Monthly Archive for August, 2008

The New American Tribes

Published
by
April Lawson
on August 25, 2008
in Extemporanea
. 1 Comment

I have thought for over a year now that America doesn’t have what can reasonably be called a “culture.” What we do have is a generic moral system based on watered-down Christianity, rampant and destructive individualism, and solid American values like caveat emptor derived from capitalism. I have been delighted recently to find myself moving away from this position, however, through three things: movies such as Casablanca, Beatnik poetry, and my hero David Brooks.

Several months ago, he wrote the most insightful article (www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29brooks.html) on the kind of culture America has that I have ever read. The reason an American culture has not really flourished is, of course, size. As has always been true, culture thrives most powerfully in small groups, and Brooks explains how the American tribes that used to be based on geography are morphing, blending, and re-forming into groups based loosely on income and education levels.

This will have absolutely massive effects. Class tension will rise, and it will be hard to quash, because the injustices in America do usually come down to money. Class is a uniquely difficult issue: it’s much harder to neutralize money’s influence than that of a societal norm like racism. There are few more dangerous themes around which the American tribes could form, because money is power – racism, sexism, etc. are fights largely over who has access to money and thus power. I don’t mean political power or power over others, I mean power over your own life. Power over what you can give to your children. Nothing is a stronger motivator.

Economics really does rule all. As Brooks concludes, education must be more accessible, and more culturally valued, or else.

And if America is really becoming more segmented, with fewer common experiences, that brings us to the question of what will bring us together. The national ideal will have to be stronger to counteract the differences people are aware of in their daily experiences. Does that mean a strengthening of the state? I hope not, but the nation often thrives best through the state: the draft is a tangible manifestation of the idea that Americans will fight for their country (admittedly, many of these ideas, including this one, were desecrated by the 1960s). The idea that we are all individuals free to live as we please, in a meritocratic economic system, all Americans, could work: the key is that it allows a logical incorporation of America into your identity. But we must find some alternative to a model that suggests that you, as an individual, should be loyal to the state, or even the nation, before anything else (with a possible exception of your family). Human beings don’t flourish without strong communities - the only conclusion psychology has come to regarding happiness is that isolated people are not happy (with the odd exception, of course).

What, then, is the fate of the American community? I don’t know.

Whatever Russia Wants, Russia Gets - For Now

Published
by
April Lawson
on August 24, 2008
in Politics
. 4 Comments

In the midst of all the vague hubbub about Russian-American relations going sour over Georgia, I hope somebody is noticing the fact that Russia has gotten exactly what it wanted. (Also, anyone with relativistic tendencies should look at this as yet another example of the way America behaves differently from other large powers, and no, Iraq is not analogous to Georgia.)

It seems to me that the conversation has gone something like this:

U.S.: Maybe it’s time to let Georgia into NATO.

“Russia conducted airstrikes on Georgian targets on Friday evening, escalating the conflict in a separatist area of Georgia that is shaping into a test of the power and military reach of an emboldened Kremlin. Earlier in the day, Russian troops and armored vehicles had rolled into South Ossetia, supporting the breakaway region in its bitter conflict with Georgia.”

(read:) Russia: NO.

“Despite fierce opposition from Moscow, the United States and Poland signed a long-stalled agreement on Wednesday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory.”

(read:) U.S.: Well, okay Russia, but we haven’t forgotten the Cold War. If you’re going to start behaving like your old overbearing self, we’re going to defend the most valuable former Soviet satellite state. You can’t have it.

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that the United States would not push for Georgia to be allowed into NATO at an emergency meeting on Tuesday, a tacit admission that America and its European allies lack the stomach for a military fight with Russia.”

(read:) U.S.: But…you can keep Georgia. Not officially, of course, but you know.

“Russia’s forces are digging in and seizing ribbons of Georgian land that abut two breakaway enclaves allied with Moscow, effectively extending its zone of influence.”

(read:) Russia: Excellent.

Ah, the joys of a multipolar world.

(All quotes from various New York Times articles.  Also, to be clear, I do know that the cause of this war is much more complex than I describe above - see comments for more discussion if curious.)

Without Trace

Published
by
Kate Maltby
on August 23, 2008
in History and Politics
. 1 Comment

My depression for the day is supplied by the news that Susan Eisenhower is walking out on the Republican Party. Not because she’s a big deal in herself, but because she claims it is no longer effective for constitution-guarding individualist types to spend time

trying to reinvigorate a political organization that has already consumed nearly all of its moderate “seed corn.”

