I've been kind of thinking about this... We already know that, for numerous reasons, it is highly unlikely that America will elect a female or a minority President (You still have my vote though, Erin). Now what about a President that isn't Christian? Cuz you know how every President ends their speeches (even debates...) with "God bless America" or something like that. Would this nation cry blasphemy if we had a President who didn't do that?

OK, I've got my own behavioral biology final in less than 20 hours and a virtually unwritten fifteen page paper due in less than 48 hours, but I've got to respond to Tai's post, in extremely brief terms, since I sense what he's trying to get at may be clarified by exactly what I've been working on this last week.

This idea of a national ethos or "soul" is problematic to study or even define, but I think it can be better informed and identified by looking at some of the work done by neo-Marxists like Louis Althusser. The operating term of prominent significance I want to introduce here is ideology. By this, I mean an extension of the Marxist conception of ideology as false consciousness, as more than just a repressive apparatus employed by the state to subjugate the proletariat and of course, reproduce the relations of production. (Yes, my fifteen page paper is ALL about ideology)

Anyway, I'm going to posit that the more accurate term which Tai is searching for is the concept of Althusserian ideology. For Althusser, ideology is not only a repressive force, but a productive one -- it is rooted in material practices and it operates by more than just constraining human activity. Rather, it is intimately tied to individual identity. For Althusser, ideology is dessiminated through various ideological state apparatuses (ISAs) some of which are: Schools, Family, Aesthetics (Culture), Communication (media) and of course, Religion. These are not the traditional Marxist apparatuses of power, they do not operate through the threat of violence (police, army, prisons, etc.).

What's the point? In his earlier post, Tai emphasizes the importance of a nation's historical and world view as crucial to its reciptivity to foreign policies, ie democratization in Iraq. Essentially, he's talking about the dominant or hegemonic ideology of that country. Althusser states that ideology is outside of history, but its very function is to subsume history for its own ideological intentions. It may be impossible to quantify or comprehensively study a concept as elusive as "spirit" or "ethos", but if we deal with that concept at the level of ideology as defined by Althusser, we can dissect it to its component elements (ISAs).

Thus, a more accurate and complete picture of national ideology can be formulated through these studies. What and how is ideology dessiminated in the structure of the family? Or in education? History is of course important, but I believe what is even more crucial is the common individual's imagined relationship to that history as it is molded by ideology. The ideological evolution of Western civilizations in the past two hundred years has seen the dessimination of ideological power away from the Church-Family apparatus to the Education-Family apparatus. This is THE significant departure between Western thought and Islamic thought, under which the church is still the primary and dominant ideological state apparatus. Remember, this is more than just about economics or politics or history, this is a fundamental rift in the way in which the individual perceives itself and attaches his identity (now I'm drifting into Lacan). Any labor operating under ignorance of this mastodonic (nice word) divide will only fail and perpetuate further division.

OK, back to the lab again.

So the US finally got their man. It'll be interesting to see if this marks any change in our Iraq policy, whether we'll be able to use this to springboard the creation of a viable government in Iraq. I have no illusions about what we'll be able to accomplish in Iraq in terms of laying a foundation for their future as an autonomous nation state. It's painfully obvious that our current administration is primarily interested in making sure the US business interests are being taken care of.

As for the long term, what I'm going to write won't be very well articulated...I've just watched a bunch of football and I'm studying for a Bio final...but at any rate, here are my current thoughts on the Iraq situation and development in general:

I think that any attempt at development (by development I mean the process by which poor countries attempt to modernize and improve their economic and social conditions) through the contemporary Washington consensus means is going to wind up in a big heap of disaster. Allowing a small group of neoliberal economists to dictate how a country will evolve is not only dangerously Quixotic (economics is far from an exact science), it basically gives a big middle finger to the history, geographic conditions, and ethnic composition of the country at hand. Case in point: my Economics professor's main interest is China. He taught there for 10 years, he has traveled to virtually every place that has a university to guest lecture or teach a course, and he has published many articles on their current economic situation. When I ask him about China and globalization, China and development, China and free trade, he almost never gives me a straight answer; his answers usually end with, "It's impossible to fully understand anything in contemporary Chinese politics without knowing about China's history, about what has happened there in the last thousand years and how it affects the way the government runs, the way people relate to each, even the way a father treats his daughter."

