for ideals -- or even principles -- in a politician, if they get in the way of getting the job done.
I think a lot of Christie's very high approval ratings in the state, right now, are because when Sandy hit Christie proved that he has no Republican principles about "government handouts", he was willing to work with *anyone* to get the job done. He was willing to literally embrace Obama, at a time when most Republicans weren't -- and that counts for one hell of a lot. I think that's the overwhelming reason Christie might get 30% of the black vote tomorrow, which is astonishing by national Republican standards.
I've read the excerpt from Halperin & Heilemann's Double Down about Christie and the Romney campaign, and it's notable for not changing my opinion about Christie all that much, but reminding me how much I despise Romney.
Mitt also cared about fitness and was prone to poke fun at those who didn’t. (“Oh, there’s your date for tonight,” he would say to male members of his traveling crew when they spied a chunky lady on the street.) Romney marveled at Christie’s girth, his difficulties in making his way down the narrow aisle of the campaign bus. Watching a video of Christie without his suit jacket on, Romney cackled to his aides, “Guys! Look at that!”
Halperin is of course using weasel words (his native tongue). Mitt cared about *thinness*, not fitness. He poked fun at *fat people*. Nothing was better than a two-fer -- mocking one of his male crew who wasn't up to his standards, plus getting to point and laugh at a fat woman on the street.
Meanwhile, I'm not at all sure Christie's weight doesn't count as a net point in his favor, in Jersey. We know he's not going to be sanctimonious about it, and it is, face it, a "regular person" problem with which *many* of us can identify. The fact that he hasn't "solved" it just suggests that he's paying more attention to that core Jersey political value, getting the job done.
In further contrast to Romney, Christie is also a more forthright and in-your-face bully, which is a big part of his appeal here and nationwide. I'm not sure it's enough to get him through Republican primary season, especially since Republican primary voters notoriously pick the "next guy in line", which would probably be Santorum in 2016.
Talk about your local elections, the prospects for 2014 or even 2016, or whether Chris Christie can play in Peoria. You may talk about whether his weight is likely to be a pro (or con) for him nationally, but: *no fat jokes*. Don't be a Mitt Romney, that's not a good look on anyone.
I do not plan on seeing Ender's Game, nor do most of my friends, even though we're science fiction fans -- and even though many of us love the book ... or used to.
The problem is Orson Scott Card, author of the book and credited as a producer for the movie. OSC isn't mere a homophobe, he has used his fame, talents, and (presumably) money to actively campaign against civil rights for homosexuals, including the right to marry.
This would probably be enough in itself for there to be a campaign to boycott the movie. But the campaign is particularly emotional because many fans of the book feel a sense of deep personal betrayal.
As I've discussed before, Ender's Game is a book about (among other things) a child who is abused by his peers and manipulated by adults because he is different. I was in my 20s when it came out, so it didn't hit me all *that* hard, but for a generation or more of young readers Ender's Game was a formative experience. As I said before, it
resonated powerfully with other victims of abuse, including gay and gender-noncompliant youth. The message and hope many readers took from the books is that you can walk away from the family that hurt you, and build a more truly loving family outside traditional boundaries. Suffering can make you stronger, and in particular it can help you see the good in the alien, the stranger, the despised.
This is why in 2008 the American Library Association gave OSC the Margaret Edwards Award for "an author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world." Of course the award turned out to be very controversial, because as much help and comfort adolescents got from OSC's *books*, they would eventually learn that he didn't necessarily respect *them*.
Old-school Battle School. From a manuscript copy of De Sphaera by Leonardo Dati, Lat. 209 = α.X.2.14 of the Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, Modena (Italy), ca. 1460. Source.
SPOILER WARNING: Post and discussion may contain spoilers for Ender's Game, the book or the movie.
Recent Comments