You’d have to be really believe a party is beyond salvation if you don’t feel it’s even worth your staying in and fighting for your vision of its future. We don’t all have to share in Eisenhower’s sense of hopelessness about the future of the Republican party, but most of us can agree that it’s going to need to conduct an intensive intellectual debate within itself if it’s to reestablish a cogent ideological foundation. lf classical liberals in the Eisenhower tradition want to be part of that reestablishment, they have to be part of the internal debate. It’s saddening to see someone with such privileged access to the Republican machine giving up on it. Particularly as there are plenty of us who’d gladly fight the same fight, but not being grandchildren of Presidents, need leaders within the party to represent us - and it feels like Eisenhower is walking out on us as well.

It seems like the Susan Eisenhower story has been buried by the long-awaited announcement that Biden will indeed be Obama’s running mate. Hat tip to Crooks and Liars for linking it to this timely reminder of how horrified the original Eisenhower would be today.

Consolation Prizes

Published
by
Kate Maltby
on August 21, 2008
in Ladies, Links and Politics
. 4 Comments

Coates and Sullivan are both puffing this little paragraph from Dana Goldstein:

Sebelius, of course, would be the bold, unconventional choice — very Obama. But by choosing a female running mate, Obama would, unfortunately, thrust the Hillary die-hards and their ever-more marginal discontentment back into the spotlight. That said, anyone who believes that only Hillary Clinton deserves to be the first female president or vice president doesn’t deserve the designation “feminist.” So I’d relish watching the reactions to a Sebelius nod, not only because such a choice would double down on Obama’s most effective message — “change” — but because it would reveal exactly which Clinton boosters are ready to widen the lens and enthusiastically support women’s leadership as such.

Really? I’m surprised no one seems to be picking up that Obama appointing a female VP in these circumstances would mark a serious set-back for the feminist movement. It’s widely accepted that such an appointment would constitute an attempt by Obama to apologize to feminists for beating Hilary to the job that really matters. Goldstein herself draws her argument from the belief that it would “double down” on Obama’s message of change, i.e. remind everyone that he won’t let those nasty old white men keep all the jobs. So surely the great American public is quite capable of drawing the same inference - and then assuming en masse that Sebelius can dismissed as merely a token floozy.

While the VP’s job has long been little more than helping the candidate cover some demographic bases, it would be sad to see such a blatant confirmation of it. And the more superficial the VP job becomes, the less of a feminist triumph is it to see a woman in the post. Just as affirmative action inspires resentment, so parachuting a woman in to burnish Obama’s feminist credentials is only going to inspire the Rush Limbaughs of this world to claim that women are now doing down men. It might even give the naive cause to think that 2008 constituted a successful year for women in public life, instead of the year that exposed the endemic misogyny underlying media responses to strong women. So Goldstein is wrong to claim that feminists should be supporting “female leadership as such”. We want to see more women taken seriously on their own merits, not because they fulfill quotas. And we’d like to see it in jobs that actually count.

So my choice is “or death”?

Published
by
Nicola Karras
on August 21, 2008
in Extemporanea, Food and Navel Gazing
. 2 Comments

As I think I’ve mentioned before, I used to work in a bakery, so I really enjoy this blog.

The worst part is, I think this is still better than my cake writing.

The most important lessons from my high school job?

  1. Never trust the customer to write down what he wants on the cake. A Penn professor whose son was graduating from MIT wanted a cake that read “Congrats on your Collage Graduation.” I can only hope he taught math.
  2. Never assume you know how to spell someone’s name. Don’t even suggest. The mother of a two-year-old once gave me the evil eye for asking if her daughter’s name was spelled Anita. No, it was Eneedah. Duh.
  3. The larger the difference between cake size and child’s age, the crazier the parent is. A 13-year-old with a 7″ cake? Probably a lovely person. A one-year-old with a full sheet cake? HIDE.
  4. People are weird. Someone once sent me to put extra sprinkles on a cake because otherwise it might not be appealing to children.
  5. No one listens to instructions. If you tell them to refrigerate the cake lest buttercream icing melt all over the kitchen counter, you’d better do it twice. Or three times. And even then, you can reliably expect a furious phone call from at least half the customers.
  6. Never, ever argue with a bride. I still have scars.

ETA: For what it’s worth, I’m still holding out for one of these.

Thursday Grouch Blogging

Published
by
Nicola Karras
on August 21, 2008
in Extemporanea and Food
. 3 Comments

We still have no Internet access in my apartment. (Dear landlord: this is not okay.) Blogging from work is problematic, given that…well, my bosses read my blog. (Dear bosses: I wrote this at home. Really.)