Now, China is definitely a country of mastodonic complexity (can I say that?). But could it be that all countries have an identity, an ethic, a soul--for lack of a better word--which cannot be quantified through GNPs, per capita pissfarts, and birth/death rates? I think so, and I think this is the future of development, NOT IMF loans and structural adjustments and what the neoliberals will tell you. I think that every country has a history and a path which they can take to maximize the prosperity and wellbeing of their citizens and future generations. For some countries, this might even mean splitting or consolidating with their neighbors. For the record, i don't think Iraq will exist as we know it, in 10 years. I think the Kurds will have their own nation and I don't know what will happen south of the whatever parallel which constituted the no-fly zone.

Anyway, to draw this to an end, I think that my vision of a new world order, so to speak, is dependent on whether or not our own system of democracy will be effective enough to put an end to the current paradigm of American imperialism in development. I think that change will have to come from within in order for the rest of world to get out of this neoliberal rut we're in. So, starting with the election is 2004, hopefully we'll create some change in the way we interact with other nations and how we influence their development.

I just wanted to put my thoughts down...not the most coherant blog but maybe I'll be able to flesh it out more later. Good luck on finals everyone.

Funny list of top twenty most annoying conservatives.

wrong blog, simone. lose a turn and pay everyone at the table five dollars.

The NY Times reports that Bush's team is gearing up to face Howard Dean in next year's presidential election. I think there's still a long way to go...one interesting thing the article pointed out is whether Bush will begin the partisan rhetoric earlier in attempt to pigeonhole Dean while he's still competing in primaries, because if Dean does in fact win the Democratic nomination, he will have to run a lot more to the center (or at least have some very strong appeal to the moderates) against Bush than against the other Dems.

His choice of a running mate will also be very important.

Good points brought up by everyone...I think blogging will be a little light for the next couple of weeks as people prepare for finals and final projects. Good luck to all with their semesting ending work and exams.

Ok, on an artsy note, here's something I've been meaning to pass along. In the New York Times Magazine last week they featured a slideshow of campaign posters for 2004 Democratic presidential candidates, as designed by some of the notable talent in the grpahic design industry. I gotta say, if this is the best they can do, then they're either all Republicans or they just suck at this. I'm disappointed in Chip Kidd especially, because he wrote The Cheese Monkeys, an art school novel which I found an enjoyable read. Carol Moseley Braun probably has the best one...but here's a fun one designed by Geoff McFetridge for Dick Gephardt:

Aren't we all feeling fine this afternoon...here's a nice picture of George Bush playing football to cheer us up. Don't touch the President, black kid!

Well, if Tai wasn't going to do it, I knew George would... Anyway, we should try to refrain from insulting people too much on the blog (from a practical standpoint, it makes your argument weaker). Nevertheless, George laid the proverbial smackdown so my hat goes off to that. Keep in mind that most people here find it inconceivable that people could hold some of the viewpoints that conservative people tend to have. I, for one, would find it hard to argue Wiese's side, mostly because how can you not support immigrants? They are not hurting the economy at all; the cost of having them here is much much lower than their contribution to the economy. That's not to say that exploiting illegal immigrants is a good thing. I'm just saying it's hard to say you don't want immigrants to come to California without admitting to some degree of racism. They are not "threatening" Californians' jobs as George pointed out. The only weird semi-logical argument I can think of is that you want to discourage illegal immigrants from coming here so that California can adjust to lessening its dependence on illegal labor. But I highly doubt that's what politicians who oppose the bill are thinking. Also, I suppose some people might feel something against illegal immigrants because they had to immigrate to this country legally? I don't know...I'm just throwing out ideas. I'm not too familiar with immigration laws and why the U.S. doesn't just have a better system for letting people move to this country.

Anyway, I think we should all try to recruit people with different viewpoints to the blog so that it doesn't get too one-sided. And also do our best to try to get those people to stay...lol. Oh and to all you people who are signed up and read this but never post, please do. We're actually really nice people. Except for that Mao-worshipper. We live in America, ya heard?

I'm not going to write anything more about sb60 because I feel like it's fallen into that abyss of partisan rhetoric that plagues so many contemporary issues...terrorism this, homeland security that...as for immigration, I would just ask Mr. Wiese to please consider that the economic situation for people in Mexico and people in California are very connected to each other, and for you to say "There is surely no need for them to continue coming here" shows a naive and rather condescending attitude which many on the blog will be offended by. Your opinions are welcome, but the tone of your writing screams upper middle class privilege...i won't repeat things posted earlier on the matter, but later today I hope to blog a few things which have caught my eye lately. Also I hope people got a chance to read the Wal Mart LA Times article I linked, I plan to write a response to it presently...


Wow I just reread some things and i gotta say that George just

Regulated.

Mmmm...the delicious smell of carnitas...oh ho ho...

OK, I realize we're trying to run some kind of forum where we have some level of tolerance and respect for viewpoints that are not our own, but really . . . Mr. Weise is an idiot.

Laying personal assumptions aside for a minute, let me just look at his "arguments".

1) "my point is a driver's license is not a piece of plastic that deems you a safe, knowledgeable driver"

Actually, Mr. Weise, that is what a driving license indicates. See, licenses are bureacratic documents that grant rights and privileges based upon certain requirements designed to ensure a level of competence amongst holders. The most basic and easily graspable advantage of this bill is that the state will have some degree of control over illegal immigrant driving. As you conceded:

"but drivers license or not people are going to drive anyway"

So granting driving licenses to illegal immigrants is just another way for the state to survey and control the level of competence out there. Sure, illegal immigrants will continue to drive with or without licenses, but wouldn't you feel more secure knowing that the majority of them understand the meaning behind basic traffic signals (not as intuitive as you may think) or the proper speed limit or how to parallel park?

2) "Essentially very little would change between now and then because why should it? Also let's do keep in mind what I mentioned before that if an immigrant already has a license from his own country then he/she has nothing to worry about when it comes to driving."

What the hell? OK, forget the asinine assumption that a Mexican driving license is somehow equivalent to a California driving license. Let's focus on the first argument. "Very little would change?" Is this the most insightful analysis you can offer? So far you've got several unsupported reasons for your rejection of the advantages of the bill, but absolutely no coherent critcism of the bill itself other than questioning its efficacy. This is laughable. So what's the advantage of not passing the bill? Saving Arnold valuable bill signing time? Saving the ink required to change the DMV manuals? Don't you think if the bill removes even one incompetent driver from the roads of California, it deserves to be passed? If it has the smallest percentage of one percent chance of saving a life from a car accident, don't you think it would be worth Arnold's time and the DMV's ink?

OK, and now your tirade on immigrants. Realize that California is an agricultural state and one of the most powerful economies in the world. We are not dealing with Wisconsin and whatever poor bastards you happen to notice lookiing out the car window on long family road trips. Have you ever taken a second out of your middle class privileged existence and really thought about the effect of immigration on California's economy? First of all, those immigrants you see working in the back of restauraunts, cleaning your cars and blowing the leaves out of your way are most likely legal immigrants who are earning minimum wage. And they are extremely fortunate. The rest are stuck performing back breaking menial labor at slave wages. These are the unwanted jobs. This is the economic backbone of California.

So, 3) "You would think that all these people filling the lower tier jobs here would amount to lower taxes, lower cost of living, and a state that wasn't $20 billion in debt but apparently not"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Edmund, where did you find this guy? Does he always talk in reverse-time/non-sequitur magician's logic? I can drive my hummer through the hole in this reasoning. I can play a round of golf. You know fuck it, this is so inherently flawed, I don't need to refute it. Suffice to say, California's economy would collapse tomorrow if every agricultural corporation based in California paid its workers 6.75 instead of 3.00 per hour (which is a generous, generous estimation shot in the dark).

Oh and this 4) "I'm not trying to blame the immigrants for the bad economy, just pointing out that any apparent benefits don't seem to outweigh the downsides."

Really, Mr. Weise? Enlighten me, what are the downsides? That you have to live next to brown people? That they're taking that great leaf blowing career away from you? Come on. They barely even get to go to school with you. What are they doing which is so offensive exactly? Filling your country with the delicious smell of carnitas?

5) "My whole parallel universe thing was just to point out what I essentially just covered regarding Wisconsin saying that economies don't depend on low wage workers and that if for some unknown reason our state did not have the large immigrant population is currently has, in all likelihood our economy would be doing just fine"

Oh yeah, last time I checked, isolationist/conservative thought experiments were completely legitimate models of the real world. Forget our very real socio-economic context, IF there was a pocket universe in which America floated on a sea of jello and we were all white Christian lawyers, then everything would be fine. Did I mention I loooove living in Wisconsin?

6) "All the Mexicans look over the border and see all these people driving nice cars and going to nice schools and think to themselves how nice it would be to live the...legally or illegally. They then procede to cross the border and live out their life, usually not one much better than the one they left if at all. I know this is a extreme generalization but if you give me a better reason that applies to the majority and doesn't involve "hope" go right ahead."