The worst part, of course, is that blogging doesn’t just require an Internet connection to post but to write. I need my computer, my bookmarks, my tabs full of the posts I’m responding to, my Wikipedia page, my Word files so I can find that quotation… It’s an entirely different mental setup than other forms of writing, and it’s next to impossible without an Internet connection.

So instead of a real blog post, I will give you two quick and delicious recipes. They’re both adapted from Cook’s Illustrated, which has never directed me wrong in cooking.

Pan-Seared Steak with Mustard-Cream Sauce

Mince one shallot. Set out half a cup of low-sodium chicken broth, 3 tablespoons of white wine, 6 tablespoons of heavy cream, and 3 tablespoons of whole-grain Dijon mustard. (You’ll want them all ready when you make the sauce.)

Season your steak with salt and pepper. Any kind works — I tend to do it with the cheapest stuff I can find at Whole Foods, but if I had the money I’d use a nice strip steak.

Heat a tablespoon of vegetable oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. When it’s smoking, put the steak in the skillet. Cook the steak for about two minutes without moving it, then flip it with tongs. Reduce the heat to medium, and cook (again without moving — you want the brown bits) for about 5 minutes. If you have an instant-read thermometer, you want the internal temperature to be around 125 for medium-rare. I have no instant-read thermometer — or food processor, or mixer, or sharp knife — in my apartment, so I do it by sight, and it’s always been pretty good.

Remove the steak to a large plate and tent it with foil. Pour off all but 1 tablespoon of the fat from the skillet, then return it to low heat and add the shallot. Cook it, stirring frequently, until it begins to brown. Add the wine and increase the heat to medium-high. Simmer rapidly, scraping up the browned bits, until it’s reduced to a glaze. Add the chicken broth and simmer for about three minutes. Add the cream and any juices that have come off the steak, heat it through, then whisk in the mustard.

Serve the steak and sauce separately. Enjoy. If you’re serving boys or others with poor table manners, include some bread so they can sop up all the leftover sauce. Remember to keep some so that you can drink it from the measuring cup in the kitchen while doing dishes.

Quick and Easy Cream Biscuits

Heat the over to 450 degrees.

Whisk together two cups of flour, two teaspoons of sugar, two teaspoons of baking powder, and half a teaspoon of salt. Stir in a cup and a half of heavy cream. Knead briefly by hand for about thirty seconds. (Unlike most biscuits, these actually benefit from rough handling, so don’t worry about that.)

Divide dough into chunks about the size you want your biscuits. Bake until golden brown, 10-15 minutes depending on the size of the biscuits.

Devour all of them.

While we devotin’ full time to floatin’

Published
by
Kate Maltby
on August 13, 2008
in Media, Navel Gazing and Technology
. 0 Comments

I’m still buzzing from Andrew Sullivan citing my Transhumanist post in the Daily Dish. Of course, my favourite bit of the Simon Barnes piece I’d originally sparked off was his finale:

It is required behaviour at such a point for the journalist to give all the answers to the world’s problems in a couple of pithy phrases and then go to the pub.

So by extension, the blogger is luckier - it is required behaviour for the blogger to collate a few sources, briefly sketch out the complexity of all the world’s problems, and then, leaving one’s readers to go to puzzle out their own solutions, to go to the pub.

So just for Andrew Sullivan, the King of Bloggers, here’s my thank you present - my vision of the future of Olympic advertising:

And of course such camaraderie towards Sullivan would never be an attempt unsubtly to curry favour. It’s just that us conservative classical liberal Christian homosexual-agenda-promoting cautiously-Obamacon Oxonian Brits in America had better stick together.

Mukasey Extends Jurisdiction over Court of Public Opinion

Published
by
Dara Lind
on August 13, 2008
in Politics
. 0 Comments

The Attorney General, of all people, endorses shame culture over, um, law:

As last month’s report from the inspector general acknowledged, the hiring abuses by former Justice Department officials represented a violation of federal Civil Service law, but not of criminal law, he said. “That does not mean, as some people have suggested, that those officials who were found by the joint reports to have committed misconduct have suffered no consequences,” Mr. Mukasey said. “Far from it. The officials most directly implicated in the misconduct left the department to the accompaniment of substantial negative publicity.” (Emphasis mine, of course.)

I’ve been trying to figure out the circumstances under which I would actually believe that the shame provided by “negative publicity” was so strong that it made legal prosecution irrelevant. I can’t come up with any, but I’m willing to leave the possibility open. But this was clearly not that.

For one thing, how “substantial” was this negative publicity anyway? Mukasey implies that it was enough to drum those “most directly implicated” (presumably Gonzales, Goodling, Sampson) out of the Department — though of course they resigned in the midst of other scandals, unrelated to the pervasive sins of hiring practices that have been uncovered in the last year or so. The report itself on such practices received a comparable amount of publicity to, say, John Edwards’ admission of his affair. (And if I were more of a partisan hack I’d point out that this time last decade, the shame of a dalliance exposed wasn’t considered nearly enough to satisfy the demands of justice.)

But the fundamental question if you’re going to equate negative publicity and criminal prosecution is what shame negative publicity can produce, and whether it can be sufficiently punishing to the wrongdoer as an individual. Just having one’s name incanted spitefully or mockingly a few times in the mouths of the Keith Olbermanns in this world is certainly “negative publicity” (to some, at least), but it’s not shame. Shame works because it forces private wrongdoing out into the open, claiming it as public property and revoking the shamebearer’s right to go about his business behind closed doors. Furthermore, it does so in such a way that it transforms public perception; reassimilation is impossible. You, a personality, become identified with your scandal.

This doesn’t seem to have happened here in the least. Goodling and Sampson, in particular, were private citizens with private lives before they were supporting players in a scandal — but instead of the scandal transforming their role in the public eye, they have returned to being private persons again. No cameras parked outside their houses; they were scrutinized only in past tense, in a report that cast them in jobs they’d already left.

True, Goodling doesn’t seem to have been rehired since her resignation — then again, it seems that she had already reached her Peter Principle point. Sampson, on the other hand, had already been rehired by a private firm before the report came out, his resume not so stained as to be illegible. And while rumors persist that Gonzales hasn’t been so lucky in hiring, he’s still making money via public speaking engagements — as good a sign as any that the damage done to his public figure wasn’t as significant as Mukasey makes out. After all, everybody knows that the scandal-tarred don’t go on speaking tours; they go on the vaudeville circuit instead.

Wednesday Morning Whimsy

Published
by
Nicola Karras
on August 13, 2008
in Extemporanea
. 1 Comment

At Quaker school, they taught us to use I-statements. Here are three.

I am a cliché: “Georgia on my mind” is the most obvious title ever. I apologize.

    I amuse myself at TechRepublican:

      It’s tempting to fall back on our old friend Let The Market Decide. After all, if Comcast throttles BitTorrent traffic, the BitTorrent folks use a different ISP, Comcast loses market share, and eventually it changes policy. Voila: market signals triumph, seed rates soar, and everyone gets a pony.

      But it’s not a free market.

      I have no Internet access in my apartment.

      He who laughs in the newspaper of record, laughs best.

      Published
      by
      Dara Lind
      on August 11, 2008
      in Extemporanea, Media and Social Theory
      . 1 Comment

      I feel a bit of an obligation to call attention to David Brooks’ column from last Friday, not because it’s particularly novel but precisely because it isn’t — at least, not to anyone who read my exchange with Reihan on cultural capital, here and here. In fact, Brooks cited it accordingly (if vaguely), in a passage that reads extremely awkwardly in unlinked print:

      [With the release of the iPhone,] media displaced culture. As commenters on The American Scene blog have pointed out, the means of transmission replaced the content of culture as the center of historical excitement and as the marker of social status. Now the global thought-leader is defined less by what culture he enjoys than by the smartphone, social bookmarking site, social network and e-mail provider he uses to store and transmit it. (In this era, MySpace is the new leisure suit and an AOL e-mail address is a scarlet letter of techno-shame.)

      Why the iPhone is the single catalyst for so seismic a shift is left unexplained, which is a shame. Brooks’ only major innovation over Reihan and me (other than the advice-column conceit, which is admittedly hilarious) is mapping our vague generalities onto a particular historical timeline — an innovation which would be much more welcome if the points on said timeline were justified rather than apparently arbitrary.

      But Brooks’ additions are secondary; it’s the fact that his column exists at all that best proves its point (though I hope this was unintentional). It’s medium, not content, that determines who leads culture — which could be why the fact that these points were originally made by people other than Brooks is far less relevant than the fact that Brooks made them in a far more influential medium. But since the NYT isn’t as hip as a blog, Brooks’ audience doesn’t qualify as members of his “early rejecter” elite. This turns the entire column into a subtle tribute to the fringe bloggers who cultivate ideas for the media mainstream to farm, toiling in our elite obscurity, doomed to being “influential” — which as we know is a euphemism for “small potatoes”.