To paraphrase: I understand nothing about the economic disaster that is Mexico, not to mention my complete inability to conceptualize what the word "poor" means.
I will offer several reasons to your "extreme generalization":
-- feeding your family
-- getting a job
-- grasping the smallest slice of that great way of life called "America" which is plastered on billboards everywhere, but found nowhere in this dusty, depressed, ugly little border town which has never heard of anything like a "cineplex" or "museum" or "gated community" or "public park." Even life in the marginal fringes of society in a country like America is preferable to existence on this side of the border.

The Mexico-US border is a tightly regulated space and crossing it illegally is hazardous, illegal and incredibly intimidating. How desperate would you have to be to leave everything you own and your family to go to a country where no one spoke your language and your best hope was the earn a job serving other people for the next twenty years of your life? Yeah, pretty desparate.

In conclusion, I have absolutely no respect for your opinion. However, I do regret the hour I spent writing this.

I meant to blog that on the other blog. Oops...er, ok back to Wal mart and renee zellweger--she was hot in Jerry Macguire, I gotta say. Show me the money--baling baling! Hahahahaha!

Ok, on a semi serious note: I saw part of the movie "Shallow Hal" this weekend, and that piece of shit is pretty infuriating as far as trying to be about seeing the 'inner beauty' in people. Let's see if I get this right: Poor shallow Hal is too concerned about looks to see women for who they really are, so to rectify this, he is made to see an 'ugly' woman for who she really is on the inside, which of course is a supermodelesque blond. That's just further perpetuating the superficiality of beauty.

Same thing with those MTV specials that purport to give out of shape or ugly teenagers super duper makeovers. By giving them professional trainers to help them accomplish their "dream" (which very often is reliant on a slim physique and a pretty face), they're just enforcing the fact that's somehow not worse or ok to look normal, the way you looked before. It's counter productive, all this makeover crap.

Baling Baling!

Baling Baling. That's what a Cambodian says when he's showing off his spiffy new gold chain. Holla!

Oh, and George, that book you mentioned reminds me of the econ and other textbooks that corporations pay for and get distributed in public schools. Pretty shady shit. Baling bling.

Here's a link to a lengthy (but very much worth reading) series of articles about Wal Mart and their overwhelming influence on world markets, communities, how business is done in America, etc. It's an LA Times article so you have to have an account with them, but it's free to open one and I highly encourage everyone to do so there and at nytimes.com because both sites are worth regular visits if you like to be inundated with news news commentary like me. Maybe it's just because I'm so far away in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

I've forgotten where I've put this link, but Wal-Mart has reported the largest single day sale record in the history of capitalism last Friday. We're talking about 1.5 billion dollars in a single day. This is the rough equivalent of every man, woman and child in America spending five or six dollars at Wal-Mart on the same day.

In related news, a Wal-Mart sale on DVD players (30 bucks a pop) has led to at least one injury which required hospitalization. Some lady got trampled this weekend in the rush to get these uber-cheap DVD players.

On a more personal level, I am currently tutoring an 9th grade boy in English -- his chosen book report text: "Masters of Industry: Biography of Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart." I'm sure this nearly one hundred page book is an engaging account of the questionable business practices and corporate profiteering which mark the ascension of the corporate giant. Actually, the whole thing creeps me out -- the book is clearly designed for children ages 9-12 and unabashedly celebrates free market capitalism. The pace and tone of the thing is classically Horatio Alger.

dude, ya'll should totally try the white chocolate kit kat bars. limited time offer.

I thought it was funny that Bush wouldn't eat the food he was serving to the soldiers. Haha. He should be fed MREs as long as soldiers are in Iraq.

I don't know if that big a deal was made over the whole weight-gaining thing; I don't know what the hot topics of discussion are in Cosmo or gossipy tabloids. I just thought it was something that came up during a typical interview question like, "What did you have to do to prepare for this role?" Anyway, I didn't think she looked bad at all with the extra weight (i.e. I'd still do her). Of course BJD doesn't advance the cause of feminism or whatever, but it's not really hurting it either. As for the phrasing of the questions: "The guys were eating salads and you got to have all the fun." To me, this just makes the guys look like wusses. Though looking at eating as "all the fun" as if it was some kind of indulgence is not good... Or you can see it as yay-eating-is-fun and thus one shouldn't be ashamed to eat a kit-kat bar. As for "That's so anti-woman to say, 'Shoot my cellulite'", hey, Zellweger contradicted that, didn't she?